The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-27 00:00:00

~u y

,

No. 11,688.

L_,

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 27, 1830

University of Cambridge, praying for an alteration in the
Church Building Act.
Mr. HUME gave notice;-that he should, on the 17th of
March, move for leave to bring-in a Bill for the repeal of
all laws regulating the wages of workmen. • -

upon the House to put on end to such a practice. The
Hon. Gentleman concluded by proposing a Resolution to
the effect before mentioned.

HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT.)

The House sat at Five o'clock. Several petitions were
presented by the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Lord Stan-
hope, Lord Wharncliffe, the Marquis of Lansdowne, Earl
of Chichester, and Lord King, praying their Lordships
to take into consideration the distress of the country, the
Corn Laws, and the Sub-letting and Vestry Acts.

. The question having. been put,
An Hon. IllEmint, whose name we could not learn,
said he could prove, if necessary, that Sir James Graham
never connected professional with Parliamentary business.
He had retired from business before he entered Pat liament,

and never derived any profit from private. Bills.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said he never should have con-
nected himself with the gentleman whose petition was
withdrawn that night, if he supposed that, in so doing, le!
acted contrary to the practice and privileges of the House.
He rcuretted that their time should he con,ined on a per-

sonal matter like this, and trifling in its own nature. He
must observe that the lion. Gentleman who brought the

subject forward put an ungenerous construction upon some
of his observations upon a previous night, when be alluded
to Sir James Graham; it was because he thought that

. ,
gentleman derived a profit from private Bills, but that
imputition was now completely removed: When lie said
that private Bills must be frequently submitted for opinion
to tle Law Officers of the Crown, he did so because he
thought that the time of the Honourable and Learned per-

sons could not be gratuitously devoted to such business.
He was not aware that those 'Honourable and Learned
Gendemen to whom the Member for Stafford alluded, gave

their assistance at the Queen's trial without pecuniary
reward-, and the more so because a large sum was voted by
Parliament to defray the expenses of the trial. It was not
suftiient ground for the motion of the Hon. Oeutleman
that there existed no precedent on the Journals. He Mould.
admit that Committees of that House could not be too

pure, but why keep up a mere hypocritical affectation of a
purity which did not exist? Was a solicitor who derived
small profit from the management of a private Bill, to be
impure, while persons interested to the amount of thou-
sands in a Bill were deemed perfectly pure, and permitted
to vote? He should be most willing to second the Reso-

lotion if it extended equally to all Alembets of the House.
He believed it ct as hardly possible to introduce a private

Bill affecting Glasgow, Edinburgh, or any of the most dis-
tant part of the empire, which wotild not be discovered as
connecting itself with the interests of other parts. He was
often urged by some of his constituents to oppose such
Bills as affecting Colchester, in cases where it WOR difficult

to find what sort of subterraneous connection there was

between them. He should be quite satisfied if every
Member having a direct interest in a Bill was precluded
from voting on it. For his part, he could declare that he
never had a share to the amount of even a farthing in any
road, canal, gas, or other work, or charged 6s. 84. on any
Bill, since he entered that House. When, as he stated
the other night, Members sat upon Bills in which they
were interested to the amount of many thousands, why
run a muck against solicitors, a class of persons to whom
formerly many places were open, which were now given
to others possessing more influence in that House? They
would stretch their power veil' far by agreeing to this
resolution, for they would dissolve a partnership. He
denied their right to do so, and the existence of such a
power was not proved. If his partnership was dissolved,
he hoped the Right Hon. Gent. (Mr. Peel) would put his
case on the footing of other vested interests, and make
him some compensation. He held in his hand a paper
with about 200 names of persons opposed to the Birming-
ham and Coventry Canal. Among these names were
those of Lord Cornwallis and the Marquis of Hertford.

He did not know whether the Marquis of Hertford had a
Member in that House.—(A laugh.)—He did not say he
had ; but suppose be had, and that Member was called
upon to support a Bill :which did violence to his con-
science and feeling, what would be the degree of influence
there? Were there no stewards or agents in that House
of such a person as the Duke of Devonshire ? If it were
proposed to run a canal through Chatsworth, however
beneficial it might be to the country at large, would the
Noble Duke's agent suffer it to pass without opposition ?
lie did not think it consistent with the dignity of the
House to pass a resolution affecting only an individual.
It would be more worthy of their justice and of their
dignity to make the resolution general. He should
therefore conclude by moving as an amendment the fol-
lowing resolution:—" That it wai inconsistent with
public and private justice that any Member should vote,
either in a Committee or in the House, on a Bill in which

he had a direct personal interest."
Mr. HUME seconded the amendment, for he upon a
former occasion submitted a similar proposition to the
House. The House would do itself great honour by
agreeing to the general resolution. Every Member would
be as much as possible in the situation of a juror—not sub-
ject to any influence. Was it fair to select an individual
like his Hon. Friend when Members were allowed to vote
on Bills in which they had a direct interest ? In a ques-
tion of this kind the House should act on general, and not
on partial views.
Mr. BROUGHAM said the Member for Stafford rested
his resolution on lower ground than he might have assumed
when he based it on the Resolution of 1666. That Re-
solution was directed against Members of that House re-
ceiving money to influence their votes. He was much
surprised that there could have been a moment's question
on the point. That a Member of any Court or of any de-
liberative body like that should act as agent or solicitor, in
a case where he must also act as judge, was so inconvenient
in practice, and so inconsistent in principle, as not to ad-
mit of argument. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume) said he
could see no harm in a Member of that House acting as
solicitor in a private Bill, if he did not sit in the Com-
mittee on the Bill. His Hon. Friend was a person well
acquainted with business, a matter-of-fact man. Now be
would put this ease to him : —Suppose there were two
solicitors,' A. and 8., and his Hon. Friend wanted an
agent to manage a private Bill ; he was told that A. was
no Member of Parliament, but B. was. He believed his
Hon. Friend, shrewd as he was, and understanding well
his own interest, would not long hesitate which to select ;
and if the question were put to him as to the choice, he
would no doubt reply, do you think me a fool—do you
suppose me such a dolt and a driveller as nct to know that
11. is the better man for my business ? But it might be
said B. can do you no good, as he will not be in the Com.
mittee. No, but he is in the House. Could any person
for a moment doubt which solicitor, cateris paribus,
would be selected in a case of this kind. Were they then,
by permitting such a practice, to give their own solicitors
preference over all others. No person ever heard of the
Member of a Court eliowed to act as a solicitor in it. He
recollected that Mr. Sheridan, who was a Privy Councillor,
once took his seat at the Council when a matter was to
come befese the Court in which he was personally inte-
rested. He was reminded of the circumstance, and retired
below the Bar. The law of Parliament prevented any
Member from voting where he was personally interested.
He wished to correct a misapprehension with regard to
the part he took on the Queen's trial, and it was princi-
pally for that purpose he rose. It never was mooted at
Westminster Hall that a barrister could sit upon an Elec-
tion Committee, if he had any interest in that election.
He made it a rule never to be employed as a barrister in
any Election Committee, whether in or out of Parliament.
He had so acted upon the grounds that, being a Parlia-
mentary man, he might be supposed to have a degree of
influence which Le was not inclined to exercise.—(Hear.)
—As a proof of his acting upon this principle, be had at
the time of the Queen's trial brought forward the Educa-
tion Inquiry, because he wished to be relieved from his i
duties n this House. There was the greatest possible dif.
ference between:Counsel in this House being heard in the
House of Lords, and solicitors getting up private Bills.
The Queen's Counsel in this House never in any one form
or shape exercised their professional capacity. They had
acted upon their own responsibility, and in the House
merely acted as Members of Parliament. Until this night
it never was heard of that the Counsel for the Queen re-
ceived any emolument for the discharge of their duties in
the House. The Queen never paid, and her Counsel never
received any remuneration whatsoever from the Queen ; the
expenses of the trial were defrayed by the public, as were
the expenses at the other side. In making this state-
ment, he meant to cast no imputation upon any quarter
whatsover. The servants of the Queen had rued their
greatest exertions, and when they bad succeeded, her Ma-
jesty directed him to apportion the sum of 7,000/. be-
tween him and his colleagues. That was not acceded to
.—because himself and his colleagues were paid in the
usual way of professional men. With respect to the dif-
ference of the fees of solicitors and counsel he was sure
there could not be much difference of opinion. Solicitors
did not merely recover the 6s. Bd. so talked of by the
Hon. Member for Colchester. There was 13s. 4d.—
there were drafts—there were various other charges which
proved that no two counsel received half the emolument
of the respectable solicitors engaged in a cause. With re-

•Oira.g-
-„ 4
"IV't ".•
t 411?fik:(14
V.'40,77.V. • r -
, *42',A.1?.?.: • ,",. -*,;;\;.kri
Aler
ft, '5?
-*F.*•4;c'T
16 A
37

PRICE 7D.

spect to the late Sir J. Graham, he could only say, in
justice to himself and his family, that he heard him often
twitted for interfering in private Bills, but such a charge
he always rebutted with the greatest indignation.
Sir i.1.-SCARLETT said he would not enter into any
discussion as to the difference of fees between barristers
and solicitors. And he would only say that, holding a
situation under the Crown, he never acted in this House
with a view to emolument from the passing of public or
private Bills. _ _

Sir C. WETHERELL said that no Law Officers ever
received any fee for acting in this House in their character
of Memb&s of Parliament. Sometimes they were called
upon to support the Government; but it sometimes hap-
pened:that they received no fees ; and that in doing their
duty they rejected their situation in their office, in order
to preserve their honour and their consistency.—(Hear,
hear. )—He hoped that no person, who might read what
passed here, would think that the Law Officers were paid
for pr,eparing Bills in this House. Such was the case in
the time of Lord North, when the late Lord Thurlow was
the Attorney-General ; and such it continued to be.
Mr. BARING said be would only trouble the House
with a very few words, and those with a view of bearing
his highest' testitnony to the-character, to the honour, and
the purity of conduct of the late Sir J. Graham. The
charge made by the Hon.-Member for Colchester was alto-
gether mistaken and unfounded. He agreed in substance
with the Resolution proposed by the Hon. Member for
Staffordshire (Mr. Littleton), and if any Member had a
direct interest in any Bill before the House, he thought a
sense of delicacy would prevent him from acting upon any
•Committee in which his private advantage was concerned.
Mr. HOBHOUSE said -there could not be two opinions
upon that subject. The House was indebted to the. Hon.
Member (Mr. D. W. Harvey) for bringing that subject
before their notice, if it were only with a view to set the
matter at rest. He was sorry to say that there was a
practice in that House for Members having certain inte-
rests upon particular questions taking up such interests in
their capacities as Members of Parliament. He would
vote for the Resolution of the Hon. Member for Stafford-
shire. He would recommend the Hon. Member (Mr. D.
W. Harvey) to withdraw his Amendment, and to propose
it as a substantive motion. He bad attended Committees
up stairs, and he knew of one in which there were only
four Members present, three of whom had a direct inte-
rest in the matter at issue. These Gentlemen of course
carried their object ; and he was sorry to say that even in
the course of the last year a similar circumstance had oc-
curred. He mentioned these facts to show the necessity
for a change in such proceedings; and that such a blot
should be taken off the House of Commons.—(Hear.)—
He would not enter into t'ae charges made against the
Crown Lawyers by the Hon. Member (Mr. Harvey.) As
a general principle he would say, that private interest
never prejudiced the conduct of public men upon public
business.—(Cries of " Question.")
Sir M. 'W. RIDLEY said that the best preventive to
guard against private bias, was to trust to their honour
and their sense of duty. After all that had happened, he
hoped that the Hon. Member for Colchester would with.
draw his amendment.

Board, which vvete totally unfounded, and decidedly con-
trary to the evidence before the Finance Committee, on
which the statements were alleged to be founded. The
Hon. Baronet: asserted, that the Navy Board appeared by

that evidence to have been mainly instrurnet.tal in prevent-
ing the execution of those measures of economy and re-
trenchment proposed by the Admiralty. He denied this
most positively. He denied that any portion of his evi7
,lenre, or of the evidence of any other person before the
Finance Committee, would bear such a conclusion ; and

he called on the Hon. Baronet to declare to the House that

he bad been instrumental in propagating a reflection on

the character of the Board which ;va;notb6rne out by the
facts. The Hon. Member then read a long extract from
the Hon. Baronet's book on the subject of the Navy Board,

and observed that nothing would gratify him more than to

bring every Member connected with that Board to the

Bar of the House, in order to prove that the assertions
respecting it were unfounded. He, as well as every
Member of that Beard, had, at all times, exerted them.

selves to keep down the expenditure; ahlitrugh the
Honourable Baronet had taken leave, without the elle-.

dory of authority from evidence, to condemn the conduct
of a whole body of men without allowing the opportuult),

to defend themselves.

He called on the Hon. Baronet td

rise in his place and declare in what part cf the evidence

before the Finance Committee he- found the statements

which supported the charge against the Bond, of opposing
retrenchment. There were no grounds for that charge

and a more unjust and more ungenerous proceeding
that adopted by the Hon. Baronet had scarcely ever been
broUght under the notice of.the House. The Hon. Baro-
net had made charges against him, but he ought rather to
have brought accusations against the Hon. Baronet. The
Hon. Baronet had been Chairman of the Committee—Why
did he not call him (Sir B. Martin) before that Committee
when he heard these imputations against the Navy Board
The Hon. Baronet had been exceedingly remiss in his
duty ; because he was bound, as Chairman, to have sought
this information. It might be said that the termination
of the sittings of that Committee prevented him. Why's
the whole proceeding would not have occupied ten minutes.

It would have satisfied the Hon. Batozu;t and the Com-
mittee that his conduct, and that of the Navy Board, had
beenperfectly pure and unspotted ; and he was convinced

the lion. Baronet, if he had thought proper to call fur
thcse expl•inatious, would never have stigmatised his con-

duct in the manner he had done in a .nine-and-sixpenny
pamphlet.—(Hear.)—The lion. Baronet had also charged

the Navy Board with extravagance in the bnildiug of ships,,
and in the manufacture of canvas and chain-cables.. Now,
he denied the imputation respecting the building of ships
_ _

anrl as to the nsanufacture of canvas and cables, there never

had been a single yard of canvas, or an inch of cable, ma-
nufactured by the Navy Board since the Navy was a Navy.
He appealed to the Hon. Baronet to acknowlclge that he
had been in error, and to remedy by that deci.lion the

injury he had done to the Navy Board.
Sir HENRY PARNELL thanked the Hon. Member
for the discretion he had shown in bringing this subject

before the House, and for his kindness in communicating
to him his intention to do so. He would comnsene,e by

observing that it was the right of every individual to dis-.
cuss film matters which were connected with the admi,

nistration of public affiirs ; and to a Member of ParHo,
meat that right hec.ime a duty which was roost imperative.
It was, he confessed, extremely difficult, in writing on

such subjects, to avoid falling into expressions that might
bt. too strong for the occasion, and, in point of fact, he had
taken the utmost care to sl.un every word of that kind,
Ile was not now, however, prepared to state that the
im-
pression lie had received on the subject of the Navy Board
had been altered ; and a conversation which he had held
with a Noble Lord (Althorp,) since he received the Hon.
Member's letter yesterday morning, tended to confirm his
first impression. His impression respecting the evidence
on the subject of the Nary Board certainly was, that the
Board had opposed it-elf to the views of the Admiralty on
the subject of retrenchment. He recollected well, indeed,
the reply made by Mr. Barrow when questioned on that
subject. When asked if he knew the reason why the re-
ductions proposed had not taken place? Mr. Barrow
answered in a tone and manner which struck him at the
moment, awl which he well remembered, " that the
Navy Board could answer that question much better
than he could." His impression then, as now, front that
evidence, was that which he had stated in the pamphlet.
With respect to the Hon. and Gallant Officer, he dis-
claimed any personal motive in what lie bad said respect-
ing him. He was convinced that there was not an in-
dividual in the public service who did his duty more aea-

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, the real question
to be decided now was, whether Members of this House,
being solicitors. should or should not largely canvass for
business in this House? He had read the circular of the
Hon. Member, and he must say that nothing more objec-
tionable ever came before his notice. There should be no
solicitation for business in that Hous,. The rules of the
House precluded the necessity of the proposed amendment,
and therefore he should oppose it.
Sir C. BURRELL wished to usk the Hon. Member
(Mr. C. Hobhouse) for some further explanation as to the
conduct of the Committee to which be had made allusion.
It wax quite necessary for the character of the House that
such an explanation should be given.
Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that the custom of this House
was, that every charge against any Hon. Member should
be made upon its own specific grounds. And if the Hon.
Member for Westminster, could only substantiate his
charge, lie for one would at once agree with him in the
necessity of immediate inquiry. In the case of the Queen's
trial the Counsel for her Majesty declared that in ;heir
situation as Members of Parliament they would take no
active part in the proceedings in this House. He hoped
the amendment would not be passed.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he would vote for the ori-
ginal resolution, for the simplest of all reasons—First, that
such was already the regulation of the House; secondly,
that Solicitors having seats in this House had unfair ad-
vantages over others; and thirdly, that taking the matter:of
franking and other things into consideration, he thought it
unfair to the profession of which the Hon. Member formed
one. He had no wish to mix up the motion and the
amendment on this occasion ; but let a substantive motion
be made, and it should receive his best attention. He
feared it would be difficult to prevent Members having an
indirect interest in matters coming before this House to
vote upon Committees.—(Question, question;)"
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that he would cheerfully
vote for the Resolution of the Hon. Member; and in
order to show that he did not act contrary to public prin-
ciple, the next Gazette should see his name separated
from his partner's. When the first Resolution was dis-
posed of, he would then propose that to which he had
before adverted.
Mr. C. HOBHOUSE explained,
The original resolution was then agreed to.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY then proposed his resolution,
that it is contrary to the ends of justice that any Member
having a direct interest in any question coming before a
Committee of which he is a member, should give his rote
in that Committee.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.
Mr. LITTLETON considered the proposed Resolution
unnecessary, inasmuch as the House, acting upon the ad-
vice, of the Committee, had adopted the very principle to
which the proposed resolution had reference. He should
therefore move the Order of the Day.
The resolution and the amendment for passing to the
Order of the Day having been put from the Chair,
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN made a few observations,
which were inaudible.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped the resolution would be al-
lowed to pass.
Mr. SADLER thought that the resolution would tend
to injure the public interests in the transaction of local
business, and he should therefore vote to pass to the Order
of the Day.
Itlr. TRANT supported the resolution.
Mr. 'Wyrs sr, Mr. W. Sstrrn, and Mr. CROKER, said a
ew words in favour of the amendment.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 174
For the resolution 2G
Majority against the resolution —142
EAST RETFORD BILL.

lously and faithfully ; and he had no doubt; that even
when the Hon. and Gallant Officer resisted economy, it
was from the best motives.—(Elear, hear.)—But his im-
pression still remained as to the conduct of the Navy
Board ; and lie had the satisfaction to be authorised to
state, that if his Noble Friend, the Member for Northamp-
tonshire, who had that morning gone over the evidence
with him, had been in his place, he would have declared
that he thought the paragraph in his (Sir H. Parnell's)
work, which tuteribed to the Navy Board a disposition to
resist the Admiralty's efforts at retrenchment, completely
borne out by that evidence.—(Hear, hear.)—With respect
to the two points which regarded the building of ships,
and the manufacture of canvas and chain cables, he can-
didly admitted, that on reflection and consideration, he did
not think that he had sufficient grounds for the conclu-
sion to which lie had arrived—(Hear, bear)—but with
respect to the resistance made by the Navy Board to the
Admiralty, ha repeated that his opinion was entirely un-
changed.—(llear.)
Sir G. COCKBURN thought it but just to his Hon.
and Gallant Friend to say, in the first place, that it was
the duty of the Navy Board to state to the Board of Ad-
miralty any observations which appeared to them to be
advantageous for the public service ; and, in the second
place, that whatever was actually ordered by the Admi-
ralty, was always executed by the Navy Board with zeal
and despatch.—(Hear, hear.) It was certainly true, that
if the Navy Board had entirely concurred with the Ad-
miralty, things would have gone on faster.—(Hear, hear.)
But when objections to any proposition were made by
practical men, it was the duty of the Admiralty to con.
aider those objections maturely be`ore they overbore them-
He repeated, however, that whatever the Board of Admi-
ralty finally decided should be done was done immediately.
Mr. Secretary PEEL was rejoiced to find that the dis-
cussion had terminated in a manner so creditable to all
parties. The Hon. Baronet, asserting his just right to
comment on the conduct of any public department, had
yet, with great candour, allowed that, on mature reflec-
tion, there were points on which he had come to a hasty
conclusion ; and he had also given Lis Hon. and Gallant
Friend full credit for zeal in the discharge of his duty. It
appeared to him, therefore, that the discussion had been
highly creditable to both parties. The Hon. Baronet,
however, persevered in his opinion that the Navy Board
might have conformed with more alacrity to the wishes of
the Admiralty. If, however, the Nary Board had been
entirely passive and acquiescent, they would bare been
called tools in the bands of the Admiralty, and persons
who never dared to have an opinion of their own. As to
the conclusion which the Hon. Baronet had drawn front
the statement by Mr. Barrow—that for information on
the subject respecting which he had been questioned, the
Committee had better apply to the Navy Board—it ap-
peared to him to be erroneous, and that Mr. Barrow's
meaning was simply that the Navy Board could give the
best information on the subject.
—Sir BYAM MARTIN felt himself benne to acknow-
ledge the very handsome and honourable manner in which
the Hon. Baronet had expressed himself. Ile hoped,
however, that if the Hon. Baronet published a second
edition of his pamphlet he would correct the errors into
which he had fallen.—(A laugh.)
Mr. MABERLY was sure that his Hon. Friend never
intended anything personal against the Hon. Baronet.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had observed that his Hon.
Friend had conceded two points. That Wes true, but
they were minor points. On the principal question—
namely, whether the Navy Board had done its duty or
not—his Hon. Friend's opinion remained unaltered ; and
he (Mr. Maberly) entirely concurred with him. The
Hon. Member here referred to the further evidence of Mr.
Barrow, to show that from 1815 to 1821, the Navy
Board had neglected to make any reductions, and that
they then did so with great reluctance. He referred also
to other parts of the evidence taken before the Committee,
to prove that the Admiralty were anxious to have their
hands strengthened by a vote of the Committee. Between
the reluctance of the one Board, and the hesitation of the
other to enforce its authority, it was clear that the public
had for many years suffered great loss.
Mr. HUME observed, that if ever evidence was satis-
factory, it WAS that which established the fact that the
Admiralty were anxious for a reduction of expenditure,
and would have reduced it, but for the indisposition of the
Navy Board to concur in the measure. In support of
this opinion the Hon. Gentleman referred particnlarly to
the evidence before the Committee ; and especially to that
of one of the Lords of the Admiralty, who expressed his
wish that the Committee would strengthen the hands of
the Admiralty, by some vote declaratory of their opinion
that the Admiralty ought to carry their own views into
effect.
On the Mot:on for the Speaktr's leaving the Chair
being again put,
Mr. E. DAVENPORT observed, that he understood
that in his absence the Hon. Member for Hertfordshire
had postponed the further proceeding on the East Retford

Upon the re-admission of strangers to the Gallery, the
House were discussing the Order of the DA), for the se-
cond reading of the East Retford Bill.
Mr. TENNYSON was addressing the House, and de-
claring his intentio❑ to move in the Committee on the
Bill a clause for transferring the franchise to the town of
Birmingham.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAIN gave notice that he should
move a clause disfranchising the Borough of East Retford

for ever.
Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he should move
that the mode of election be by ballot.—(Laughter.)
Mr. STUART said that he should make a proposition
to the House, which he hoped would save Hon. Gentle-
men the trouble of their motions, for he should move to
throw out this obnoxious Bill altogether. it thc witnesses
in the case were entitled to credit, then the lion. Member
for Bletchingley, in his zeal for reform, must have forgot-
ten that they proved the interference of a Peer of Parlia-
ment, by his influence and money, to obtain the return of
a Member for the Borough of East Retford to that House.
He meant Earl Fitzwilliarn.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that the Hon. Member for
Bletchingley was quite satisfied, in taking the sense of the
House again upon his own proposition. lie should give
his vote as he had given it before.
After /some conversation the Bill was read a second time,
and ordered to be committed on Friday next.
SUPPLY. _ _ .

The
Committee Order
read for the House going
into
Sir BYAM MARTIN, on the motion for the Speaker
leaving the Chair, complained (as we understood, for the
noise in the House rendered the Hon. Gentleman for a
considerable time inaudible), that au Hon. Baronet oppo-
site (Sir H. Parnell) had, in a book on Financial Reform,
thrown out imputations againat him and against the Navy

tat to Priday. Now as that was the clay on which he
(Mr. Davenport) had given notice of a motion on the
State of the Nation, he put it to the Hon. Member for
Hertfordshire whether he would not postpone the proceed-
ing with.his Rill to a future day.
Mr. N. CALVERT said he had fixed Friday because
he knew that many Hon. Members were anxiou a for the
progress of the Bill. He was, however, entirely in the
hands of the House.

Mr. WESTERN allowed that the Bill was important,
hut he thought that his Hon. Friend's motion was still
more so.

The House then resolved itself into the Committee.

Sir H. HARDINGE proposed that the sum of 7,6561.
be granted for the expence of the Military College.
Mr. HUME thought, considering the state of the public
feeling, it was time that the Government take into its
serious consideration the propriety of reducing this esta-
blishment. He begged leave to ask, why gentlemen in-
tending to enter the military service should not pay for
their own education, when there were one hundred appli-
cants for every commission? He noticed, too, that the
Lieutenant-Governor had received a pension of 500/. ;
and he did not know why he, who was a military man,
should not fall back on his half-pay. There was a mon-
strous system of giving pensions to persons who had no
just claim to them, to which he would continually object.
On this establishment the pensions were now 33,5001.,
and he really did not know why the officers, who had been
pensioned, should not receive only their half-pay.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE would first state why the
Military College should not pay its own expences. There
were three classes of students. The first were the or-
phans, whose fathers had been in his Majesty's service,
and they were educated gratuitously; the second class.
each of whom paid 201. a year, were the children of
officers yet in the service ; and the expellee of their educa-
tion was supplied by the charge on the young men of the
third class, each of whom paid 1501. Within two years
the expence of this College bad been reduced from
12,000/. to 7,0001. ; and as that did not satisfy the Hon.
Member for Montrose, lie must despair of satisfying him.
As to the pension given to the Lieutenant-Governor,
that gentleman held a commission in the Artillery twenty-
five years a.fo, and had he now been in the service, he
would have been a Major-General. He had retired with
the rank of a Colonel after twenty-five years' service,
and had a pension of 8001. a year. With respect to the
suggestion of the Hon. Member, that the officers should
fall back on their half-pay, that was to be the system in
future.

Colonel DAVIES thought that in the circumstances of
the country this grant was most extravagant. He doubted
the utility of the education the young men received at the
Military College ; and if it were continued, it certainly
ought to be on a more limited scale than at present.
Sir H. HARDINGE again defended the grant of the
pension.
Lord EUSTON also objected to the grant in the state
of the country, and he should feel himself called on not
to support it. The present was not a time to make young
soldiers ; there was no want of them) and there was plenty
of old officers. He did not know that he should find a
seconder, but he certainly felt inclined to move that the
vote be stopped altogether.

Mr. HUAIE said the Noble Lord should not want a se-
conder. He wished to know how many of the young men
educated so superiorly at the College had been gained to
his Majesty's service?
Sir H. HARDINGE.—Forty commissions had been
given away, in the course of the last year, to the cadets:
Mr. HUME.—Then all that I have to say upon that
subject is, that I think that those who obtained such
splendid prizes ought to have educated themselves.—(Hear.)
—As to the orphans who are educated there, I think that
it would he much better if their fathers and mothers would
take care of them.—(Roars of laughter for some minutes.)
I own that I have made a slip—l meant their guardians.
The Hon. Member then proceeded to argue, that if proper
reductions were made, and proper regulations adopted in
the Military College, the whole expense of it need not cost
the country 500/. a year. He thought that this grant
should only be passed for six months : in that time Go-
vernment might make all the necessary retrenchments.—
He therefore suggested to the Noble Lord the propriety of
granting the selinistry 3,800/., which was half the vote,
in order to enable them to take the necessary steps to get
rid of the other half.

Mr. JEPHSON supported the views taken by the Hon.
Member for Aberdeen upon this subject.
The Earl of EUSTON was understood to agree to the
suggestion of Mr. Hume.
Sir GEORGE MURRAY contended that the system of
military education adopted in this country had been very
imperfect till the foundation of the Military College, which
had been eminently beneficial in its resul,s to the discipline
and information of the army.
Mr. MABERLY controverted the opinions laid down
by the Secretary at War, and also by the Secretary for the
Colonies.

Colonel DAVIES impugned the system of education
pursued at the College, and repeated that he had himself
derived little benefit from it.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE assured his Gallant Friend
that the system of education at the Military College had
been greatly improved of late years. He was sorry to
learn that his Gallant Friend had received so little benefit
from the education which he had received there.

Mr. WARBURTON thought that there should be a
reduction of this grant. lie was the more inclined to
make it, because he thought that by a proper augmentation
of the fees of the third class of cadets, all the expenses of
the establishment might easily be defrayed.
Colonel DAWKINS said that he had derived great ad..
vantage from the education which he had received at the
Military College. The instruction which he had obtained
there was of the greatest assistance to him when he first
joined his regiment. Anxious as he was to relieve the dis-
tress of the people, he could not bring himself to think that
this was an establishment tha( could he dispensed with.
Mr. HUME was happy to hear the gallant officer say
tlsat he had derived advantage from his education at the
military college, and was only sorry that the gallant
officer had not paid for it himself.—(Plear, and a laugh.)
—The lion. Member for Lincoln had that night presented
a petition complaining loudly of the distress of the
country, and calling for retrenchment as a means of relief.
Where was the lion. Member now, when an attempt was
making to enforce retrenchment?—(Colonel Sibthorpe,
though not in his usual place, was sitting a few benches
bele., Mr. Hume.)—Oh ! the lion. Member for Lincoln
was present—but where were other lion. Members who
had presented similar petitions?—( Hear, hear.)—Not one of
them was to be found at his post when reduction was talked
of.—(Hear.)—For his own part he was of opinion, that
if it were not for the people out of doors, who might
suppose that lion. Members, concurred in the extravagance
of Ministers, it would be much better that the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer should take all his votes in silence.
He knew not what support he might meet with, but with
the assent of the Noble Lord (Euston) he would move, as
an amendment, that only 3,8301. be this year granted to
the Military College.
The Committee divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment 18
Against it B5
Majority against the amendment... 67.

The original resolution was then agreed to.
The Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to
.•it again on Monday next.
A person from the East India-house presented certain
accounts.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at a Quarter to One.

iT OF THE MINOR
'OTED ON LORD EUSTON
1E ROYAL MILITARY CC

I'S MOTION TO REDUCE

as 4444
UP*
:br

Mal te- Brun. G raberg. Pinkerton.
Christianity 220,000,000 236,000,000 235,000,000
Judaism
Islamism
Brahminism 60,000,000 60,000,000 (0,000,000
Buddhism 150,000,000 150,000,000 180,000,000
All other religions 100,000,000 115,000,000 100,000,000
--
Total 653,000,000 686,000,000 700,000,000
:Hassel. f Balbe.
Christianity 252,000,000 260,006,000
Judaism , 3,930,000 4,000,0;41
Islamism
Brahminism 111,353,000 60,000,0110
Buddhism 315,977,000 170,000,000
All other religions 131,190,000 147,000,000
Total