The Sun.
London, England, 1822-07-27 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The SPEAKER was summoned to the House of Peers. On
his return he stated the Royal Assent to have been given by
Commission to several Bills ; for which see the Lords.
THIRD READINGS.

The Irish Commercial Credit Bill, the Isle of Man Postage
Bill, the Greenland Fishery Bill, and the Barracks Estates
Bill, were severally read a third time and passed.,
COM 11ITTEES.

The Militia Pay Bill, the Irish Militia Pay Bill, and the
Appropriatioh Bill, went through Committees ; the Reports of
which were ordered to be received on Monday.

REPORTS.

The Reports of the East India Sugar Bill, the Brimstone
Drawback Bill, and the Scotch Spirits Exportation Bill, were
brought up and agreed to, and the Bills ordered to be read a
third time on Monday.
On the motion of Mr. LITSHINGTON, it was ordered that
the House, at its rising, should adjourn tillßlonday.
PETITIONS.

Mr. HUME presented a Petition from a person of the name
of 'Matthew Atkins, who had been employed for nearly twenty
years, as an inland letter carrier, but had been dismissed last
November, on an alleged charge of drunkenness. He; had
now lost the use of one half of his person, and was compelled to
subsist on parochial charity, having been denied relict from a
fund, established for the relief of letter-carriers, to which the
Petitioner, in the course of 21 years, had contributed from his
income of 14s. per week, more than 4001. He (Mr. Hume)
wished to know bow the fund thus formed was appropriated, as
some degree of mystery . attached to the way in which it was
managed. •
Mr. LUSHINGTON said, had he been aWare that the peti-
tion was to be presented that day, he might have been prepared
to give some answer to the allegations which it contained. As
the case stood he was totally unacquainted with the subject.
After a few words from Mr. CAT.CItAFT and 11r. u ME,
the Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. HUME moved for a return of the amount of the Inland
Letter-carriers' Superannuation Fund in 1807, and the amount
of the contributions given in aid of it, specifying how the same
had been appropriated, and the present amount of the fund.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. HUME said, he had another Petition to present relative
to a case which he thought a very hard one. It related to the
Captain and crew of the ship Charles, of Aberdeen, whose suf-
fering he had on two other occasions brought before the House.
These persons had been charged with murder, and in conse-
quence had been long detained as prisoners by the Spanish
Authorities. He acknowledged that M inisters had not neglect-
ed the case. The Noble Marquis had written in very forcible
terms to the Spanish Government, but as yet no redress had
been obtained. He was of opinion it would not be improper
for some remuneration to'be afforded by Government to the
sufferers, and on this point he had been referred to the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not ob-
ject to the Petition being brought up, but he could not admit
the principle that this Government was bound to remunerate
individuals who might sustain loss from acts of violence or in-
justice committed by a foreign Government. It was the duty
of Ministers to endeavour to obtain justice for those who were
injured, but failing in this, they were not bound to compen-
sate the parties themselves.
After a few remarks from Mr. C. W. WYNN and Mr.
IRvi NG,

The 'Marquis of LONDONDERRY said he understood the
parties to have been detained on a charge of murder. By not
going,into port when the circumstance on which the charge was
founded occurred, and clearing themselves of the -crime by a
declaration, they had brought on themselves the inconveniences
which followed. He had recently received an answer from
Madrid to .a very strong remonstrance which he had written on
the subject, which stated what was very fair, and in fact what
he apprehended could not be got over (as we very often gave
the same answer ourselves), that the Spanish Government did
not feel themselves bound to look into a case while an appeal
remained open to the aggrieved parties. There certainly was
a tribunal in Madrid to which an appeal in this case might be
carried. He commiserated the situation of the parties, who
he believed to be very poor and very innocent, but did not
know that the Government could do .more than had already
been done.—The Petition was then read-
Mr. IRVING described the hardship to which the parties
had been subjected. They had been confined for nearly three
years, and six months had elapsed before they were enabled to
cOmmuni,...te with the British Consul, Mr. Bruce.
Mr. HUME stated no blame to attach to Mr. Bruce. Hk
suggested the propriety of taking a few thousands from the
Droits of Admiralty to remunerate these poor people fbr the
hardships they had endured.
The Petition was ordered to be printed.
Mr. S. II ICE presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of
the Parish of St. Michael, in the City of Dublin, praying for
the Kepeal of the Irish Assessed Taxes. The Petition was or-
dered to be printed.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition from the Vice-President
of the Irish National Society, for promoting the education of
the poor in Ireland, praying for legislative assistance.
After a few words from Colonel TRENCH, the Petition was
ordered to be printed.
KING'S BENCH PRISON.

Mr. BENNET called the attention of the House to the sums
voted at different periods for repairing the King's Bench Prison.
He showed from a clause in an Act of the 2:2d George 11. that
certain advantages were provided for the Marshal of the King's
Bench, and certain duties imposed upon him. The advantages
the Marshal had enjoyed, but it appeared to him that he had
not fulfilled all the duties intended to attach to his situation.
He enumerated the votes come to within the last few years for
grants for repairs in the King's Bench Prison, and moved th,
there shoulu be laid before the House an account of the manner.
in which the grants of 18'21 and 18112 had been expended, so far
as the same could be made out..--Thc motion was agreed to.
A message from the Lords announced their Lordships' con-
currence with the Thames Lastage Bill, and other Bills.
SUPERANNUATION ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
The CHANt ELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved, that
the Report of the Superannuation Act Amendment Bill should
be received.

CALCRAFT rose to state his objections to the tnea.

PRICE SEVENPEI4CE.

, . .
sure. He, however, begged to say, if the Right Hon. Gentle•
man would make the contributions to the fund optional on
those now in office, and only compulsory on those, who migh t
hereafter come into office, he would give up his opposition.--,
If this were not done, he should proceed to state why he
thought the measure one of great, and of unjust severity. His
principal objection to it was, that it imposed a tax on indivi-
duals to which they had not expected they should be liable, at
the time when they accepted offices. If it were a general
tax they must submit ; but it was a partial tax, and conses
quently it was one of which they had a right to complain.
Many of those on whom it would press had already, taken the
precaution of insuring their lives, and it was hard on them that
they should now be called on to pay an additional five per cent.
It was admitted that their services were great, and that their
salaries were not too high ; yet they were told, that such was
the situation of the country that it was expedient to make this
deduction from their incomes. 'He would ask if any law could
be more harsh, more oppressive, more vexatious, or more un-
just ? If those who hereafter came into office were required to
submit to such regOlations, he should have no objection. In
this case it would be fair, as they would know from the first
that such were the conditions on which they were to hold their
siivations. In another point of view this measure was objec-
tionable. If any of the Gentlemen whom it 'affected should
be at any time dismissed for alleged misconduct, they then,
like the poor postman, whose petition had been presented that
day, lost all interest in that fund to which they had been con-
tributors. Such being the case, the parties must tither be con-
sidered to have a vested right in their offices, or when re-
moved, it must be expected that injustice would be imputed.
'On this subject he thought every one would think with him,
however the majority of the House might judge it right to vote
with the Right Hon. Gentleman. His ideas were supported
by those of a Noble Lord whom he had seen filling, the Chair
of that house, and in the situation of Chancellor of the Exche-
quer. The Noble Lord he alluded to had long beeo Secretary
of State, and he had seldom differed in opinion from the Right
Hon. Gentleman opposite. It would be singular, indeed, if
they should be found at variance immediately. He then read
extracts from letters written by Lord Sidmouth and Mr. Hob-
house on the subject, which expressed opinions decidedly hos-
tile to the plan. To depart from the plan of 1807, he contended,
was a breach of public faith, and what security could the stock-
holder have after this, but that which arose from a conscious-
ness that he belonged to a more powerful body of men, and that
what affected him would affect every description of property
in the country. Lord Sidniouth had declared that he could
not recommend the plan to his Majesty, and that he could not
concur with the Lords of the Treasury in the opinion that
it ought to be submitted to Parliament. Unluckily for the
Clerks, Lord Sidmouth was just at that time about to resign,
or his opinion would have been more attended to. He had
stated that he considered the measure to be " in principle im-
provident and impolitic, and in its immediate application un-,
just." It might be thought necessary to pass the Bill, but the
assertions of Lord Sidmouth were well founded. If, however,
it were now altered so as not to affect those who were in office
before the Ist of January, 1822, he would give up his opposi-
tion to the bill ; but if this were not done he would persevere,
notwithstanding the numerous attendance on the other side,
brought down by a very strong circular, requesting them to be
present at the debate on the Superannuation Act Amendment
13ill, and impressing on them the importance of not quitting
their seats till the business was disposed of. A letter to that ef-
fect he knew had been written. lie thought-those who attended
on it were likely to have a happy night of it, for he felt satisfied
that however they might vote, their opinions were with him.—
Ile was much inclined to think that this was the case with all,
not excepting the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself.—(A
laugh.)—He really thought the saving to be made by this bill
might be effected by less objectionahle means. 'I he whole
amount might be saved on the transactions between Govern- .
ment and the Bank. He should wait to see what the Right
Hon. Gentleman was disposed to do before he moved any thing.
if he would- agree to have the few words introduced which he
wished to supply, he would then move to alter the preamble.—
If he failed in this, be should then be reduced to the necessity
(a necessity which he really wished to avoid) of opposing the
Bill altogether.
Mr. CANNING considered the Bill in principle as objec-
tionable as any measure that had ever been brought forward :
it was most unfair to subject any particular class to peculiar
taxation, more especially if that class had been recently held up to
public odium. In the arrangements of the measure there was a
clear breach of faith. He did not say. that it was not in the power
of the Crown to reduce the salaries of its official servants
without the aid of Parliament; but for this House to originate
such a plan was in direct opposition to the address of the last
session, and could be looked upon only as a species of Parlia-
mentary taxation. The Bill was obviously a breach of faith to-
wards all who, since 1810, had devoted themselves to the public
service on condition of receiving the benefits which the act of that
year held out. He would put an individual case, that of a young
man of the highest promise and of most respectable birth,
but deprived of his father, who at a time when lie was obtain-
ing the honours of his College, and had every prospect of dis-
tinguished preferment in the church, was induced to accept a
public situation under the Crown, on the conditions of the sta-
tute of 1810. On those conditions he had relied, but he
was now to be told that they were not to be fulfilled—that
a large part of his emoluments was to be taken 'from him, ant,
it was thus to be proved that his friends and he had judged most
unwisely in abandoning the original scheme and prospects of his
life. This Bill would be to him a grevious injury, and he ought
almost to be entitled to maintain an action at law for damages. It
was impossible to know how many such cases. existed, and
how many individuals had quitted the law, the army, or the
church, under the faith of the act of 1810, relinguishing lau.
dable pursuits and eminent advantages. Constitutionally,
this Bill might be considered also an invasion of the rights
and powers of the Crown. Besides if a "man were removed
at some future tine from office for a fault that did not stain
his moral character, he would lose all he had contributed to this
fund : it would really be nothing short of pillaging him to turn
him out of place without returning the money he had an-
nually paid. The Right Hon. Gentleman saw no remedy for
this objection, but by defining in the Bill for what faults a man
should or should not be dismissed, and under what circum-
stances he should or should not be allowed to withdraw the suers
he had contributed to this joint stock, tontine, or by whatever
other name it might be called. It was utterly impossible to deal
correctly with these prospective claims. The first class had gone
as far as it could go with respect to degree and to the apportion-
ment of reward : but it was quite evident that things of this rm-
ture ought much rather to be left to the discretion of those who at.
tended to the skill and ability with which services were perform•
ed, than to the operation of a legal enactment. The Bill gave
all the apparent accuracy of rule to that which could not be go-
verned by rule. It provided not for extraordinary merit—it recog-
nized not services, the performance of which required superior
talents. The Bill endeavoured to do that which could alone be ef-
fectually done by those who were conversant with the concerns of
public offices. He knew nothing to which he could assimilate
the system of apportioning remuneration according to the num-
ber of years, except the mode of reward which he had read of
in a Chinese history. The examiner at a Chinese seminary would
say, "A has industry as 2—attention as s—arithmetic as 3--
hanz;writing as 14," and by summing up all these, he struck a
total of 24. When he came to B, he would find, perhaps, that
he had genius as 6—idleness as 3—learning as B—and so on,
making a total of 25. Here 25 was balanced against 24, without
any regard to the preponderance of good or bad qualities, and
the reward was apportioned accordingly.—(A laugh. )--Thus, by
this Bill, the discretion of rewarding was not left with those who
must best know where it was due; the system was settled and
invariable. In the relations between the public and . their
executive servants, as in the relations of private life, many
things must be taken into the account, when rewards were about
to be granted, which were not susceptible of legislative inter-
ference. He therefore would in the first instance place the
extent of reward in the discretion of the Crown, and next in the
high official servants of the Crown, He would not attempt to
confine that discretion within legislative limits. It was a vain
endeavour to define those shades of merit which were almost too
minute for human observation, and infinitely too nice for legis-
lative enactment. Having stated his sentiments on the mea-
sure, he did not mean to proceed farther. in the present state
of the Session and of the House, it would be vain to hope for
effectual resistance to the Bill. He had repeatedly expected the
discussion to come on, and though he did not like to sit .up
late at night as some of his Honourable Friends, yet 'he had
regularly attended in that hope. The Bill had been put off'27
times, and it was no very pleasant thing to go 27 days without
a dinner—(A laugh.).—He believed the idea of the measure
originated in a laudable desire to meet public opinion ; but
public opinion had changed, and if it were passed, it would not,
he was convinced, satisfy the publitmind.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, the
pr( snit appeared to him to be a wise and expedient public

larangenent. In the last Session of Parliament an address
-was carried to the throne, praying for a revision of 'all places
under Government, as well with a view to present as to future
-retrenchment. Ths ohject of those who were most anxious for
,carrying that address was, that the public officers should be re-
stored, as nearly as posSible, to the-same situation as that in
-witieh they stood in 1792. With that view it was that the mea-
„ -nue now under consideration was brought forward by his Ma-
jesty's Ministers. The whole of the projected alteration was
not yet carried into effect. because the excise department was
-, still. under the consideration of the Commissioners of Public
Inviey. It appeared that the actual reduction of office on the
aainheezmin salaries was 38,000/. ' • on the rna,eirothet 72,001.;
and, hereafter, it was calculated that there would be a gross
saving_ to the public of 156,000/. He was sorry that"his Right
floe. Friend (Mf. Canning) had condemned the whole of these
reductions. The argutiients of his Right Hon. Friend, and of
.his. Noide Friend (Lord Sidmoutir), which had been alluded
tiro the cones • of the discussion, amounted to no less than
this principle—that when an individtial procured a situation
-under akovernm-nt, it was no longer right that Parliament
should interfere with it.—{blear.)—With all due respect for his
*Right lima Friend, he could tint see any degree of injustice in
.s,.tf,tvati interference. His' Right Hon. Friend appeared to him
completely to confound the queition of vested rights arising
,afeoerecestain stipulated grants, and those uncertain and con-
tangent rights depending on circumstances, which must gene-
rally be, in some degree at least, contemplated 'by those who
were raised to office. -if it' were an injustice to reduce the sala-
*ties of individuals placed in public offices, how much more tin-
; just must it be to reduce officers in the army, who had pur-
.. echasedetheir commissions ! Surely the same power which
originallycarried into effect the establishment of those offices,
_had* a _right, When circumstances demanded it, to alter and
, 2e.ew-nmectel the system. In the present case, he knew a very
liege. nimmber of persons would be affected ; but no great
change vottid possibly be made without producing a similar re-
'.
..sult. The argumnent of his Noble Friend (Lord Sidmouth) ap-
piared to-hire to have no operation whatever against this' men-
sure, because he, could not but consider -that the power of
granting, office daring pleasure involved also the power of
reducing the emolument of office, it could, not be denied,
with reference to the army and navy, that, when an individual
entered either service, he did so under the promise of promo-
tion, if particular events occurred ; and yet it could not be
. argued that the Crown.did not possess a power, by the exertion
• •o:.wimich all those hopes of promotion were annihilated. That
,power had-"been-repeatedly exercised, to the extent of many
,fmitndred iostances. His Hight Honourable Friend .said this
was a partial taxation on a particular class of indiViduals. Let
the House look to this partiality 'of taxation. ;If, as he had
shown, it was In the power of the Crown to reduce these
..odices.entirely, could it be considered a serious hardship, to
call .on those holding them to pay a proportionate surd. from
'their salaries which was to be applied to their advantage
hereafter it No 'power could prevent the reduction• of the
.-saltrics entirely, and there certainly was no injustice in
using 'the same. authority that could, annihilate those offices
for the purpose of providing at a future period for the comfort
,of those who now. executed the duties attached to them. It
Aliould also be observed, that the greater part of these salaries
were settled during the existence of the property tax, which
took from them 10 per cent. and when the tax was given up,
many of them were indirectly augmented by its repeal. Upon
the salaries thus augmented, Government asked for only one
half time amount that had been paid as income tax, and that
moiety was intended for the benefit of the parties. His Right
Hon. Friend opposed the Bill on the ground that it imposed a
hard and partial tax. Now he could see no ground for such
an allegation. On the contrary, the Address of that House, if
it meant- any thing, meant that time salaries of persons in office
ought to be reduced, and he could not conceive a milder mode
in which .that reduction could be effected than by taking
from the salaries of the parties that which would form a pro-
vision for them in old age and infirmity.' So far from this
measure appearing originally to be one of hardAip, he re-
collected, that the first motion *made in the present Session
by the Honourable Member for Aberdeen was for an indiscri-
minate tax of 251. (not 51.) per cent. on the whole of the sala-
ries of offices held under the Crown. In a case of this kind,
he had experienced a difficulty which he was priepared to meet.
On the one side he was told that the reduction did not go far
enough ; and, on the other, if any thing at all were taken away,
it was sure to create complaint. He had therefore steered a
middle course ; and, having had an opportunity of conversing
with many of those who would be affected by the,Bill, he had
reason to believe that the amendments had removed many of
their objections. -
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said,
.the measures now
under consideration had been introduced in consequence of an
address of that House to the Crown. Ministers had, in con-
sequence,. gone through an immense mass of detail, which had
occupied their attention from 2 to 3 months. When he had,
as it were, received instructions to prepare a bill of this kind, it
would have been a base proceeding on his part if he did not act
. op to them. Having pursued that line of public-duty which he
conceived to he right—having given his concurrence to this mea-
sure, it would have been an act: of insincerity if he did not
come down to the House to meet any objections that might be
offered to it. s Ministers had been called on to.produce a mea-
sure of reduction, in conformity with the principle contained in
• the address of the House, and when they brought forward such
a measure, after a great sacrifice of time and labour, Gentlemen
thooght fit to quarrel with the principle. Being, however, beaten
on the question of principle, and the, fallacy of the principle
which they themselves set up being proved, they then turned
round and attacked the details. Bethought it would be extremely
unwise, as well as unjust, if the House, after directing Ministers
to Woe this course, should defeat the Bill on account ot its details,
. and reject the principle which they had laid down so solemnly.
What was the nature of the address to the Crown ? It amounted
to this—that a revision of all time salaries and emoluments under
the Crown should immediately take place, and that the civil es-
tablishment should be-brought back as nearly as possible to the
standard of 1792. As the emoluments of office had been consi-
derably, increased by the change of currency since 1797, and as
the old 'standard of currency had been introducedeit *was thought
, proper to assimilate public salaries to the scale Of 1792. It
would be extraordinary indeed to say, that the income of an of-
fice, though that office was granted during pleasure, and was
subject to all•the contingencies, of public affairs, should rot be
iaterfered with. Could any wan contend that the moment an
r individual was placed in a public office, that office was erected
latn afreehohl, and. that Parliament had no sight to alter it in
any way, soloog as the party had an interest in it ?* Ministers
were anxious-to carry the principle of the address Into effect in
• the:lnidest and most proper ,manner, consistently with the
' faithful accornplishment of that which the House had calletion
them to do: and he was perfectly convinced that, if the Gentle-
, 'men 'who were hostile to this measure succeeded in defeating
it, the component parts of the bill, the salaries, the emolu-
- nients, and,, -above all, the.superannuations, would be pared
down on an infinitely more severe scale than was now proposed.
It would be m6st unwise in the clerks themselves to wish for
-the establishment of' such a. principle as that laid down by the
Right Honourable' Gentleman, because many acts of kindness
and beneficence were now extended to them, which, if their si-
tuations were erected into freeholds, would no longer be allow-
ed, since they would be binding on the Ministers of the pre-
sent day, and on their successors. The most extraordinary
principle he ever heard of was involved in the argument
against this " that - though you cannot mo-
dity, you may destroy." His Right Honourable Friend had
'illustrate 1 his argument in a beautiful manner, by introducing
yotrag man of liberal education, whose views in life were
clouded by the • operation of this measure. But -he *must at
once say, that if the idea of vested -interest in public offices
were once. allowed, Parliament -would no longer be capable of
- legislation—it would meet them, and interrupt their proceed-
ings at every step.L--(Hear, hear, hear !)—What was the situa-
Sion of an officer. who purchased his commission ? He might be
placed on half-pay ; his ;regiment- might be broken'; and his
prespeeN in life might-be materially affected had as good
-reason to claith vested.right as a person in-a publieoffice.—
But they could not argue the question on such grounds : • they
;must look at, the general expediency of the measure; they
roust consider whether the interests of the public
,requfred it.-
- (Hear, bear !)—He could not conceive why the, public should
not have the same privilege is dealing with those. whom they
employed, as individuals had. If a banker wished to alter the
salary of his clerk, was he to be told that he had no right to do
-so, because the young man Preferred's. clerkship to a fellowship?
—(Hear!)—lt was, if any one supposed that those offices were
vested interests, to show that they were not.—(hear !),-Was
it. supposed that the measure which Ministera were directed to
bring in should not apply to persons in dike at present ? If
, had got up and said. the Bill was intended.. to regulate the
-salariett of all those who came into office hereafter, but- that

individuals who now held office were to be exeltided from its
,o;.erations, would .he not be scouted from the House ? lie would
not have carried a single vote. Even his Right Hon.. Friend,
who had this night advocated the cause of vested rihts, would
have voted against him. Those who opposed, the Bill had left
the ground of principle, and the question becatae one of degree
—had Ministers carried their views to unfair. or improVident ex-
tent ? The question naturally divided itself into three points-
- salaries, the scale of augmentation or salaries, and the act of
superannuation. Now they would find no material deduction
from salaries, except from those of a very high grade; and
it should be remembered, that the time of the House had
been very 'mush occupied with -declamatiobs against clerks
Who luid extensive salaries. Gentlemen said, "Spare the
clerks whose salaries are small, but reduce those whO
proceed to their offices in curricles, and even-tilburies."—(A
laugh,)--Ministers had reduced those salaried with a view to.
publie-kconorny, -at the same time they took care that the sala-
ales should nct be unworthy of men possessing respectable cha-
-4,-xxcter and -respectable talents.—(Hear, hear !)—With respect