The Sun.
London, England, 1822-03-16 00:00:00

MALT DUTY.

The Order of the Day was moved and read for the House
resolving itself into a Committee on the Malt Duty Bill. On
diequestion being put that the Speaker should leave the Chair,
• Mr. GIPPS said he regretted that Ministers had not, in their
desire to relieve the distress of the agriculturists, consulted
those who were competent to inform them of the best mode of
carrying their good wishes into effect. The repeal of the tax
upon salt wonid, he thought, afford real relief.
- Mr. CALVERT, adverting to the discussion for the allow-
ance in respect of malt on hand, said he had had an interview
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had promised that
all malt in transitu should be ascertained and allowed for ; but
it was thought an express clause in the Bill for that purpose
would open a door for fraud, and therefore it was left out.
Sir J. YORKE said he feared it was only the Calverts and
the Whitbreads who would gain by the reduction. Ile should
be glad to know when the price of beer would fall, and he
trusted his Hon. Friend, who was so good a representative of the
barley-corn, would answer the question.
Mr. CALVERT said, that all who brewed their own beer
would gain by the reduction ; but he begged to inform the
House, that a halfpenny difference on a pot of porter was equal
to a difference of '2ls. on a quarter of malt. Now' when he
stated that the present reduction would make a difference of only
6s. 6d. in the quarter of malt, and that Government had three
halfpence duty on every pot of porter, he trusted the House as
well as his Right Ilon. Friend would see that it was not rea-
sonable to expect a reduction in the price of porter.
General GASCOYNE said, he protested against this reduc •
tion, since it appeared that the Public would be no gainers by
it ; or at least only those of the Public who brewed their own
beer. He protested against the measure as uncalled for and
impolitic; and thought it an unwise sacrifice of the public ex-
penditure.
Colonel WOOD trusted that the present measure would re-
vive the old custom of parsons brewing their own beer,
and for that reason he approved of it. If it led to such a result,
it would keep the poorer classes from their pernicious habits of
spending their time in victualling houses.
'Mr. Gator:AFT and Colonel WOOD mutually explained.
Mr. Sergeant ONSLOW could not agree with the gallant
General that the present measure was uncalled for ; and espe-
cially after the proceedings of last year, when a Bill was brought
in for repelling the Malt Tax, and read a first time.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman C. Ssii Tin the House
went into a Committee, in which
Mr. LUSHINGTON expressed his regret that it was to be
feared, from the statement of the Hon. Member for Southwark
(Mr. Calvert) that the people were not to be benefited by the re-
duction. He (Mr. L.) did not mean to say that the Hon. Mem-
ber' could divide the farthing; but surely he could make the
beer stronger.—(A laugh.)
Mr. C. CALVERT assured the Hon. Secretary his sugges-
tion should not be forgotten ; and that, if he would condescend
to taste the beer, he should find it very good.—(A laugh.)
A desultory conversation followed, and the House having re-
sumed, the Report was ordered to be received on Monday.

MR. HUNT.

Mr. HOBE-MUSE, in behalf of his Honourable Colleague
(Sir F. Burdett) postponed tlo notice of motion he had given
relative to Mr. Hunt, to Wednesday the 27th instant. At the
same tirne.he begged leave to express a hope that the motion
would ttirn out to be unnecessary, from the previous interfer-
ence of his Majesty's Government.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.

Lord 3. RUSSELL rose for the purpose of putting a ques-
tion to a Right Honourable Secretary to the Treasury opposite,
on a• subject which nearly concerned the privileges of that
House. H 2 alluded to a letter which had found its way into
publicity; vhich,- in open allusion to three Members of that
House, as stated in the letter, " Lord Normanby, Lord Al-
thorpe, and Mr. Creevey," contained the following expressions :
" The Opposition despairing of eve: being able to get into of-

fl e, have resolved upon, pursuing a system tending to under-
mine and destroy the best institutions of the country, so as to
make it impossible for any Goveinment to go on." This let-
ter was signed " AtbUthnot." But as he never could believe
that Right Hon: Gentleman capable of putting on paper such
expressions, openly charging Members of that House with se-
ditious intentans, he must conclude it to be a forgery, and was
therefore anxious to give the Right Hon. Gentleman an oppor-
tunity of contradicting it.
Mr. ARBUTHNOT—In consequence of what bed fallen
from the Noble Lord, it became necessary for him to inform
the [louse, that the expressions just quoted to them had been
written by him, They were contained in a letter which was
entirely of a private nature, and although he had no hesitation
in avowing himself to be the author of its he could not admit
that the expressions in questions would bear the construction
the Noble Lord had placed upon them. The expressions he
(Mr. Arbuthnot) contended, alluded to the motions of the
Honourable Members, and not to their motives; and he beg-
ged to state, that however he might regard the latter, he would
not be guilty of violating the rules of that House. Concerning
the motions he had adverted to as having the tendency he had
stated, he had called upon the individual to whom he wrote to
watch the course of them for the best interests of the country.—
(Ilear !)
Lord NORMANBY said, that actuated, as he felt he had
been throughout, by a conscientious anxiety to discharge his
public duty, he should not haie thought that any one would
have dared to impute dangerous intentions to him, for mergly
bringing forward a motion of a nature that had twice lately re-
ceived the sanction of the Legislature.—(Hear.)
Mr. ARBUTHNOT repeated that there was nothing in his
letter that could fairly be construed into an imputation upon
the Noble Lord's intentions. _ _ _

...
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, he hoped that the
freedom of discussion had not so far degenerated in this country,
that either in or out of that House they were not to be permit-
ted to express an opinion on the tendency of measures pursued
by any Hon. Members whatever.—(Hear, hear!)—lt was really
too much for the Hon. Gentlemen opposite to suppose that
they were to exercise a controul over the opinions of [lon. Mem-
bers on his side of the House. He really hoped that they had
not a serious design of gagging them.—( Hear.)
Lord NORMAN BY said, he had not seen the letter in ques-
tion ; but as it was admitted that it imputed to him the acting
on a system to undermine the best institutions of the country, he
could not understand how that could be talent otherwise than
as reflecting personally, on his motives.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that it might be
perfectly true that the Noble Lord and his friends acted on a
system which he (the Marquis of Londonderry) might think
dangerous; and he might say so withodt imputing that know-
ledge to the Noble Lord.
Col. DAVIES asked, if the expression " despairing of ever
getting into office" did not imply a knowledge of the tendency
of the course pursued in consequence?
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY did not see any thing
incompatible in the Hon. Gentlemen opposite despairing of
getting into power, with their ignorance of the tendency of any
measures they might propose.—(Hear, hear )
Mr. ARBUTHNOT remarked, that there was nothing ex-
traordinarY in his supposing, from a view of the measures, that
the originators Of them should despair of getting into office.
Lord J. RUSSELL appealed to the Chair, whether such lan-
. guage, if used in that House, as applied to HOn. Members on
his side, would not be highly disorderly.
The SPEAKER said, the question of the Noble Lord had
anticipated the situation in which he had intended to represent
that the House was placed in engaging in a discussion relative
to the privileges of that House, upon the construction to be
placed on, a letter which was not before the House. Thev might
see one of the inconveniencies of such a course from tife situa•
tion in which a Noble Lord (Lord Noernanby) was placed, who
had not seen the letter. With regard to the Noble Lord's ques-
tion, however, it' he asked him whether a Member of that House,
speaking of another, should say, that " dospairing.of get-
ting into office, he pursued a system of measures tending to
undermine the best interests of the' country," was, or was
not, disorderly ; he must say that the imputation of despairing
to get into office had. nothing to do with the subsequent part
of the charge. It was disorderly, no doubt, to impute un-
worthy and- dangerous motives.—(Hear, hear, hear !)—But
whether the imputation was directed against the measures,
Or the motives; t became necessary to examine the precise
terms in which the expression was delivered.—(Hear, hear,
hear !)—lf it should appear that the iiiiputation was upon the
systeui, however erroneous it might be, it would not be against
the orders of the House. But if directed against the persons
pursuing that system, it was distinctly and most outrageously
disorderly.—(Hear, hear !)—The House, however, would not
faitto observe how utterly incapable he must of necessity be,
to give an opinion on the subject submitted to him by the
Noble Lord, when the contents df the letter were not before
the House.—( Hear !)
Mr AftBUTIINOT assured the Honourable Gentlemen
opposite, that he wrote the letter in question as a private letter,
without ever considering whether it was or was not against
the orders of :he House. So much did he regard it as a private
letter, that lie declared, upon his word of honour, he had not
even kept a copy of it. He had no premediated design of vio-
lating the orders of the House, nor to offend any Honourable
Members.—(hear, hear!)—lle did not know who had shewn
his letter; but he did not hesitate to say, that if there was any
thing improper in it, he was the last man to flinch from the
consequences.—(Bear !)
Mr. WYNN said, that he had heard with great surprize the
appeal made to the Chair by the Noble Lord opposite. He be-
lieved it was the first time that a question had been put to the
Speaker of that House upon a hypothetical case. He really
thought that it would-be quite soon enough to trouble the
Speaker and take up the time of the House when the case arose.
--(Hear.)—But he must protest against an attempt like the pre-
sent to extend the privileges of that House to the details of pri-
vate communication:—(Hear !)—Was an individual not to be
permitted to- express a private opinion, to winch no publicity or
attempt at it was made ? Such an attempt to shackle the free-
dom of private intercourse had not been made for a century
past.- (Hear !)—lt was true, if they looked a little further back
than a century ago, they would find that the House had dis-
-graced itself by exercising some such power as that now pro-
posed in the instance of the Popish Plot, on which occasion those
who were guilty of expressing a doubt of the existence of it were
sent to prison.—(Hear !)
Sir R. FERGUSSON observed that the Right Honourable,
Gentleman (Mr. Wynn) had narrowed the question, as though
this were only a solitary case ; but he apprehended it would be
found that the language complained of was that of a Treasury
Circular.

-111;:WYNN said, he had argued upon what the Right Ho-
nourable Gentleman (Mr. Arbuthnot) himself stated—that the
letter was strictly private.—(Cheers.)
Mr. BANKES said a few words which were inaudible in the
gallery.
The Honourable. GEORGE LAMB thought it was much
to be regretted that after the handsome explanation of the
Right Horourable Secretary (Mr. Arbuthnot) and the opinion
delivered from the Chair, the Right Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Wynn) merely for the sake of defending the privileges of
the house, should have run the risk of raising the whole ques.
tion again. That Right Honourable Gentleman in his tirade
against interference with private correspondence, had begged
the whole of the question; for the vary question before the
House was, whether the letter in question was private or not ?
—(Hear !)
Lord J. RUSSELL observed, that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Wynn) seemed to have proceeded on the assumption
that there was a motion before the House relative to a breach
of privilege. In this, however, he was quite mistaken, since
the origin of the whole was, a question which he (Lord J. Rus-
sell) had put, which " nearly concerned the privilege of the
House ;" because in his view of the case, the Right Hon. Se-
cretary of the Treasury had imputed motives of a dishonourable
nature to Hon. Members on his side of the House. The Right
Hon. Secretary, however, had disavowed any such intention,
and he had therefore nothing further to say.
Lord NORMAN BY explained, that as he had not seen the
letter, he received his impressions of its contents from what his
Noble Friend stated with respect to it. He however, begged to
assure the Right Honourable Gentleman that lie was the last
man to retain any sense of intended insult, and he hoped the
Right Hon. Gentleman would not attach any weight to the ob-
servations he had made use of. —(Wear !)
POST 1t ASTE R-GE NE RAM

Lord NORMANBY gave notice, that in consequence of the
manner in which the question which he had the honour of sub-
mitting to the House on Thursday was disposed of, he should
bring it forward again on the 2d of Mai.
MARRIAGE ACT.

Dr. Primmai ORE gave notice, that he should, in the
course of the Session, move the repeal of the arriage Act.

ARMY ESTIMATES,

The House having resDlved itself into a Committee of Supply,
the Votes in Supply on the Army Estimates were renewed.
The first vote moved by Lord PALMERSTON' was :
For the Miscellaneous Services of the Land Forces of Great
Britain -
£236,339 0 1

Mr. HUME declared his intention of proposing an Amend-
ment; to lessen this vote. The first itnn composing the gross
sum to which he took exception was, to 6,0001. for the table
kept for the Officers of the Guards at St. James's. He proposed
to reduce this allowance to 3,0001. ; which, admitting that the
nature,of their duty might require a table to be kept up, was quite
sufficient for all proper purposes. It was quite enough for a
plain table, and he was sure the House would never sanction,in
these distressed times, the maintenance of a table with such
viands and such wines as were calculated to be detrimental not
only to the corps itself by engendering expensive habits, but
to the service in general by example. The next item was

charge for allowances to the officers of' the Guards, 35,0001.
which•he should move for being reduced. The riding esta-
blishment would also form part of the amount of his reduction.
There was already an expense of 4,0001. for teaching the differ-
ent regiments to ride, independent of tbis, and that was quite
enough without any other. He should also propose to remit
the charge of 501. for inspecting the colours of the army. He
did not see how it was to be supposed that Sir G. Nayler could
spell better than the Colonels of regiments, whom the colours
particularly concerned. Again, out of the 6,0001. for barracks,
he should suggest that 4,0001. be reduced. And of the Staff
charges he proposed to reduce 8,5001.—a very moderate amount,
which he knew could easily be saved. The Hon. Member
concluded by moving, " That in place of the sum proposed,
the vote be for 211,4001. Os. Id."
Sir C. BURRELL shewed that the Officers of the Guards
were not paid so well as any other officers in the British army,
and contended that they were therefore entitled to the small
consideration of the table at St. James's Palace spoken of by
the Hon. Member for Aberdeen. If an Ensign in the Guards
were to sink the purchase money of his commission in an an-
nuity, he would get a much higher rate of pay than he received
in virtue of his commission. With regard to the table which
was kept for thirteen Officers of the Guards, when the Hon.
Member talked of the luxuries with which it was supplied,
and the quantity of wines wasted, he was quite in error; for he
believed the officers were rather kept on short commons that
otherwise. There were subalterns in the Guards of sixteen and
seventeen years standing, whose pay would do more than cover
the expense of their regimentals.—(Hear !)—Besides this, if in
were calculated, he was convinced that the difference betwixt
the allowances of the Officers of the Lineand the Guards, would
make it apparent that the keeping of this table in lieu of those
allowances, was in fact a saving of 30001.--(Hear !)
Sir H. HARDINGE bore testimony to the frugal manner in
which the table of the Guards was kept. It was always shut at
11 o'clock, and no wine given after, 10. It had been attached to
the Guards since the formation of the corps, and was established
by agreement, instead of certain allowances which all the rest of
the army had. It was, therefore, not very fair to propose. at this
period, to break through that compact. If the Subalterns of the
Guards received the same allowances as the Subalterns of the
other part of the army, they would receive 30,0001. But they
received only 13,0001., being a difference of 12,000 L, by de-
ducting from which the cost of the table there remained a clear
saving of 6,0001., resulting from the very arrangement that was
so cried down. He protested against the Hon. Member im-
puting mal-administration on any part of "the army. It was as
impartially and as purely administered in time of peace as ever
it was in war.—(Hear, hear !)
Mr. BERNAL begged to remind the Hon. Member who
had spoken last, that his Hon. Friend could not be expected to
know every thing, and he might therefore be wrong as to the
table of the Guards. He (Mr. Bernal) believed he was; for
he believed that the seven battalions of that corps were kept at
less expense than any other such number of battalions. Other
battalions were provided with barracks; and if the fair-rate of
lodging money for the officers were calculated, it would be
found that the keeping the table instead of it was a saving at
least of 60001.—(Hear.)
Col. TRENCI-1 said that the maintenance of five Officers of
the Guards, in 1792, cost 3,5001. whilst thirteen, in 1322, cost
only He thought it had been made clear to the House
by this time, that the arrangement in question, in fact, created
a saving.
Mr. BENNET said that he was sure it was not the inten-
tion of his Hon. Friend (Mr. H mile) to breathe an aspersion
against any part of the army. He (Mr. Bennet) agreed with
his Hon Friend in thinking that 60001. a year was too much
for the support of a table for thirteen officers, and should there-
-1 fore support the amendment.
Colonel DAVIES could not agree in the motion of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Flume), but he should propose an amendment to
retluce the amount of the vote 17,0001. upon the charge for
the Recruiting of the Army: To this he should add the Riding
Department, and then moved to substitute 217,0001. for the
original sum.
Lord PALMERSTON shewed that a saving of 3,0001. was
effected by the system adopted with respect to the recruits, and
the total expense in the last year, including all charges, did not
exceed 91. per man.
After sonic further conversation, in which Col. Dalrymple,
Gen. Gascoyne, Col. Davies, Sir H. Hardinge, Sir H. Vivian,
Mr. Hutchinson, Mr. T. Wilson, and Mr. Hume participated,
the two Amendments were severally negatived, and the original
Resolution carried without a division.

The Mowing granti were then moved :
For the Military Establishments of Ireland £684,449
For defraying the charge of the Staff for Great Bri-
tain and Foreign stations - - 96,848
Mr. HUME thought the public had a right to expect a
much larger reduction than had been effected. Instead of the
two permanent district Quarter-Masters, which we had in 1792,
there were now eight; four he thought would be sufficient,
and he would submit to the House a proposition for reducing
them to that number. Then for the Inspectors of Clothing,
he thought if we had four Adjutant-Generals, with a Deputy
kept up at head-quarters, they might perform the duty. of in-
specting the clothing as formerly, and the Inspectors might be
dispensed with. He could wish to know of what use six
Aides-de-Camp could be to the King ? These, if kept up,
ought to be transferred from these estimates to the Civil List,
out of which they were formerly paid, and which was suffi-
ciently large to bear the charge. The Chaplain-General might
be done without, as the Bishop ordained the Chaplains; he
could speak to their fitness for the situations to which they
were to be appointed. In the Colonial Staff he was sorry to
remark, that his suggestions had not been attended to. In
Canada there were four Quarter-Masters General, two Aides-
de-Camp, One Secretary, and one Assistant Secretary. In the
Leeward. Islands he found five Deputy. Adjutants, and eight
Quarter-Masters General. He would propose, that in time of
peace their number should be reduced so as to leave but one of
each. Similar redactions were called for at Jamaica, at Gib-
raltar, and the Cape of tilood Hope. Last year the charge for
the Staff amounted to 132,0001. This 'ear it came to 118,0001.
In 1792, the whole charge was but 24,0001. He was of opi-
nion that such reductions might be made as would save the
country 12,0001. leaving an Aid-de-Camp and a Brigade Major
to each Colony. He moved, as an amendment, " That the
sum of 84,3481. should be substituted for 96,8431. in the reso-
lution."

Lord PALMERSTON said, the Hon. Gentleman was en-
tinly mistaken in several particulars. The number of Aides-
de-Camp to the King was the same in 1792 as at present, but
they were paid at a higher rate. Then they cost the country
1,1371.; now the charge they created was 1,0421. The Hon.
Gent. was mistaken, when he stated the total of the Staff, in
1792, to have been no more than 23,0001. It was really 39,0001.
In his statement he had omitted the extraordinaries and contin-
gencies, and had in fact taken only a part of the Staff. The
Hon. Gentleman thought the Inspectors of Clothing might be
done away. He (f,ord Palmerston) however, did not expect
that the House would agree with the Hon. Gentleman in this,
as they must feel how necessary it was that the clothing of the
Army should be properly inspected. The Chaplain-General
of the Forces the Hon. Gentleman considered to be useless.—
He had remarked that the Bishop who ordained those who be-
came Chaplains could judge of their fitness. It was true that
the Bishop could do so, but unless some one took upon him-
self to see that they• performed the duties attached to their
situations, the service might be neglected, and the public in
that case would pay their money for nothing. The Chaplain-
General had to correspond with all the stations, yet he had no
establishment of clerks whatever : his deputy was his only
assistant. With respect to the Quarter-Master-General, these
had active duties to perform : one was stationed at Liverpool,
from which fresh troops were frequently embarked; one was
stationed at Bristol, one at Portsmouth, one at Plymouth, and
one who had been stationed in the interior was about to proceed
to Edinburgh to take the duty of the-Quarter-Master there, who
was likely to be reduced. The Hon. Gentleman had regretted
that his observations with respect to the colonies had not been
attended to. He (Lord Palmerston) meant not the slightest
disrespect ; but when the Right Hon. Gentleman came forward
with statements so vague ; when he told them I find four officers
here, and think two would do—here is a charge of so many
thousands ; I think half the sum would be sufficient ; when he
thus came forward to express his opinion, which he certainly
had a right to do, it was not to be expected thaton such grounds
the House would feel itself warranted in casting off the votes
proposed by Ministers.
Col. TRENCH pointed out a reduction of expence in the
pay of certain officers.
Mr. HUNIE defended his former statements.
Lord PALMERSTON offered further explanations respect-
ing the expences of the Staff.
Mr. ELLICE called the attention of the House to the emo-
luments of the Governor of Canada. Besides what he received
from the Colony, he had a regiment. Not giving any opinion
on the subject, it was- but fair that the House should know
exactly what it was, that they might determine whether or not
90001. per annum was more than sufficient, if they should
be told that what he had was equal to that sum. He did not
understand_ why a Governor of Canada should receive half as
much again as one of the Principal Secretaries of State in Eng-
land. He then called the attention of the House to the situa-
tion of the Colonies. After this country had brought them to
what they were, they could not be abandoned, as a GallantOflicer
had suggested. The House ought now, in time of peace, to
know exactly what they cost the country. The Colonies were
taxed to a serious degree, and it was not fair to blame them,
if that which was raised from them were not properly applied.
The old Colonies had to pay the Four and a Half per Cent.
Duties. These, however, were appropriated to the Pension List
of England. At Demerara there were five or six sinecures, which
caused a charge of 6 or 8,0001. per ann.; but it was due to the
Noble Lord, at the head of the Colonial Department, to say, that

none of these had been, given away since he had been in office.
.It was supposed by many that the Colonies paid no taxes,
when, in fact, they paid very largely. 3luch had been said of
the distress of the agricultural interest in England. It was
impossible for that distress to exceed what was known in every
one of the West India Islands. With the exception of the ma-
nufacturing interest, he might say there was not one which was
not depressed by the circumstances of the times. A revision of
the system ought to take Pace. The old Colonies, which could
formerly pay, could pay no longer. He hoped that the Esti-
mates would be simplified, so that the different heads of expen-
diture might be traced and understood. As they stood now, he
felt at a loss how to vote, if the lion. Member -pressed his
amendment to a division. Though he might wish to vote for
the reductiOn of some branches, he did not know how a gross
sum of 12,0001. could be taken off.

Sir R. FERGUSSON said that he had been misrepresented,
and was anxious to set himself right as to what he had said in
respect to the Colonies. He was stated to have recommended
the abandoning of the Colonies, if they could not be retained
at less
.expence. He had said no such thing, as he could not
have an idea of giving up the old Colonies. Ile did say that
many of the new ones, if they could not be kept at a less rate
in the present distressed state of the country, ought to be
abandoned. In the Cape of Good Hope Ministers had created
places in order to create patronage. The salary of the Go-
vernor was much to high. It had been stated by Sir J. Grey,
who was once Governor, that 3,0001. a year was a sufficient
salary; whereas the present Governor received 10,0001. And
this,, with ether privileges, and particularly owing to the ex-
changes, was equal to 25,0001. If the funds of the Cape of
Good Hope were properly managed, they would support not
only the Staff, but the whole army of the Colony.
Mr, GOULBURN said, that this was not the first time of
the Gallant General's bringing these circumstances before the
House, and as often as they had been brought forward, he (Mr.
G.) had refuted them. With regard to the effect of the depre-
ciation of the currency having any effect in increasing the value
of the salary of the Governor from 10,0001. to 25,0001. nothing
could be more erroneous. The merest dabbler in such matters
would know that the value of money there could not be in-
creased relatively to this country. Virith regard to what had
fallen from his Hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Ellice), he must re-
peat what he had always said, that the Colonies did, in point
of fact, bear a considerable share of their own expenditure.
He knew there were many ignorant and narrow-minded men,
unlike his Hon. Friend, who estimated the expenditure of the
Colonies by merely looking at the balance-sheet'without taking
into consideration the incidental advantages which arose from
them. These advantages were, amongst others, the extended
navigation to which they gave rise, and the consequent bene-
ficial employment of the population of ,the country. He had
repeatedly shewn to the House, and he was ready to fight the
battles over again, that the Officers of the Colonies were not
overpaid.
Sir. ELLICE, Mr. GOULBURN, and Sir- R. FEROUSSON
severally explained.
Sir. G. BENNET thought the fair anal rational way of
looking at the question was, to compare the Staff expenses at
present with those of any other period. In 1792 they were
7,0091. and now 30,0001. The Staff expenses for Canada in
1802 were under 7,0001. and in the present Estimates he found
them 16,0001. With regard to the West India Islands, in 1803
the expense for that portion of our Establishment was 18,0001.
and now it was 26,0001. The reason was, that all the time
Bngadier-Generals. were employed, but now the Government
sent out 'Major-Generals. He did not ask them to go so ro-
mantically far backward as 1792, he only looked to 1812, and
the question was, whether the House would grant the great in-
crease which had taken place ? He for one would not.
Lord PALMERSTON said, the fact was, that, in 1792,
the Foreign Staff expenses were charged upon different ac-
counts. The whole sum then charged was 24,3001. Now the
total was 36,0001. But although there was this increase upon
this head, there was a decrease upon garrison charges of above
3,0001. The Hon. Member (Mr. Hume) seemed to wish to
cut down the expences to those of 1792, without returning to
the system. No policy could be so bad as that of rendering
the Staff of the Colonies inefficient.
Mr. HUME said, that as there was Wily one-fifth of the
Members then present in the House when he made his state-
ments, he felt it necessary to repeat his grounds for opposing
the Resolution. The Hon. Member then went through his
objections, and declared his intention of taking the sense of the
Committee.

The Committee then divided upon the Amendment, when
there appeared—
For the Amendment 33
For the Original Resolution - 109
Majority in favour of the Resolution —76
When the Gallery was opened—
Mr. MABERLY on Isis legs recommending his Hon. Friend
EMr. Hume) to abandon the useless task of disputing the
stimates, item by item, since all his exertions were ren-
dered unavailing by the overwhelming majorities of his Ma-
jesty's Ministers. - He entreated his Hon. Friend not to ex-
haust his own strength and that of his friends, night after
night, but to propose at once a reduction of taxation to the
amount which he bad judged fair and reasonable, and then
to leave the country to decide between him and his Majesty's
Mitfisters. His Hon. Friend bad undoubtedly done more
good for the country than any man who had sat in Parlia-
ment for the last twenty years.—(Cheers from the Ministerial
Benches.)—Notwithstanding the cheers of Hon. Gentlemen
opposite, he would repeat that he had done so ; but still he
could not help, dissuading his Hon. Friend from pursuing a
system, -which the determination of Ministers not to make
any effectual reduction of the Public Expenditure, rendered
wholly unavailing. The next Resolution was for a sum of.
2,2611. 16s. 6d. for. defraying the charges of the Staff in
Ireland.

Mr. W. SMITH trusted the Hon. Member for Aberdeen
would persevere in a course, in which he bad already suc-
ceeded to an extent which must have exceeded every man's
expectations.
Mr. HUME expressed• his determination to persevere, not-
withstanding the discouraging opposition he had to encounter.
Under the present circumstances of Ireland, it was not his
intention to oppose the present vote; but in a period of tran-
quillity it would admit of considerable reduction.
Mr. R. SMITH said he understood his Royal Highness
Prince Leopold had, with a proper consideration for the dis-
tressed state of the Country, expressed a desire to have his
income reduced to the same scale as that of the Royal Dukes,
He was sure the Country would feel the propriety of the step
which had been taken by his Royal Highness: and he wished
to ask the Noble Lord opposite, when he intended to make
this important communication to the House ?
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, he had received
no such communication from his Royal Highness, and he was
perfectly at aloss to know from what source the Honourable
Gentleman had obtained his information.
On the Resolution for voting 14,5121. for the Office and
Staff of the Commander-in-Chief,
Mr. HUME observed, that this was the same charge as had
been Made last year. The allowance of the Commander-in-
Chief had been increased from 9 guineas to 16 guineas a-day,
at the commencement of the peace. He saw ne reason why
this allowance should not be reduced to its former amount.
His Royal Highness had now three Secretaries; a Military
Secretary, at a salary of 20001. a-year ; an Assistant Military
Secretary, at 6001. a-year ; and a Private Secretary, at 8651.
a-year. There was no pretence for retaining these offices,
or
that of Chaplain to his Royal Highness, which was merely a
nominal appointment, held by a Gentleman who possessed
two other appointments. He proposed a reduction of 25411.
in the pay of the Commander-in-Chief, and 10001. its that of
the Secretaries and Chaplain, making in the whole a sum of
10,8561. instead of 14,5141.
Lord PALMERSTON said, the pay of the Commander-in-
Chief was the military pay attached by regulation to his rank
in the army as a Field Marshal. In point of mental exertion,
and strict attention to the duties of his office, it was impos-
sible for any public servant to discharge his duty more faith-
fully to the public than the Commander-in-Chief, and he was
persuaded the House would not think his services overpaid.
With regard to the official establishment of the Commander-
in-Chief, there was not a more important branch of the pub-
lic service than that which was discharged by iris Secretaries;
and he was persuaded that this department would be crippled
and rendered inefficient if the amendment proposed by the
Hon. Member were acceded tu.
Mr. HUME begged to ask the Noble Lord, when the rate
of a Field-Marshal's pay was given to the Commander-in-
Chief ?
Lord PALMERSTON replied, that it was first granted to
his Royal Highness in the course of the year 1813.
Mr. HUME contended, that the increase of allowance to
the Commander-in-Chief, from nine guineas to 16 guineas a-
day, had nothing to do with his rank as Field-Marshal, since
it had not taken place, upon the Noble Lord's own strewing,
till the year 1813.
The Marquess of LONDONDERRY said, he should not
have risen on this occasion had it not been for the very invi-
dious and unfounded view of the question which had been
taken by the Hon. Member opposite. There was, perhaps,
no individual in the country who possessed more entirely the
public confidence than his Royal Highness the Commander-
in-Chief. Did the Hon. Member wish to degrade the Com-
mander-in-Chief, by putting him oil a sort of half-pay, as if
he had insufficiently discharged the duties of his important
office The Hon. Member opposite would not grapple with
the matter in detail, but continued lumping in the grost. If
they would go into the details, lie had confidence that they
would be beat both by numbers and in arguntent. With re-
, }lard to the observations made respecting the Secretary to the
Commander-in. Chief, they seemed intended to disgrace him
after ha bad wasted his days and his health in the service of

the country;, but . he had full confidence that the country
would assist in repelling► the ill-founded attack. •
Mr. MABERLY could assure the Noble Lord he had no
intention of making an attack either upon the Commander-
in-Chief or his Secretary; all that he wished to do being
merely to keep the Noble Lord to the recommendations of his
own Committee. This the Noble Lord bad not done; and
it was not fair to avoid the merits of the question by throw.
ing out insinuations about " lumping," to, quote the word
from the Noble Lord's own peculiar glossary. If. the Noble
Lord would go into a Committee, be (Mr. Maberly) would
challenge him upon every item. He had not found fault
with the Commander-in-Chief. No man was more ready than
he tikwish, that not his Royal Highness only, but every public
officer who did his duty, should be paid, both in money and
its honour. If they would separate the allowances of the
Commander-in-Chief, he (Mr. Maberly) would have no ob..
jection to vote for them.

Sir JOHN SHELLEY said a few words in commendation
of the Commander-in-Chief, and in support of the original
motion.

Mr. G. BENNET defended his Hon. Friend (Mr. Hume)
from what he termed the poisoned arrows of the Marquis of
Londonderry. He contended, that the proposal to reduce the
allowance of the Commander-in-Chief cast no personal re-
flection upon him. He was quite sure ,that his Hun. Friend
had no sock intention, and joined with him in saying, that
the increase from 9 to 16 guineas, which had taken place
since 1814, was, considering the alteration which had taken
place in the value of money, too much.

The Marquis of LONDO;S;bEIIRYCid not say a word about
motives : he only thought that the proposal had s tendency to
place the Commander-in• Chief and his Secretary in an odious•
situation.

General GASCOYNE defended the original motion, and
cor.tended that the Commander-in• Chief ought to hare more,-
in consequence of the relative situatio❑ in which he stood to'
the Crown.

Lord PALMERSTON made a few remarks tending to shes
that the duty of the Secretary had increased since the peaces
in consequence of the increase of the half-pay..
Mr. CALCRAFT thought the amendment, if carried,-
would he injurious to the service at large. It was not so jd
dicious as the motions which. his Honourable Friend (Mr.,
Home) was in the habit of making, and therefore he (Mr. C.)
would feel it his duty to oppose it.
Colonel TRENCH observed, that the Staff were not better
paid than in 1793, while they had more duty.
Mr. HUME rose to reply. He had intended to cast na
stigma ow the. Commander-in Chief or his Secretary. He
thought that the Amendment Which he had proposed was of
public utility; but as the House was, he knew nut how,
against him, he mould not trouble them with a division, al-
though he would not wit hdraw his Amendment.
The Amendment was negatived without a division, the ori-
ginal motion was cart ied, and the Report ordered to be re-,
ceived on Tuesday next.
The other Orders of tht Day were then disposed of, and
the House, at Half-past Twelve, adjourned till Monday next.

• LIST OF THE MINORITY
ON MR. CREEVEY'S MOTION,
" That it be referred to a Select Committee to inquire into the
different duties intrusted to the Board for Managing the Af-
fairs of India, by whom the same are performed, and to re-
port their observations thereon to the House."
Althorp, Visct. Haldimand, W. Phillips, G. R.
Beaumont, T. W. - Hamilton, Lord A. Price, R.
Baring, Sir T. Hill; Lord Arthur Pym, F.
Barrett, S. B. M. Ilobhouse J. C. Ricardo, D.
Bennet, Hon. H. G., Hughes' IV. L. Ridley, Sir M. W.
Benyon, B. Hume, J. Robarts, A.
Bernal, Ralph Hurst R. Robarts, George
Birch, J. Hutchinson, Hon. Robinson, Sir Or. -
Brigh,-Henry C. H. Russell, R. G.
Burdett, Sir F. James, W. Rice, T. S.
Byng, George . • Johnson, Col. ' Rickford, Wm.
Boughey, Sir J. F. Lambton, J. G. Smith,
Calvert, Lennard, T. B. Smithy
Calcraft, John Lushington, S. Scfton, Earl of
Cavendish, Ld G: Leyeester, Ralph Stuart, Lord J.
Cavendish, H. Moberly, John Sykes, 1).
Cavendish, C. Moberly, W. L. Taylor, Al. A.
Coffin, Sir I. M'lntosli, Sir J. Tierney, Rt.Hn. G.
Coke, T. W. Martin, J. Tynte, C. K.
Colburne, N. R. Monk, Hon. W. Warre, J. A.
Concannon, Lucius Moore, Peter Webbe, E.
Crespigny, Sir W. Marjoribanks, S. Wharton, J.
Crompton, S. Normanby, Lord Whitbread,
Dennison, W. J. Newman' R. W. Williams,
Duncannon, Visct. Nugent, Lord Williams,
Ebrington, Visct. O'Callaghan, Col. Williams,
Ellice, Ed. Ord, Win. Wilson, Sir R.-
Fergusson, SirR.C. Ossulston, Lord Wood, Ald.
Foley, T. H. Palmer,. Col. TELLERS.
Folkestone, Visc. Palmer, C. F. Creevey, T.
Griffiths, J. W. Phillips, G. Smith, W.

The approaching Assizes for this county are
expected to be the heaviest ever known ; there
are at present nearly 200 criminals for trial,
many of whom are for capital offences.--(Kentish
Gazette.)
Letters received from Suffolk and Norfolk
state that, on the night of Thursday lust, a bar-
ley-stack was set on fire at Harlingfield and con-
sumed; and on the night of Monday last, one
stack-yard was consumed at Stonham and another
at Earl Soham. In the neighbouroood of Diss,
and also of Thetford, additional burnings are
reported to have taken place.