The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-25 00:00:00

HUSH BUDGET.

Mr. FOSTER gave notice that he should to-inor-
row, in the Comtnittee of Supply, bring forward the
Irish Budget.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT observed, that the Catholic
Quesiion.stood for to-morrow, and hoped the Right
Hon. Gentleman would not bring the Budget on.
Mr. FOSTER declined to give notice for another
day. •
_ _

The House then resolved itself into a Committee
on the Howth Harb6ur

Sir J. NEWPORT urged the necessity of granting
compensalion to the individuals who would be in-
jured by_the measure.

Mr.. CROKEE was very desirous that the fullest
compensation shonldbe made; but contended, that
that compensation ought to be calculated oh the
present value of the land, and not on the value to
which it might be• raised by the 'proposed improve-
ments. He wished however, again to state, that
he thought that in this case as in all otliers'of a
similar nature, the owner of theland ought to have
a fair; libetal-,and even ample' considerwion for his
,property. •
• After a few words from Mr. FOSTER, the House
resumed, ;middle report was ordeled to be_n-xciled
to-morrow.

Mr. Rost: brought in 'a Bili for regulating Ate
Duties on Coffee and Sugar in the Island of Gudda,
loupe. Wad a first time, and ordered to be read a
second time to,tnorrbw.

A Message from 'the . Lords announced, that.
their .Lordships had
,agreed to silo Foreign Linen
Bill..

Lord PORCHESTER obtained leave to bring in a
Bill for the better preservation-of Black game in
England.

the Bill for regulating the Office of Registrar of
'the-Admiralty and Prize CoUrts was read a first time;
to be read a second time to-morrow. •

-
•- SIR GEORGE SH,ET. -
Sir JOHN NEWPORT rose to call the attention of •
the House to the case of 'Sir George. Shee. The
Right Hon. Baroiiet stated, that in the 35th year.of
the:King it was thought expedient to new model.
the Treasury of Ireland, arid' to .putit on a footing
with that, of England. Several offices were extin,
guished, and regulations were adopted to provide
that the A& should be carried into eflec.:l; Arnotig the
offices abolished, it was dire&ed that the office of
Receiver-General should .cerise to exist, and the
duties were vested in the Recelver-General of the
Customs, and it was provided that a comeensation
30001. per annum, for life, should be given to the
Right Hon. Theophilus Clement, the then Receiver
General: The. Right Hon. Baronet.then referred to
the various clauses of the Ael, to shew that in no
part of the at there was recognition of fees to be
taken by the officer alluded to. In I 802, b.y letters
patent; Sir George Shee was appointed to hold the
Office of Receiver-General of the Customs, on the
demise of, Sir Henry Cavendish, .with a salary of.
10091. per annum. Now the act expressly meant
in' spirit, the 'office should rot be given in reVersion,
but mercy held during pleasure. In 1804, Sir
Henry Cavendish, Alen Receiver-General, diedkand
Sir G. Shee succeeded him. In 1808, his Majesty's
Government granted to thiis Officer the sum of
3,7651-in lieu of the fees of office. He contended
that this' was a dire& violation of the ACt. And he
then tutther noted that a sum of 1,9001, was paid
to Sir George Shee, of which sum 6001. was divided
among his Clerks. For tilde reasons he should submit
three Resolutions, censuring the conduct of -Govern-
ment, and concluded w ith moving one of the Reso-
lutions to the following effect • -
" 't'lot the conduct of the Irish Government was highly re-
rirehetisible in respect to the allowances to Sir Get:age Slice;
th.it if compensation. was due to him, they ought to'have app 1
plied to Parliament for power to grant these sums."
Mr. WELI.RiLEY 'POLE said, that he felt some
difficulty as to the made in which he should address
the House upon this occasion, because i.t 'appeared
to, him.that this accusation was not more against the
present Government than against the one which
granted the 'reversion to Sit Georcre Shee. He. should
.however content himself with giving the best infor-
mation he could 'to the House upon this subje&,
which the Right Hon, .Baronet. appeared to him to
'have very considerably misrepresented. 'From the
manner in which the Right Hon. Baronet !fad stated
the case, the HOuse 'must have supposed that- Sir
George Shee had only 10001. a year for this office,
and that he was entitled to. no' other profit o emo-
'lament whatever. The House, therefore, would
be surprised when he stated, that.there were erne.-
lunnents which attached to that office from The very
moment that. the ,A 6.1 passed, to regulate it, which
amounted to above 50001. a year, and that' tlfate
emoluments must haie been in the contemplation
of Parlianient when they passed the, Act.' That the
nature and extent 'of these emoluments must have
been known to GoVernthent, and to Sir H. Caven-
dish; who -held the office before Sir G. Sher, :is
obvious, from the circumstance of Sir Henry having
given up a place of ho responsibility,- with a salary
of 1,2001. a year, to accept this office, which was
One of great responsibility, with a:salary -of 10001.
a year. This was a strong proet that it was,under-,
stood both by Government and by him, that there
must have been just and fair emoluments attached' to
the office 'besides the salary.. The. Act of Parlia•-
inetit which regulated this office, enatted, that the
Receiver-General should Pay-weekly, on every_ Fri-
day, all the monies' weich came into his hinds, to
-the, Teller of the Exchequer. Sir H. Cavendish
a6ted in stri& confor.mity to this ACS of Pa. ti anent;
but heeertainly did derive considerable emolument'
from the money remaining in his han.'s for fire days
I each week ; he derived not less Clan 2,260.1. a year
from this source. The. °the? source ffem which
_the emoluments of this office were derived was a
percentage upon all Bills which were transmitted to
him by the Colleaors of the Revenue; The Col-
. lettors were allowed to transmit Bills at thirty days
date, and the Receiver-General had a per ce:tage
,of one-fourth per cent. for his trouble respeaing

those b:lis : from this source the Receiver-General's
emolument amounted to 2,7401. a year._ This was
the -state of the ,office when Sir H. Cavendish held
it. He now came to the ease of Sir George Shee,
to whom the reversion of the office wa, granted in
1801. The paterit by which the reversion was
granted to him stated, that he should enjoy all the
privileges_and einoluments of the office in as full a
Manner as Sir H. Cavendish, and, as he had already
Stated, it was known at that time to the Irish a'ncl
English Government 9", and indeed to every body;
that the emoluments which he had mentioned were
attached to that office.: If it had happened that the
regulation of his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Foster).
had not taken away these' sources of emolument
from this office, Sir 'George Shee would have been
as Clearly entitled to compensation as any one officer
of the Customs who had received compensation. By
this regulation. his Right Honourable Friend (Mr.
-Foster), at one stroke of his, pen, deprived Sir G.
iree of both these sources of emolument, and re-
duced his office from Otto!. to Wool. a year. Now
be begged leave to contend that it was an established,
case, that when by any regulation the emoluments
of a patent place were taken away, the person
holding .tlie office had always
.been considered as
entitled to comperisation... There were innumerable
cases, which he • might quote upon this subjea, but

there was one. which particularly occurred to.him,
and 'that was the case of the aemembrancer ,of the
Court of Exchequer in Ireland, a part of whose
emolument was derived from the. advantage he
made by the use of the Suitors money.: It was
thought proper to deprive him of this source of emo-
lument, but he received a compensation for it. The
Yoble Lord, hiS relation, who now held the office
of Remembrancer, .did not receWe the covnpensa-
Lion, beauset the regulation by which the emo-
lutnents had been diminished, was made before he

teeeiked lee reversion of the 6th6e; then §IF
H. Cavendish diedihis Right Hdrinit'iable Fris3nd
(Mr. Foster), then Chancellor. of the ticireeneti
found that there was a birlance Of hetWeeh two and
three hundred thousand pounds iii the hands Of Sit
Henry's, executors; and he 'determined to pi-nisei-it
such a circumstance from occurring again; and lid
made the regulation, by which; as he said before;
he at once took away all the etnolunients- of thid
office. In. doing this, 'be confessed it appeared td
him that his
.Right Hon. Friend had a little strait-6d
the law for thepublic service. He depriVed the Re;
ceiver-General of the profit which he used to make
of_ the public money remaining in his hands for five
days in the week, and at the same time he took
away from him the 4 per cent. upoh all billspssing
through his' hand ; so that 50001. a year was at
once taken from Sir George Shee,ranal his office re;•
duce& to 10001. a year. Now whether the Irish,
Government did right by granting'sonle Compenaa•:'
lion to Sir George Shee fig this loss, it was-for the.'
House to determine; but certainly this was a very
different case from that which the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had stated to the House.' He hoped he hail-stud
enough to convince the House-that the ease of Sir
George Shee was one that fairly called for the con
sideratien of Government. The Right Hon:Baronet
had ssid, that: he would not enter into the consider-
ation-of the:question, whether :the salary of 10001.
a year was enough for an office of such twat and
responsibili'Y as that of Receiver-General ;.- but he
begged to quote tothe Right Hon. Baru:Jet an-au=
thorny -which he was sure he would tespett, viz.
that of the-Commissioners of Inquiry, who- had de•
elated their opioion that the'salary of 10601. a year
was not endugh for such an office.- Sir George Shee
had presented a memorial to the Commissionersi
setting forth the particArres of his case, and if his
claini fOr remuneration had been so turfonadel .
the' Right Hoti. Baronet-had contended, the Com-
missioners would have said so in their Repori
they merely stated, that they did-not feel thein3
selves at liberty to enter into the consideration of
his claim to remuneratiot,, because the transaction
took place before they commented their (Ake, but
they expressed an opinion that the salary was not
adequate to the office. Sir George Shee, under the
circumstances which he had already stated, applied
to the Irish Government for some remuneration,
and upon a_ full consideratien of his case, it was
thought right to grata him an addition of 12001. a
-year, and MI. for his Clerks, making altogether
13001. a year. The Right Hon. Baronet had repre-
sented the sum which had been granted to 'Sit
George Shee as having been granted contrary to all
law and justice; but the ikuse, must see, that if
Sir George -was entitled to any compensation at all,
he was entitled to it from the very hoar that the
emoluments were taken from birri.s. The Right
Hon. Baronet, in bringing forward this charge, had
not ;accused 'the Irish Government of aniu-
ated by any, corrupt motive ; but when such accua
satioes as the present' were brought forWarel,,the
'public would be apt to susped improper notiveS,
unless such imputations were distinctly rebutted.
t Fie therelore thought it right to state most distinetly
• that there was.no connection whatever,'
_political. or
otherwise, between Si'r George Shee and thelrish
Government; on the contrary, he was one of that
bright constellation knoWn by the narue of the
Talents, ,and 'held an office in their adMiaistration.
But he came to the present Irish Governmerit with
a plain open
,staternen4 they took hits case into .
their consideration, without affedion car without
prej 'dice, and upon an impartial view of the subject,
granted him the' remuneration which had been
,stated. The Right Hon. Baronet hod insinuated
that this transaction had been found out by acci-'
dent, and that there had -been a wish to keep it font
the public view. But did the Right Hon. Baronet
really Suppose
.that they were so young as to um.
gine that these incidents would not cOme.before
Parliament ? Did' the 'Right Hon. Barnet suppose
that his feireting disposition was so little known;
that the Irish Government could have believed that
this transaction 'would have escaped his notice ?
Why the Right Hon. Baronet was never so happy as
when he could start ary garde of this kind ; he was
qui,e delighted- when ii. -could bolt such a case as
this. It was absurd, therefore, to suppose t' at the
Irish GOvernment wished casiexpected .tO keep it a
secret. It had been said that the Irish Government
ought to haVe come to. Parliament to have this re-
muneration granted. What was the reason why
his brother (Lord Welliegton), who was- in office
when this traiisadion took place, did- not ' come to
Parliament,,he did not know; but the reason why
he (Mr. W. Pole) would not have applied to Par-
: liatneot was thi-, that 1)37 obtaining art of Par-
liament for this remuneration, 'a perpetual expence
would .have been entailed-upon the con ary, whereas
by the,mode adopted, the expencit would only last
during the 'life of Str George Sa.ee, who was the
;suffering person. If the office of Receiver-General_
-fell vacant while he had the honour of . advising the
Lotd Lieutenant, he should not recommend any in-
-crease of the salary, for he was quite sure he could
"find persons in every respell qualified to till that
• office for the salary of 10001. a year. He was so
sanguine as to hope that he bad now -stated enough
to satisfy the House &hot it ought not to agree with
'the Right Hon. Baronet's inotien, and lie should
not trespass any longer 'upon the Hjuse, if the
Right. Honourable Baronet had not, 'when he
brought this subject forward upon-; former night,
made an attack upon his brother, (Lord
ton) as unjust as illiberal, and as uniair an -attack as
ever was made in that House. The 'Right Hari.
Baronet had indeed admitted that, Lord._ Wellington_
-"was a-gallant soldier, but he had represented him
as a-person who had no ideadf the value of money ;
in short, be had represented.'birn as one of the
most profuse and extravagant dogs that ever existed,
and the Right_ Hon. Baronet had declared that he
Would bring-forward a great number of cases to
support his charges, which would call -for the ani-
madversion- of Parliament. '-One of the cases which
the Right Hon. Baronet had mentioned was,- that
! the Irish Government had expended 120,0001: for
making docks, anti building stores in Dublin.—

, Now r. 'would-state the plain fad. These works
had been undertaken in conhequence of a letter, in
the. year 1806, from the Comrnis4ioners'of Excise
\_to Mr. Secretary Elliot, representing, the necessity

of an additional dock, btcause thi dock the.. ex-

• isting only held 26 ships, and the at erage nurnb:lr
of .vessels in the river was bet u een 4 and 500 ;
and also additional storehouses, becauie the Custom-

r

Ist: stores were kept in no less than 83 different
Inidings,- situated in 26 different .streets : these
dings were mostly hiretriroin Merchants, and
cost Government not less than L6,0001..a year.
The House therefore would judge whether, under
these circumstances, it :was or was nOt.expedient
that these works should be constructed. -In point
of fact, however, Lord Wellington did-not carry
this, measure into effeet, for when he (Mr. Pole)
went to. Ireland; he found it was not eompleted,
and be . put the finishing hand tl it. Another
charge which the Honourable Baronet had brought
forward was, that the Irish Government had
superannuated officers, and afterwards employ-
ed . them in England upon full salaries.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT here spoke to 'order, and said,
thatalthough he did not -object to the Right Hon.

I,:eirtlemangoing into an explanation respecting Lord
- 'Wellington, yet he should object to-his draw ing the
•tient'on of the House fi-orn the subject before it;
6). going into other cases.
Mr. W. POLE said be would not trouble the
,' :t louse Any more-at present, but he gave the Right
. . f!. [on. Baronet notice, that if he did not come forward
•Ind substantiate his charges, he should 'consider
.:.em, and the House would consider them, as un-
;rounded. The Right Hen. Baronet had preferred
lecusations ; if he shrunk frJm the investigation of
ii hem, the inferende would be obvious. ,
(
Mr. CAVENDiSH BRADSHAW explained the man-
-- ..ier in which the balances rernaining• in the hands
[ ' .if Sir Henry Cavendish, at the time of his death,
had been paid into the Public Treasury.
Mr. FOSTER, Mr. W. POLE, and Mr. CROKER,
bore testimony to the exemplary conduct of the
relatii-es of Sir Henry Cavendi-h on that occasion.
• Mr.. W. SMITH reprobated the
,praelice of leaving
such large balances in the hands of public officers.
Mr. BANKES could not conceive what claim Sir
George Shee had to the compedsation given him.
When Lord Kenyon was Attorney-General, be had
J ;aid in that House, not only that a public officer
ought not to have any longer public balances in his
_ possession, but that he should be compelled to pay
interest for the time which it bad remained in his
I hands. This he thought would be too hard, but be
did conceive that stack balances ought to be forth-
, coming the moment they were required. He cen-
-stared the disposition which had long prevailed in
the various Irish -Governments to show a solicitude
for private, and a disregard for public interests, and
reprobated the general praCtice of considering rather
tile advantages of
.individuals in the appointment to
official situations, rather than the-advantage of the
1 ' State. The present appeared to him to be a very
flagrant case, on which the House ought to pro-,
. pounce their opinion, and he should therefore tote
. • - for the resolutions of the Hon. Baronet.
The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER remon-
strated against the general censure of his Honour-
able Friend. ln the conduct of the liish Govern-
ment towards Sir George Slice,- they had proceeded
upon long established principles. If those princi-.
plea were to be abolished, at least due notice ought
11 .:., to be given. Sir George Slice was a political adver-
sary of the present Government. It was impossible
therefore to impute the condo& of Government- to'-
t . winds liim...to any improper motive. Rei,erting to'
his Hon. Friend's sweeping accusation- of pubic
men, and lira declaration of the manner in which
sit uations of public trust were conferred,, he dis-
claimed tor himself any share o( such a general im-
putation, and recommended to his Hon. Friend, if
I\. be bad an speCific charge to produee,_ to brief; it
[
forward openly-and without hesitation. ,
Mr, BANKES explained.
Air. H. THORNTON, while he allowed that' the
law was liable to a different construction, was yet of
opinion that no compensation _ought to have been
-- ' granted. , . .
Mr. FOSTER contended, that the compensation was
granted to Sir Geolge Slice, not for taking away the
balances, but fur the per tentage of one per cent.
which (by usage, though not by law), be bad re-
ceived Irian? the Collectors on !the transmission of
their balances. . - .-
Mr. G. JOHNSTON considered the case 'as little
satisfaaory as- any ,he had ever heard, and' was
deeply 'concerned to hear it defended as it had
been by his Right Hon: Friend the Chancellor of
the Exchequer.
Mr. W. FurzoEra ere -although he did not
profess himself to be ti,e apologist of the Govern-
meats of Ireland, justified the measure under con-

11 siclerationi' •
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL denied that all Receiv-
ers General who made use of the Public money in
i transitu, were consequently criminal. If they were,
[ there was not a Receiver-Geneial in the kingdom
who had not offended. • :

-Mr. MARIOTT allowed that the use of the Pub-
' lie Balances had been, and, perhaps, must be per-
mitted to those in whose hands they lay; but no

1. man had, in his opinion, a right to and com-
pensation for being deprived of such permission.—
He .should support the motion of the Honourable

Baronet.

Mr. LONG asserted,. that there was not any
gafity in the use which had been made a the Ba-
lances.' Although he did not contend for the pro-
ptiety of the practice, yet it was well knowri,that it
had been generally recognized.
Mr. WILB4RFORCE thought Government- ought
• - riot to be censured for giving compensation for loss
at emolument. His Right Hon. Friend appeared to
have been justified in giving the remuneration he
had given to Sir G. Shee.
. Mr. BARHAM contended that 'no compensation
ought to have been given. An understanding miiht
exist between an Officdr and-his Colledtor (he would
not
.say it had been so in the cgse of Sir G. Shee)
by whom the money- was paid to Government.--
Under all the circumstances he was of opinion no
just claim to compensation existed, in the case before
- the House.
•
Sir G. HILL stated `the emoluments for which the
, compensation was given to be fair emoluments, and
therefore the loss. of them constituted a just claim
to compensation.
Sir J. NEwrioser, in reply, asserted, the system
I contended for went to enrich the Colleaors at the
,*) uxpence of the Public. If compensation' had ap-
t },6;t_ed due to Sir G. Shee, his Majesty's Ministdrs
...mg,ht to have come down to Parliatnent and stated
1 tii,,t fad to the House. It had been stated, that
ruing to Parliament would have made it a perma-

nent charge on the Public.. Saying that, a stigma
was unjustly cast on the House, as they would not
have matte the grant permanent, unless .it appeared
to be deserved. He had 'been, said to be- very nice
in sifting out such things. While .he sat in that
House,, he should ever think it his duty, as a guar-
Plian of the public purse, to bring forward any
abuses to which his attention might be dire6ted. It
had been said, that. Sir G. Shee was not a political
friend of the present administration, but it should
be remembered, that were .such things as prece-
dents, and Ministers might find it convenient to make
a precedent. of such a nature, whatever the circum-
stances of the case might be, it was, in his opinion;
the duty of Mini-ters -to go
.down .to that House,
state the whole, and obtain .the san6tion of Parlia-
ment to the measure they wished to adopt.

The House divided, when the numbers were,

Ayes - - - '4B
Noes - - - . 99
Majority - —5l
THE BUDGET.

On the Report of the Committee of Ways arid
Means being brought up,
Mr. TIEfiNEY rose to übjea to its being received.
He knew he was taking an unpopular side of the
question: It was said the Opposition wete disap-
pointed at, finding the Chancellor of the Exchequer
proposed laying on no new taxes, and were dis-
posed to harass Ministers on that account. He did
not oppose the Chancellor of the. Exchequer betause
he laid on no new taxes, but because, to avoid - it,
he resorted to a new sysiem—a system never heard
of before, without giving good and sufficient reasons
for so doing. The project of the 'Chancellor of the
Exchequer was, that 980,0001. for the, service of
this year, should be charged on the Consolidated
Fund. The grounds on which he had defended this
plan were, that having in 1808 laid on taxes •which
produced,up wards of 1,200;0001. instead of 106,0001,
which they were expected to produce, he.thought
he had a right to apply the surplus to the service of
this year. The Right Honourable Gentleman, it
was true, had called the attention of the House to
the subject in a particular manner, and desired them
to exmiue and criticise it as it might deserve; This
was what he wished to do. Whatever. trenched
upon the Consolidated Fund was at war with the
principle' of raising as large a sum as possible within
the present year. That principle had been approved
of by Mr. Pitt, Mr. Addington, and Lord • Henry
Petty, and' it remained for the present Chancellor of
the Exchequer to break in upon it, The conse-
quences of such an innovation might be of a serious
nature. So averse was Mr. Addington to impover-
ishing the Consolidated Fund, that in 1802, rather
than -do it, he laid on new taxes ; and the-date Ad-
ministration, rather than trench on that fund, had in-
curred the unpopularity of raising the Property Tax
from six and a fourth to ten .per cent. The Conso-
lidated Fund was established by Mr. Pitt in 1786,
and it did- him great credit.. In all his difficulties,
and they were very. great, he never laid violent hands
on the Consolidated Fund, but resorted to any,ex-
pediait io preserve that inviolate. He .(Mr. T) did-
not know whether the surplus of the Consolidated
Fund amounted to four, five, or six millions ; but
the surplus should every year bear some proportion
to the taxation, It, in. 1792, the surplus amounted to
two millions and a-half, it-.was not .extravagant now
to exped it would be five millions. Of this he had
ticr- Very sanguine expeetations. He • begged the
.House 10 bear in wind that the produce of the taxes
which now, swelled the Consolidation Fund would
not be so, great in times of peace. He thought it
his duty to implore the Houie to considerwhat
they did, before they by any ad:diminished the Con-
solidated Fund. He would take a view of the last
five years, and .see how it stood; In 1805 and 6
there were real and. efficient taxes laid on. In 1807,
8, and -9, there were hardly any. . The charges on
the Consolidated Fund in those five years amounted
to 5,732,0001. The produce of the taxes to meet
those charges was -6,437,5001. leaving a surplus of
no more than 706,0001: But it might be said, why
did he selea tlioseyears ? He was willing, to take
from the het-rimming of the war, but- from a paper
before the House it appeared there was a deficiency
of 314,0001._ in the years 1805 and 6. To make
good that deficiency, they were obliged to go to the
surplus of 1808, sa that taking 790,0001. from the
Consolidated Fund, as proposed by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, it would be found there was but a
surplus of 706,0001. to meet this new charge. From
the establishment of the Fund in 1786, there never
before was so low an excess of taxes carried to the
Fund in five years. If he were to take the state of
the Consolidated Fund from 1802, the surplus would
be 1,287,0001. From this, deducting 970,0001. as
proposed by the Chancellor of the- Exchequer, the
'total of the remaining surplus would be 317,0001.
To such a .proposition he thought no rational man
could agree, as it was evident the Consolidated Fund
,could not bear the charge. Every Loan Bill bad a
clause charging the payment of the loan on the Con-
solidated Fund, thus giving security to the lenders
one that Fund: The projeet of the ChancelloV of
the Exchequer, he- contended, went to evade the
26th of his-present Majesty, and place the Sinking
Fund in jeopardy. A variety of other evils N'vould
arise from entertaining the projea, of the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer. If the whole surplus arose'
from taxes laid on,by the Chancellor' of the Exche-
Tier, he would not admit that he had a right so to
draw on the Consolidated Fund, though) in that
case, he would have a shew of reason on his side,
which, in the present instance was wanting.' As a
man, he would refer the subjea to the Chancellor
of the Exchequer himself; and if he did not come
down (as a Member of Parliament) and say the
'Chancellor of the Ekcehquer ought rather to lay
on taxes to the amount of 750,0001. he (Mr. T.) was
as much mistaken as ever he was in his life. He
(lid not wish that new taxes should be laid on, he
wished some othermeans of meeting the exigencies
of the case might be devised; should some other plan
be proposed, though it might not meet with his en-
tire approbation, he promised the Right Hon. Gent.
that he would not harass him with useless opposi-
tion. He then went on to censure the proposed
plan, which he condemned in terms of strong re-
probation. He was not placed in a pleasant situa-
tion, when he differed with the Chancellor of. the
'Exchequer in not imposing new taxes. The Right
Hon. Gentleman h4l done nothing ; he had com-
pletely lived On the last Administration. The whole

of bil taxes produced only'32o,oooL it Was 'not Up--
re'a',onatire to ask what he had done in the space of
almost four years. He had been num fortunate,
but at the same time was fatally extravagant. Be-
fore the Bill was adopted, he implored the House to
consider maturely every- circumstance and every
obje6tion he had urged. -
Mr. nose observed, that the Right Hon. Gentle-
man had totally misconceived the statements of his
Right. Hon. Friend. The sum of 1,200,0001. partly
arose from the new and partly from the oil taxes.
There was• beside an augmentation on duties of
20,0001. Na one net deficiencies with more firm-
ness and resolution than Mr. Addingtoe did, parti-
cularly in- 1802, when beimpOsed nevrtaxes. It
was the duty of Ministers. to•prepare for the worst.
If they were to take the War Taxes, he asked, could
it not be learned, by a simple computation, how
short a way they- would go ? Retrenchment should
certainly be niade, but then it ought to be consist-
ent with the safety of the country. The Right Hon.
Gentleman said that the Minister had broken the
system established by Mr. Pitt. On the•contrary,
he was-convinced that he would have aeted in the
same way, which assertion was corroborated by the
last conversation he had with him, which was on
that shble6l.
Mr. TIERNEY, in explanation, stated, that he did
not say that he approved of taking -the 'War
Taxes.

Mr. Hu§Kissom agreed in the arguments of the
Hon. Gentleman. He was convinced that the sal-
vation of the country depended on the retrenchment
of establishments, and on making exertions to bring
the loan of the year within the Sinking Fund. On
061ober i nth, 1808, the amount of the duties on
stamps was 33,0001. which in the next.year increas-
ed to menormousoool..an enormous difference, and in the
course of e years there was. a flUauation in the Con-
solidated Fund of 4 millions. The Hon. Gentleman
then entered 'into a clelail of Financial. difficulties,
ftotn the year 1797 to 1810. He wished to see the
amount of the Wan and the Sinking Fnnd equaliled ;
the proportion the surplus of the Consolidated Fund
bore to the whole ought to be looked into. He
hoped the House would allow that there was a ma-
terial difference, between improvement and taxa-,
Lion. .

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared he
never rose with more confidence to justify the eon-
duet of any measure than he slid on the present oc-
casion ; 'and indeed he felt in his mind the strongest
convi&ion that if his illustrious and lamented friend;
was now to stand_in- the place he sannlvorihily
he would have availed himself of the expedient he
had resorted to. When theißight Hon. Gentleman
said that he had varied from the principles of Mr.
Addington, that he had, violated the Sinking Fund,
he was totally unfounded in such assertions. He
would assure the Right Honourable Gentleman that
when he stated that he had atied contrary to the
pra&ices of Mr. Addington, and Mr. Pitt, he did
not recoiled that he was in a situation in which they
never Were, and this he would confidently main-
tain. ,Before he proceeded, he wished to make a
few observations on what had fallen ; so far from
thinking the Right Hon. Gentleman hostile to his
measure, he did not blatne the challenge he had
thrown out ; the situation. of the country had been
,adverted to; lie was certain it was not the-intention
Qf his Hon. Friend (Mr. Huskisson) to create a gloom
iu the mind of the' liouse and of the country, be
was confident it was not, his view, but unfortunately
his assertions bad that effed, and had produced
in the public mind 'the idea, that from the state
of our
.Firlance, we were not able to carry on the
war; however, it must be obvious, even from
Are enunitTrition ,of various difficulties, that such
a circumstance was impossible. It had been stated
.that the Excise duty was ovpressive to manufa6ture,
but this was falsified by the state of trade, which on
the
.contrary exhibited a great increase and pro- •
gress ; nothing thereiore.eould justify this observa-
tion, The Right Hon.. Gentleman opposite as-
sumed as a principle, that it is the object of Mini-
sters to . look, to the increase of the Consolidated
Fund. In this he was not right. He begged the
House to attend to the progress of Finance which he
would now bring. before them ; and he trusted and
anticipated that the difference between his situation
and. that et Mr. Addington and Mr. Pitt; would ap-
pear manifest., In the year 1792, the per cents.
were g 6 and a fratlion in the. next year, 1793,
they came down to 77i; shortly afterthe war broke
out they then were 75, and at the end of the year
were 74. The ensuing year they were 73i; in
1795, they fell so low,as 65; they rose for a short
time, but in the year 1797 they were 55, and in
1798, 451. When . Mr. Pitt, found this to be the
state cif the Fund he was obliged to borrow at the
rate of 100 per cent. EVen with this he found it
impossible to proeeed as his means were so reduced.
The year 1797 was the first of the progress of the
Income Tax; from that time the price of Stocks in-
creased ; and in the year 1801 they were at 621.
Having raised the Income Tax, Mr. Pitt charged on
it the loan of the year. When Mr. Addington
succeeded, he got fifty-seven millions on the In-
come Tax'. The manner he acted with respe&
to. the 'War Taxes, was but following the ex-
ample and the pra&ices of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Ad-
dington in 1802, met the great debt of 57 millions;
he laid on new taxes, and in 1803 the 3 per cents.
were'at 73 and a fraction. The war follow4d, in
1804 the 3 per cents. had fallen to 56 ; would then
Mr. Addington . have done 'wisely if lie had riot
adopted the principles of Mr. Pitt ? In 1804, 5,
the Stocks were at 59, in 1806, at Go, in 1807,
Go and a fra&ion, and that was the state in which
they were found when the present Administration
commenced ; in the course of three years they have
increased to 701; yesterday he believed they were
72; yet he was supposed to aCI,on a contrary prin-
ciple to Mr. Pitt. - This statement must shew dis-
tinctly the difference of their situation. To the
manner in which Lord Sidmouth met hiS difficulties
he bore the highest testimony. It was said that he
had departed from the line of conthact which was.
pursued by the Noble Lord who preceded him';
the proposition however was different, from 'the re-
solution of the Noble Lord which had been entered
on the Journals. If he thought that the Consoli-
dated Fund was to be nourished in time Of. war, .4,e
most have been absent from the House wheti the
resolution, was passed. On the contrary, he went

to the establishment of 1. principle reatonably
able fcir the service of future years ; such 'was the
principle 'of the resolution of the • Noble Lord
in 1807, which was, that there shoUld be laid before
the House the net amount of the prodtice of-the
taxes df the three preceding years) and then tlise
necessary for the three ensuing. If do increas.e.vhis
found, it slionld be aPplicable to the burden of the.
new loan. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman
.411 hi•
tam that the-Noble Lord did not %vislytheszrprus .41
the Consolidated Fund to be touched,,wiren in
resolution he approved-of doing so Wds anxi-
ous till he heard- how such extremes could be re'
conciled ; and he was persuaded Parliament WdUld
not refuse its sanction' to a measure, Which, 'while
it viointed no principle, provided lit't the publia,.
exigeni.e~y without any increase or taxatioii upon the
people,
Mr. 'TIERNEY replied. •
Mr.:BA'iIIURST was disposed to vote for the till,
The House then divided-4.
_ • Ayes
Noes

xr7
Majority • - 7--64
The'other Orders were disposed of, and at Half-,
past Two o'Clock this
,Morning_ the House ad-
pump&
*** Ili our Report of yesterday, the Division on Mr. Bas.-
tard's )tion for referring to a Committee flie Innkeepers' •
Petition• for an Increase of their Rates of Allowance did' itc4,
appear. - -On dividing, the numbers were—Ayes, i9—Noes,
29 —Malt, ?City, to.

A woman 'who lives in St. George's Fields was
appreli: nded by Collingbourn, and the Beddl,e
Castle :Baynard Ward, on a chaige of cruelty tw•
wards h er daughter, a child of seven fears of age.
The sots of Mrs. Brownrigg, of notorious memory.
fade, o n compatistin with those exercised on the
person i)f this unforttinate infant, who at present
lies in Sir. Bartholomew's Hospital, in a very danger-
ous stmt.. The child was abmdoned on. Sunday
.evening last; in Castle Baynard Ward, after having
been criuelly beaten by its unnatural parent. To
offence having been committed in the City, the
prisonei IA as taken by Collingbourn before Mr.
Aldermi;n Goodbehere, at Guildhall, when Mr-
tart,. a' Surgeon -belonging to St. Bartholomew's
, and several respectable witnesses
examined,„ Were
whO described the shocking state in
which tile infant: at at present lies. The prisoner was
remanded for, future examination..

On Friday last, at the house of her Ladyship's mother,
Mrs. Hey's, Upper SUnbury-Lodge, the Lady eit the' Right
Hon. Lord Viscount Tumour, of a Son and Heir.
Oh Wednesday, in Monument-yard, the wife of 'the Rev.
Robert. Q.rosby, of a Daughter.
Yesterday morning., the Lady of Lieutenant-Colonel Win.
tnue•Wrnard, of the Coldstream Regiment Of Foot Guards,
of twins, •

MARRI/D,
On Ttiesday last, at Croydon, William Taylor, Esq. of
Cheshunit, Herts, to Miss Nary Ann Westerman, of Croy-.
don, Surirey,
On Wednesday last, at St. Andrew's, Holborn, Mr. Henry
Walker, of New Ormond-street, son of the late Marshall of
the King's Bench, to Miss Olivia Brooks, of Millman-street.
Yestertlay, by special license, in St. Mary le. bonne Church,
Baron 1)4: Roll, Colonel of a Swiss Regiment in His Majes=
ty's.service, to Miss Pate, of Epsom, Surrey, daughter of
the late %Valiant Pate,- Esq. of the same place:
The sane day, at St. George's, Bloomsbury, the Rev.
George Nowell Watkins, of Froyle' Hants, to Mary, the
youngest klaughter of Thomas Aston, Esq. of Bedford. place,
Russel I luare. • -