The Sun.
London, England, 1821-06-16 00:00:00

non. Friend. It might be so in his case, but as
he (Mr. Brougham) was of opinion tint `A- 'bard
have an influence on others, that was enough for
him.

Mr. GRENFELL objected to increase the influ-
r ence of the 'Crown in that House, but in this case
the appointment being but of a temporary nature,
I and the Honourable Gentleman being only re-
movable (when once appointed) by the House,
he should vote for the nomination of his Honour-
. able Friend.
Dr. Pitir.mmonr. thought if there ever had been
a case in which the Members of a Commission ought
to be strengthened by the authority of that House,
this of all others was that case. lie could see
nothing connected with that Commission that
should induce them to decide that the Commis-
sioners should'not be paid as in all other cases.
He was of opinion that abler persons than the
Gentlemen named to be on the Commission could
not have been selected.
Mr. BaowNr,ow thought if the sense of the
House was taken on the name of the Hon, Gen-
tleman (Mr. F. Lewis), from an apprehension
that he might be unduly influenced through sery
ing on this commission, that a division ought also
to be called for when the name of the Vice-Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade was proposed, un-
less it was assumed that he was already so bad
that he could not grow worse, wl'ich in his
opinion it would be most unjust and improper to
affirm' f any Member of that House.—(A laugh.)
—lle should have great pleasure in voting for the
appointment of the Hon. Gentleman.
Sir 1. Coretx offered a few remarks which were
not diStinctly heard in the Gallery.
Sir C. LONG defended the selection of Com-
missioners, described Mr. Lushington and Mr.
Beering to have been proved most competent by
their past gratuitous serviqes, and anticipated a
considerable diminution in the expense of collect-
ing the Revenue, and other beneficial results
from the appointment of the Commission.
Mr. A BERCROMBY Objected to Members of Par-
liament being placed on the Commissiou, as to do
this went to create a new class of Officers in that
House dependant on the influence of the Crown.
Mr. CITEEVEY thought a great deal of time had
been wasted in panegyric on his Hon. Friend.--
With his character he had nothing to do, but he
must object to the money of the Crown coming
into the pockets. of Members of that House who
were not actually in Office. In the division of
the preceding night he had counted 45 Members
who had voted who had the money of the public
in their pockets. He objected to an appointment
that went directly or indirectly to extend the in-
fluence of the Crown, by 'giving the public money
to Members of that House.
Mr. W. SMITH objected to the insertion of the
name of his Hon. Friend in the Commission. It I

was true that there was a great difference be-
tween a situation like that which it was proposed
that his lion. Friend should hold, and one from
which he might be removed by the Crown.—
Those situations from which individuals could not
be removed were more valuable than those which
were of a different charaeter, and were conse-
quently more likely to be coveted, and therefore
more likely to increase the influe.nce of those who
had them at their disposal.
Sir J. NEWPORT defen'ded the Commission,
considered the Chief Secretary of Ireland ought
by no means to be placed on it, and wishing as
he did to curtail the influence of the Crown in

that House, he could not object to its temporary
extension in this case, when he contemplated the
great benefit likely to be derived from the exer-
tions of Commissioners like those who had now
been named.

Mr. MABER LEY thought three Commissioners
would be sufficient. He was of opinion that more
ought not to be appointed than were necessary,
and would be content to ask Mr. Lustrington and
Mr. Beering, if, with the assistance of another
Commissioner, they did not conceive they should
be quite equal to the task imposed on the Com-
mission.

The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER though
:he Commission could not be better formed thai

it would be if the names which had been pro-
posed were agreed to. In naming those Gentle-
men, the Government had no object in view but
to select those who would most effectually per-
form the duty.
Mr. DENmAN called the attention of the Com-
mittee to a clause which gave the Crown the
power of filling up any vacancy that might occur
by death or otherwise. Looking at this, it would
be seen that the appointment of the Commissioners
did not rest wholly with the House. He object-
ed to the proposed appointment of the Hon. Gen-

tieman altogether.
Mr. HuTeniNsoN, though as an Irishman be
was grateful for the appointment of such a Com-
.

mission under any cirt:4mstances, said it was im-
possible for him to hesitate for one moment in
what way to give his vote. He should vote
against appointing his lion. Friend to be one of
the Commissioners, being now, as he had ever
been, anxious to diminish rather than to increase
the influence of the Crown in that House.

Mr. ABERCROMBY thought if it was not yet de-
cided what the number of the Commissioners
should be, that question ought to be disposed of
before any names were agreed to.
Mr. BROGDF.N said no number was mentioned,
but five names had been submitted to the Corn-
mittee.

Mr. MABELtLEY, on the names being read over,
moved, as an Amendment, " that the Commis-
sioners should consist of three Gentlemen to be

named."—The Committee divided :
For Mr. Maberley's Amendment
Against it -

-50

Majority - - -
An Amendment was also moved, during the
absence of strangers from the Gallery, for the
exclusion of Mr. Frankland Lewis's name, upon
which the Committee again divided :
For the Amendment
Against it -
Majority

- - 31

- - - - - 77

. ./ .. :-L46

A. Clause was agreed to, after some conversa-

tion between Mr. i:alcraft, Sir J. Newport, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Denman, Dr.
Phillimore, &c. for preventing the appointment
of any Member of the House of Commons, as a
Commissioner, i❑ case of a vacancy occurring.

sum.

Several other Clauses were then agreed to, 'and
the Report 'Was (frdered to be received on Monday.
COMMITTEE OP SUPPLY.
Ali. C. GRANT moved the Order of the Day
for going into a Committee to consider of the
Supplies for_ the service.of Ireland.
The House having gone into thl Committee,
Mr. C. GRANT and Mr. IRVING presented thew-
selves at the same time ; and Mr. LiaooDEN.,
Chairman, declared that the fornieilbentleman
first caught his eye.
Mr. Invimo said he must claim precedence, in
consequence of the situation in which he stood at
the rising of the last'Committee..
Mr. BROCIDE'N must insist upon the order, and by
it the Iton.Member had no right to claim a pre-
cedence. What took place in one Committee
was not binding upon the proceedings of another.
If. the Committee determined to bring on the
business of the Hon. Member first, undoubtedly
it was competent for it to do so; but the order
stood as he had represented it.
[Mr. GRANT'S name was called by: many
Members of the Committee.]
Mr. InviNo: was proceeding to make some re-
marks, when the Chairman called him to order.
• Mr. GRENIsELL Said, that although the Hon..
Member had no right to precedence, yet he
thought, in consideration of what passed in the
last Committee, the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
C. Grant) iyotild do well to grant it as a matter
of courtesy.. .
Mr. C. GRANT expressed •his readiness to ac-
cord with the Suggestion of the last Speaker.
Mr. IRVING thanked his Right Hon. Friend,
and then proceeded to re-state the case of Gen.
Desfourneaux. The amount of the charge arose
from the loss of eighty-four slaves and certain
property in hospitals, at the.. capture of Guada-
loupe. A coutracthad been entered into by the
French Government with the above named indi-
vidual, and it was agreed to be continued upon
the same terms by the British. This agreement
had not been fulfilled, and the loss occasioned
thereby was the cause of the present claim.
It had been' said that the great lapse of
time which had occurred before the claim was
made, was a reason why it should not be allowed.
If this were true, what Would be said to the fact
of the French Government having recently paid
oil debts to the amount of four millions, many of
which were of a much more ancient date, and of a
Similar nature to the claim of Gen. Desfourneaux.
,This conduct had retleOted the: greatest honour
upon the French' Government ; and if the Com-
mittee refusod:to agree to the present Resolu-
tion, he should feel that the character of this
country would,. greatly suffer by such a course.
The Honourable Member then read various do-
cuments in support of the claim. He concluded
by moving; " that a sum of 20,0001. 12s. 6d. be
granted :and- paid to General Etienne Desfour-
neaux,:as a compensation for losses and damages
sustained by him at the capture of Guadaloupe,
in 1791."

Mr. BANkEs objected to the grant, and con-
sidered the claim to have been one which ought
never to have been referred to a Committee. He
thought that the Right Hon. the Chancellor of
the Exchequer had afforded too much facility to
the revival of a subject which had already been
most pioperly disposed of by the decision of
himself and the Lords of the Treasury. He
could, therefore, see no foundation for the Reso-
lution, and should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. IRVING in reply, contended that the for-
mer Reports were not binding upon the House.
Mr. GRENFELL opposed the motion ; after the
decided negative which had been put upon the
claim by the Treasury, he was really surprised
that his Majesty's Ministers did not rise and
meet the present motion with indignation. If a
change had taken place in their opinions, they
should avow it, and state the reason of that
change. With every respect for the House, be
could not but avow that he thought the Treasury
a fitter tribunal for discussing the present claim
than the House. Ile therefore should move that
1,4881. be 'substituted for the original sum.
A MEMBER, whose name we could not learn,
supported the original motion, and moved that
it be allowed with interest. He thought the
claim one of the most equitable ever made on
that House.

Mr. K. DOUGLAS, in ,explanation of the con-
duct of the Committee, said, they had examined
the claims upon equitable principles, without re-
ference to the decision of the Treasury. The
Treasury, in fact, had admitted the justice of a
part of the claim ; and, under all the circum-

stances, he thought the Committee could not pos-
sibly come to a decision different from that dis-
closed by their Report.
Sir Jolts NEWPORT said it was a new doctrine
to him that the House would be guilty of a crime
in not acceding to the Report of its Committee.—
He thought the claim might have been discussed
with more advantage 'to the cause of truth had it
been brought forward at the Peace, of Amiens, in
1802; and he thought no tribunal less compe-
tent to pronounce upon such a claim than a Com-
mittee of the House. Ministers were responsible,
but a Committee of the House were not.

The CHANcELLort of the EXCHEQUER wished
the House to judge what course ought to be taken
by the English Government when the claimant

appealed froth their decision to that of his own

Court. It then became a question between na-
tion and nation, and it was not to be forgotten
that the French Government had acted with great
liberality in deciding upon British claims. It

was thought proper, under these circumstances,
to bring the question under the consideration of
Parliament. He thought the Committee had

acted with fairness and impartiality, and he trust-
ed-no Hon. Member would oppose their Report
without making himself perfect master of the

subject. For his own part, he had heard nothing
to induce him to dissent from the Report of the
committee..

Sir FRANCIS OMMtNEY opposed the original
motion, and said he should vote for the smaller

Mr. WAIHtE said, the Committee had distinctly
stated there was no written evidence of the con--
tract upon which the claimant relied. If claims

like these, at the distance of twenty-six years,

were to be allowed, .he should cease to wonler
at the expence of our wars.
Mr. Founrs rose amidst lotid cries of " Ques
tion."----;As Hon. Gentlemen had patiently
tenedd to many speeches against the claim of an
absent individual applying for justice, he trusted
they would hear a'Very few words in support of
it. The Coinatittbathad. dee', ql that thecliikk
-was Caul-Wed in equQZ,nand, ght.it.4.115T.„1
be-an imputation On the justice of the House not
to act upon it. After a few other ttbservations•
in support of the claim, the Hon. Member con-
cluded, by expressing his intention to vote for_
the original motion.
Mr. W. SMITH said he •did not agree with
either side of the House. He thought only a
small part of. the claim had been proved, but
that part he thought • should be' paid with hitt-
rest. The sum to which he considered the
claimant -to be entitled was 3,2001.
Mr. T. WILSON spoke in favour of the original
motion.
Mr. Alderman Wool) said he rarely -agreed with
the Chancellor of the Exchequer in voting pub-
lic money, but in the present case he should vote
for the larger sum. The French Government
had agreed to abide the decision of the House of
Commons, and he thought it would be dishonour-
able in the House not to act upon the Report of
its Committee.
Mr. Ilumc wished to know whether the Com,
mittee was a select or an ordinary Committee. If
it eras a Select Committee, he would vote for the
original motion.
• Mr. i HYING said it was a Select Committee.

Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and
the House divided,'when there appeared—
For the Original Motion - -
For the Amendment - -
Majority - - -
IRISH ESTIMATES.

=34

Mr. C. GRANT rose to bring forward the Irish Estimates,
but he was for some time inaudible. We understood him, how-
ever, to say, that a considerable reduction had talcen place in
the general expenditure of Ireland. The Hon. Gentleman was
aware that the reduction did not keep pace , with the general
wish on the subject; but he hoped there would be more next
year. He concluded by moving, that the sum of 20001. be
granted to defray the expence of Protestant Charter Schools in
Ireland.
MI-. HUME objected to the sum proposed. Public money
for charitable purposes, when it got, into the hands of persons,
was too often a job. The grant originally foi this institution
was considerably less than the sum now proposed, and he ex-
pressed a hope that it would at least be brought back to the
proper standard.
Mr. M=NAUGHTEN protested against the charge made by

the Hon. Member for Aberdeen, who designated the charitable

institutions of Ireland as jobs. In Dublin more distressed ob-
jects were found than in London, and it was important to have
charitable institutions. The Hon. Member was wrong in sup-
posing those institutions were mere," jobs." They were fairly

And humanely conducted.
Mr. HUME, in explanation, said he did not use the word
" job" upon his own authority. He had received a letter from
a -Noble Lord, who stated that public subscriptions for chari-
table purposes in Ireland fell short of the desired object, and
became a " job."
Several Members exclaimed—Name ! name ! •
Mr. II UNiE gave; the name of. Lord Cloncurry as the writer
of the letter.

Mr. DAWSON did not consider the letter sufficient autho-
rity to induce the House to consider all charitable Institutions
as a job. , ••• • •
The Resolution was finally agreed to. • .
The sum of 30;0001. was then voted for the expence of the
Foundling Hospital, Dublin.
For the:House of Industry, Ireland - £92,600
£960 was proposed as retired allowances to the late Governors
of the House of Industry.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT opposed the grant, on the ground
that those persons retired, and for doing nothing had more
than double the salary paid to the person who discharged the
duty.
Mr. C. GRANT expressed himself unwilling to press the
Resolution if. the House felt a disposition to resist it, and con,
sented to withdraw the motion.
He then moved that 5,5001. be granted to defray the expence
of the Lunatic Asylum.
Mr. ,HUME objected to what he considered an extraordi-
nary item in the estimate, namely, 1201. for snuff.—(A laugh.)
Mr. DAWSON said, however ludicrous the thing might ap-
pear, he knew snuff to be a source of comfort to unhappy luna-
tics, and it would be almost cruel to deprive them of it.
The resolution was agreed to.
The sum voted for the Hibernian School was - £BO,OOO
For defraying the expence of the Hibernian Marine
Society - -
For the Female Orphan House -
For the Lock Hospital, Dublin
For the support of Dr. Stevens' Hospital
For the Fever Hospital in Dublin
For the Hospital of Incurables
The sum of 64541. for the School for promoting the Know
ledge and Practice of the Christian Religion in Ireland, on being
proposed by Mr. CHARLES GRANT, Mr. S. Rick: objected
to it.

- 1,600
- - 2,400
3,600

- - • 1;400
- - 4,500
300

Mr. C. GRANT said he had not expected any objection to
this Resolution, the Institution being one which did much good.
It was conducted upon the most liberal principles ; out of 7000
scholars• half of them were Roman Catholics.

Mr. S. RICE said, the Establishment three years ago occa-
sioned an expence of 30001.;
_now it was 60001. The increase
was unaccounted for. He admitted that the Institution was
conducted on liberal principles, but it was obvious to him that
a Church of England Establishment for education, he believed,
was most injurious to the'Catholic population of Ireland. This
was,. however, a grant which might be.reduced. A.great part
of the grant was for books which . could not be circulated with-
out great danger.
Col. BARRE supported the motion. The Roman Catholic
Clergy, in many instances, had not objected to these Schools.
On-the contrary, they/fadenjoined the children to with them.
The object was not to make converts.
Mr. S. RICE read an extract from the 14th Report of the
Committee of Inquiry in Ireland, in which it was stated that no
system of education ought to be adopted in Ireland which could
interfere with religious feelings.
Mr. R. MARTIN supported the motion.
• •Mr. HUME said the Institution had taken a new character.
Sir J. NEWPORT supported the objections of his Hon.
Friend (Mr. Hume). 'He did not doubt that the statement
made by the 'Hon. alember opposite (Colonel Barre) respecting
these schools, was perfectly correct, as far as they had come
under his supervision. But it did not follow, that because he
had not been witness of it, there were not some parishes where
the interference stated by his Hon. Friend was not objected to.
Mr. HUME stated that lie should not oppose the vote on the
present occasion, but if it were not reduced one half next year
he certainly should.
The vote was then agreed to ; and after another of 10,7001.
for the Green Coat Hospital at Cork had been agreed to, the
Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on
Monday.
Mr. GORDON gave notice, on behalf of an Hon. Friend,
then absent (Mr. Grenfell), that it was his intention, on Mon-
day, to take the smse of the House on the grant of 20,0001. to
Geneeal Desfourneaux.

Mr. HUME asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether
it was his intention to persevere in a vote of 50,0001. to the poor
Clergy ? If so, he should oppose it in every stage, and take the
sense of the House upon it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER declared his
intention of persevering in this vote.
Sjr.J. NEWPORT gave notice, that he should early in the
next Session move for a Committee to inquire into the appro-
priation of certain funds granted by Queen Anne for the ap-
pointment of Hospitals in England and Ireland,
DUKE- OF CLARENCE.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in answer to
a question from Mr. Hume, fixed Monday next for bringing up
the Report on the Grant to the Duke of Clarence.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, and the
House adjourned at HALF PAST ONE,