The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-23 00:00:00

'SHIPPING TRADE.

It was ordered, on the motion of Mr. BELL, that
there be laid before the House an account of the
number of Shipping engaged in 1826, 1827, and
1826, in the trade between Canada, New Bruns-
wick, and the United Kingdom, stating the amount
of their tonnage.

Mr. R. HILL presented a petition from the Iron
Masters of Shropshire, praying that the trade with
India might be opened.
After a few words from Mr. C. PELHAM, the
petition xvai; laid on the table.
Mr. W. WYNN presented a petition from the
Tradesmen of Oswestry (county of Salop), praying
the enactment of a Bill for the better Recovery of
Small Debts.

Mr. BUCK presented a petition from a parish in
Nottingham, complaining of the excessive pressure
of the Poor's Rata.

Mr. HOULDSWORTH presented a petition
from Dartmouth, in Devon, praying a more equal
distribution of the Duty on Coals.

TRADE WITH INDIA:

time, with the understanding that the discussion
should be taken on the secoad reading.

LICENSING SYSTEM.

Lord NUGENT presented a petition, from a
most respectable individual named Seymour, a retail
brewer at Chichester, who complained of the Re-
striction on the Sale of Beer, and of the Licensing
System generally. The petitioner complained that
he had repeatedly applied to the Magistrates for a
licence, and bad been as repeatedly refused, without
any reason being assigned for such refusal. The
petitioner prayed the insertion of a clause in the
Licensing Bill, to compel Magistrates, who refused
a licence, to assign in writing their reasons for
doing so, in order that the Sessions should be en-
abled to judge of the validity of those reasons.
iThe Noble Lord said, he thought there- were many
objectionable clauses in the Bill of last year, and he
hoped they would be amended. He moved that the
petition be brought up.
Mr. OTWAY CAVE seconded the prayer of
the petition, and bore testimony to the respectability
of the petitioner.
Mr. ESTCOURT thought it unfair to find fault
with a Bill which does not come into operation
until next September.
Lord NUGENT and Mr. OTWAY CAVE explained.

After a few words from Mr. SLANEY, the pe-
tition was brought up arid received, and ordered to
be printed.
LOSS OF THE BRIG ROSANNA.

Lord WILLIAM POWLETT, in rising to
bring forward his motion relative to the loss of this
vessel, begged to assure the Gallant Officer oppo-
site that he did not introduce it with any vindic-
tive or hostile feeling. He thought it best at
once to proceed to a statement of his case. It ap-
peared that in 1828, the vessel in question was pro-
' ceeding with a cargo of coals from Sunderland to
this port, when coming in contact with a King's ship
she was destroyed and sunk. The brig was sailing
in one direction, the frigate in another, and the
ship came in contact with the King's vessel,
and the consequence was the accident for which
the petitioners now sought to obtain reparation.
As the matter was stated to him, the frigate was
going with a free wind, anti the brig against the
wind, and under these circumstances the frigate
ought to have given way, and have allowed the brig
to keep her course. The night was dark, but not
so dark that the brig could not be descried at half
a mile's distance. When the word was given
" :Ship a-head," the Lieutenant in command at that
moment gave the order to starboard the helm ; but
the man at the helm mistook the order, and put the
helm a-port. The consequence of this mistake was,
that it became necessary to alter the tonne of the
frigate ; and as it had become impossible to pass the
brig in the manner at first determined, the Lieute-
nant gave the order to put the helm a-port, when,
unfortunately, the man at the helm seeing the error
he at first committed, became bewildered, and put
the helm a star-board, the effect of which was that
the frigate came down on the brig, which was sunk.
No blame was imputed to the Lieutenant, whose
order, if at first obeyed, would have been sufficient
to enable the two vessels to pass clear of each other.
The crew of the brig were taken on board the fri-
gate, and landed at Sunderland, ands memorial was
addressed to the Admiralty praying for remuneration.
To that memorial a negative was given, and the pe-
titioner brought his action in the Court of King's
Bench, where the evidence on the part of the plain-
tiff was gone into; and the case was-then stopped, as
,I..ordTenterdeti held that the Captain and, Lieu-
tenant, who had been made defendants, were not
answerable for the conduct of the man at the helm,
who was not their servant, and could not render
them answerable for his misconduct. It was un-
fortunate that, according to the letter of the law,
the plaintiffs could not procure redress from the
parties, for that was the only way through which
they could hope to obtain compensation from the
Government-for the consequences of the misconduct
of the King's servants, unless the House should lis-
ten to the prayer.of the petitioners, and afford them
some-means of relief.

Sir G. COCKBURN observed, that in replying
to the-Hon. Gentleman, it would perhaps be the
best way for him to state the principle on which
the Admiralty always acted in cases of this kind.
Whenever a. memorial complaining of a loss was for-
warded to them they looked into the case ; and if it
appeared that the ship of war was decidedly wrong,
then, rather than po into Court, they either repaired
the ship or gave the party compensation in damages.
But when they thought the case was one of what was
called a fair sea risk, of course they did not think them•
selves justified in giving away the public money. In
the present instance they thought it to be so ; and
the more especially as they found, on a careful exa-
mination of the officer before the Admiralty Board,
that both the vessels had filially beerk.somewhat in
the wrong. From the statement of hat officer it
appeared, that after both his orders bad been mis-
taken, and just when his vessel was beginning to
answer the helm, he hoped to have been able to pass
the brig, and believed the frigate could have done it,
though not then in the course he originally wished
to have put her into; but that the brig, as well as
the frigate, put her helm a-port at the same moment,
and both were at the same time trying to get to
windward. The case was, he was sorry to say,
closed in the Law Court, solely upon the ground of
the legal liability of the officer§ ; if it had not been
'closed in that manner, the proof of what he had
stated would have been given in evidence.—
But, besides all this, he had the evidence of
the carpenter, who was ordered to go on
board the brig, and who gave directions to
the sailors to take in the head sails, let go
the anchor, and bring to ; but instead of obeying
him, they ran below to look after their things, and
their whole conduct left him no doubt that they
were determined to abandon the brig entirely, and
to rely on the insurance. Under these circumstances,
which he believed to have been fairly stated, the
Admiralty did not feel themselves justified in giving
away the public motley.
Mr. SYKES said, the only ground of his inter-
ference was, that on public grounds the Government
ought to have acted differently. No wilful miscon-
duct was imputed to any party, but there was a
great deal of blame imputable to the reap who ought
to have obeyed him. The Admiralty seemed to
cons;j:' that but one side was heard in the Court
of King's klet;r1); but he could assure the House
that such was not the fact, for the first A itness to
support the plaintiff's case was the pilot, who was
employed on board the King's ship. That witness
was examined and crosa-examined at great length,
and the result was, that he showed most clearly that
the man at the helm had occasioned the accident, by
disobeying the orders he had received from Lieut.
Inman, The Hon. Member here read part of Lord
Termerdon's summing up of the evidence, which
went to estaMish the point he had mentioned.
Sir J. SCARL4TI knew nothing of these par-
ties beyond what bud appeared in the course of the
cause in the King's Bench, in Which he had the
honour to appear at counsel for Captain Dun44s and
Lieut. Inman. He made it a rule not to speak in
that House of the instructions he received In a cause
in Court, but on this occasion he should break that
rule, merely tor the purpose of stating that he had
abundant evidence on his brief to have shewn, not
only that this oecurrence was not the fault of the
man-of-war, but that it was uttributabk to the con-
duct of the merchantman ; but as he had another de-
fence, which was complete in itself, he did not think
himself justified in taking up the time of the Court
by going into the defendants' evidence, when it was
clew that the defendants were not legally liable.
Mr. BROUGH4 would not have said one
word, had not his Hon. and Partied Friend set him
the example. For himielf he followed she rule men-
tioned by his Hon, and Learned Friend, and would
not have made this instance an exception, had he not
been compelled into doing so by his Hon. and
Learned Friend. He could not tell what might have
been the instructions given to the defer.dants' Coun.
lAsol ; but he could say that the evidence in his own
brief, much of which, from a desire not to over-
I, harden the roof, hp had not called, was as strong as

Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from
the Merchants and Shipowners of Port-Glasgow,
praying the opening of the Trade with India.
Sir J. MACKINTOSH gave notice, that he
would on Monday next makea Motion on the sub-
ject of the Registrar's Office at Madras—a question
NT hich involved the case of Mr. O'Reilly. he
hoped that at this period of the Session, he might be
illowed to bring in his Bill, rind hare it read a thst

possible to shew that the frigate only had been to
blame. The trial was decided on the legal question
of liability alone ; the order given.appeared to have
been right, and if it had been properly executed, no.
damage would have ensued ; but when the Lieute-
nant who gave the order was brought into Court to
answer for the man at the helm as his servant,
the Lord Chief Justice dearly held that neither
the Captain nor the Lieutenant was answer-
able, for that man was not the Lieutenant's
nor the Captain's servant, but was the servant
of their common master, the King. The case was
therefore different from that of a merchant-vessel, in
which the men employed were the servant! of the
Captain, or of the owners, who were iesponsible for
his misconduct. With respect to the evidence, .he
would only remind his Hon. and Learned Friend, and
the Gallant Admiral opposite, that evidence put
down in a brief, or statements made in private, were
not exactly to be put on a level with the testimony
of men sworn and examined in open Court ; and he
therefore thought that it would be wiser to abide by
the safe rule of listening only to the evidence that
had been so given.
Dr. LUSHINGTON contended, that the state
of the law (and he did not dispute that it had been
correctly laid down by Lord Tenterden), was such
that serious injustice was done to the owners of
merchant-ships. The parties in this case had been
turned round without having had an opportunity of
going into the merits ; and it was possible that their
whole property consisted of this vessel, which had
been run down by a King's ship without the possi-
bility of redress. Had the facts gone to the Jury
they would have felt no difficulty in deciding that the
owners of the merchant ship ought to be compen-
sated, more especially as it was admitted by the
Gallant Admiral (Sir G. S. Cockburn), that the
tiist error was committed by the steersman of the
Sapphire. A case of greater hardship could scarcely
be stated ; and he did not think lie asked too much
when he required that the merits should be examined.
Mr. W. SMITH concurred with the last speaker,
and argued that a Jury would have given the
owners damages.
Mr. ROBINSON noticed what had fallen from
the Gallant Admiral on the misconduct of the crew
of the collier after the two vessels had come in col-
lision, and submitted that the accident was attributa-
ble to the misconduct of the helmsman of the
King's ship, who, when told to put the helm one
way, had put it another in the confusion of the mo-
ment. Had not the crew of the collier acted as they
had done, the vessels would have come stem on, as
it was phrased at sea, and the lighter and weaker
mast have gone down at once. Government was
called upon, in mere justice, to give the parties an
opportunity of proving their case.
Lord MILTON took a similar view of the sub-
ject. If private parties had no remedy when their
vessels received damage from men of war, it was a
most serious evil to the shipping interest of this
country.
An Honourable Member, whose name we could
not learn, contended that the collier might have been
saved and repaired, if she had not been needlessly
deserted by the crew.
Mr. M. A. TAYLOR had looked into the case,
and had seen several of the parties ; but without
advert:ng to their individual merits, he insisted that
some remedy ought to be within the reach of ship-
owners who unstained injury from King7s ships. lle
agreed, as every lawyer must agree, that Lord Ten-
terden had rightly nonsuited the plaintiffs, the ob-
jection having been taken. The owners of the col-
lier were, however, 2,0001. out of pocket by the ac-
cident. Policy, honesty, and charity, required that
the Admiralty should pay for damage done under
such circumstances.

Sir G. CLERK observed that the Admiralty
was in the habit of giving compensation to parties
injured in all cases where they could make out a
good case on the merits. The principle on which
the Admiralty acted was to pay in all cases where
the owners of merchant ships would have been
called upon to pay for accident or misconduct. This
case was only a common sea risk, in which a Jury
would have given no damages. ,
Mr. BARING said, admitting the Admiralty
sometimes made compensation, the inquiry before
that Board was not as satisfactory to the public as
if it took place in an open Court of Justice; thete
was, and must be, always a leaning in favour of the
officers of the King's ships.
Mr. CROKER remarked, that a Court of Law
was always open to parties aggrieved, and the Ad-
miralty never interfered. In many cases they were
anxious to save the parties, and the public, expence,
by avoiding litigation. That, in fact, was the only
difference between the Admiralty being defendants
and the owners of a merchant vessel.

Mr. BRIGHT was of opinion that, upon the
sheaving of the Gallant Admiral that the King's 'ship
committed the first error, the owners of the collier
were entitled to damages.
The LORD MAYOR rose to ask his Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary of the Admiralty whe-
ther, if the complainants were advised to bring an
action against the helmsman, and the Jury
should give damages, the Admiralty would consider
themselves responsible for the payment of the ver-
dict ? If his Right Hon. Friend stated that the
Admiralty were prepared to adopt the course of
taking on themselves the responsibility, he should
think their conduct just and equitable.
Mr. CROKER could only say in reply, that
such had ever been the practice of the Admiralty ;
but when his Hon. Friend asked him a question as
to an individual ease, he hardly knew how to answer
him. The general practice had always been for the
Admiralty to pay verdicts obtained against their
officers; and he did not believe they would depart
from that principle, unless there was something of
a very peculiar nature in the case.
Sir J. SCARLETT said the ques:ion before the
House was, whether the law on this subject ought
not to undergo a serious alteration. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman then went into some details
connected with the trial of the case. There was no
reason why Lieut. Inman was made a defendant,
except to prevent him from being a witness; and
indeed it had been owned so by the plaintiff's at-
torney.
Mr. BROUGHAM agreed in the general sor
rectness of his Hon. and Learned Friend's state-
ment, but expressly and positively denied that
Lieut. Inman had been made defendant, merely to.
prevent him from being a witness.
Mr. HUME was of opinion that Government
should be placed, with regard to their ships, on the
same footing as a private individual, who was an-
swerable for the conduct of his servants.
Sir G. COCKBURN stated that the Admiralty,
when a complaint of injury was made to them with
a claim for compensation, inquired into the case;
and if it appeared to be very plainly in favour of the
party complaining, as they did not wish to go into
the Courts of Law when they could avoid it, they
paid the amount of the damage inflicted. If not
satisfied they left the parties to settle the question
by litigation.
After a few words from Dr. Lushington, Mr.
Baring, Lord W POwlett, and Mr. Sykes, the peti-
tion was read, and ordered to be pril4o?
SMALL NOTE CURRENCY.
On the motion of Lord FRANCIS GOWER,
the Order of the Day was read for a Committee of
Supply, and it was moved that the House should
8.0 into the Committee.
Mr. WARBUR roN rose to put a question to
the Right Hon, GeV? opposite, relative to the
Paper Currency of the country. Ha lielieyed it was
a general opinion, both in and out of that House,
that, by two Acts, the 3d and 7th of his present
Majesty, the small notes between 1/..and si: were
removed from circulatioe, but within a few days an
opinion had become prevalent among the persons
Meet concerned in the currency, to which he wished
to call the ct;:gntiOn of the Right Hon. Gentleman.
A change in the Act to which he had referred
had excluded these notes from cireolation; ki!?"-
cause by it, promissory notes below 51., payable .on
demand to the bearer, were forbidden. But it Was nut
considered by the persons who were contemplating an

'4

evasion of thh last, that thisilituse was sufficient
to prevent the circulation of small notes. There
wai another clanie :to the following effect :
" That if any person should utter; publish, or nego-
tiate any note payable on demand, or any bill of ex-
change, or draft, or undertaking in writing, if it were
of 'the amount of 11., and not more than 51., he
should, at cording to the provisions of the 17th of
George 111., be liable to a penalty of 201. for every
note so issued." It appeared, that bills of exchange
not payable on demand, might be issued between 11.
and Si., according to the directions contained in the
Act of 17th of Geo. 111. He would next state

what were the conditions of that Act on which notes

of 1/. and .51. might be issued. The Act stated,
after several details which he would not repeat, that
the notes should bear date before or at the time of
their date, and not subsequent to it. This was a
provision to prevent the post dating of notes pay-
able on demand. It also required that they should
be payable 21 days after date, and not transferable
or negotiable after they became due. That Act also
stated that all promissory Dotes, bills of exchange,
drafts, or 'undertakings in writing, for the payment
of a sum of 20's. or less than 51. shall, after sth of
January, 1778, and every indorsement upon them,
be void and of no effect. It appeared that,
by these Acts, notes of a date not longer than 21
days, between 11. and 51., might be negotiated on
payment of the duty fixed by the Acts relative to
bills of exchange. But though by this Act, com-
bined with the 7th Geo. IV. the issue of small
notes was, though not expressly, yet virtually, pre-
vented by the duty levied on bills of exchange, until
the Act of last session was passed, which was known
as the Composition Bill, the amount of duty pay-
able on notes due in twenty one days was one shil-
ling; and as the notes contemplated by those who
were seeking to evade the Act would be 24 notes,
,they would be subject to a charge of 2i per cent.
for the twenty-one days. It was clear, by
the amount of the duty imposed upon them, that
these notes were, though not expressly, yet virtually,
repealed. But by the Act of last Session persons
Were allowed to make composition, and if they could
take out a licence for 5/., they might circulate small
notes, and compound at the rate of 3s. 6d. for every
100/. The sum to be paid was ascertained by the
average amount of the notes circulated during that
time. The duty was not in proportion to the fre-
quency of the issue, but on the average amount of
the notes in circulation. The amount of duty was

the same, though re-issued. Notes to the same
amount might be re-issued immediately after the
presentation of the notes, without the payment of
any additional duty. Under this interpretation of
the law, the parties interested thought they might,
without any breach of the law, issue promissory
notes, payable on demand, between 1/. and 51. He
had some forms of theme notes in his possession ; and
if the interpretation of the law by these persons was
fair, the country was likely to be inundated by the
issue of these small notes. The only objection
which he had to this circulation was, that the holders
of the notes, after the expiration of twenty-one days,
had no clAn upon any person but the acceptor, and
not any against the indorser or drawer; but he was
persuaded that such an objection would not be con.
sidered by the Government as of no avail. If the
banker happened lo be a respectable person, of course
the notes would be held by the possessor on the se-
curity of that respz-ctability, en -the understanding
that he was a man of credit enough to be able to
pay the note when presented.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, the material part of the question that had been
asked appeared to be this—whether, in consequence
of the Composition Act of last Session, parties could
have small notes in circulation without payment of
the stamp duty ? He could assure the Hon. Gent.,
that if that Act did appear to enable persons to evade
such payment, there would be no indisposition on
his part to repeal it, With a view to prevent any
evasion of that sort.—(Hear.)
Mr. BARING—The Right Hon. Gent, was right
in not clearing the, way for those whose object it
might he to evade the Stamp Duty ; but at the same
time he had to consider whether the Act could
remain till next Session without running the danger
of the country being inundated with these notes :
for it would be very little satisfaction to have a
remedy next year, if during the recess the mischief
was done.
Mr. WARBURTON—In the event of parties
evading the. law, he wished to know whether their
license would be subsequently refused ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
was not aware how the law stood upon that point.
IRISH ESTIMATES.
The House then went into Committee on the
Irish Estimates.

On the motion that 9,0004 should be granted for
the support of the Society for the Discouragement
of Vice,
Mr. S. RICE said, that under all the circum-
stances, he was certainly of opinion that the matter
might be well left in the hands of Government till
pext Session.
Lord LEVESON GOWER—He entirely con-
curred in the feeling expreued by his Hon. Friend,
and for that reason should avoid entering into any
particular discus•ion on the present occasion.
Mr. HUME—He only wished to throw out an
observation, which was, that whatever arrangement
-was made for the distribution ,of the money granted
for the promotion of education in Ireland, Govern-
ment would endeavour to consolidate the system;
by which means the salaries, which now consumed
so much, would be materially reduced.
-Mr. TRANT must enter his protest against the
Report of the Education Committee of last year, and
was sorry that the Noble Lord was pledged to sup-
port the resolutions of that Committee, especially as
one of its recommendations was to discontinue the
use of the Bible.

Mr. F. LEWIS—Any imperfect discussion like
the present was, in his opinion, to be deprecated.
If the House was resolved to wait for the state-
ment of the Noble Lord until next Session—and
that certainly appeared to him to be the wisest course
--why should they now enter into a fifty-ninth part
of a discussion on the subject ?—(A laugh.)—The
Hon. Member for Dover had laboured under mis-

conception in every part of his statement, but he
should abstain from answering him.
Mr. PEEL—His Right lion. Friend, after depre-
cating partial hll, he was afraid, added
his modicum to the fifty-ninth part of a discussion.
It compelled him to add his share to the rest, so
that if this was only a fifty-ninth part of a discus-
sion, he really could not tell what would be its
length when they came to have the whole of it.—
(A laugh.)—But let him seriously ask whether it
would be wise--a great change having lately taken
place in the polity of Ireland—to follow up that
change by laying down immediately a general plan
of education, without first waiting to see what were
the consequences of that change ? But, if this
course were unwise, it would be %HI more so to dis-
cuss what could not be settled that Session.—

st- 'r

•

declared his determination never to give it his assent
hereafter, although, under the peculiar circumstances
of the case, he intended on this occasion to support
the Government.
Sir R. INGLIS' expressed, his sorrow that the
Right Hon. Gent, opposite should continne to idea.-
tify the Government with the errors of the Catholic
religion, and expressed a hope that the vote of
money to the College would be dispensed with in
future.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORPE
against the grant; and from Mr. Ross and Lord
SANDON in support of it,

Mr. M. FITZGERALD defended the College,

and declared that whatever might be its error, it did
not display so much illiberality as those who were
opposed to the present vote.
Mr. MAXWELL observed that ever since he
had been in Parliament he had protested against.the
grant, and he was now prepared to follow up that
protest by voting against it.
Sir C. CARRINGTON would vote for the
grant, if the question went to a division.
Mr. SPENCE thought that it would be better to
defer this grant until some report had been received
on the general system of education in Ireland.
Mr. Secretary PEEL defended the grant; and
in answer to the declaration that the opposition to
the grant now proposed would be withdrawn if his
Majesty's Government would pledge themselves not
to propose it next year, he said that he certainly
should give no such pledge.
Lord MANDEVILLE explained.
Mr. PELHAM denied that by objecting to the
grant any injustice would be perpetrated.
Sir R. INGLIS would next year oppose any grant
of the kind.
Mr. TRANT suggested that no new scholars
should be taken into the College, with a view to its
gradual extinction, and to prevent any future imputa-
tions of injustice being thrown on those who were
opposed to the grant.
Mr. H. GRATTAN supported the grant.
Mr. ESTCOURT was not disposed to withhold
the proposed grant this year, as he conceived the
honour of Parliament pledged to granting it. He
must, however, observe, that he conceived it an ob-
jectionable grant. In voting, therefore, for it, he
thought it right to give fair warning, that if a similar
grant should be proposed next year, it would be
opposed.
Lord F. L. GOWER said, that if the grant was

proposed next year, it must be entirely upon
the responsibility of his Majesty's Ministers, and
Hon. Members would of course act according to
their own judgments upon it.
Mr. PEstcEvAL and Mr. PEEL explained.
The House then divided, when there were—
For the Motion
Against it
Majority in favour of the Motion -104
ADJOURNMENT OF TIIE HOUSE.'
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the Ex-
CHEQUER, it was ordered that the House, at its rising,
do adjourn to Monday next.
On the motion of Mr. KENNEDY ;the Tailzies
Regulation Bill went through a Committee.
The House having resumed, the Report was
brought up, and ordered to be received on Mon-
day next.
Mr. KENNEDY moved the Order of the Day
for receiving the Report of the Committee on the
Tailzies Relief Bill.
After a few words from Captain GORDON, Mr.
ROBERT GRANT, and Mr. SUCHEN; the amend-
ments were agreed to, and the Bill was ordered to
be read a third time on Monday, if then engrossed.
Mr. SLANEY, in moving the Order of the Day
for receiving the Report of the Committee on the
Labourers' Wages Bill, said it was not his intention
to pass the Bill this year; he was only anxious to
have it printed ; but he pledged himself that he
would introduce it, or some measure similar to it,
early in the next Session of Parliament.
EXCHEQUER BILLS' BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
moved the third reading of the Exchequer Bills' Bill.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. HUME hoped the Bill would not be allowed
to pass. The plan proposed in it was very disad-
vantageous to the country, and would entail a loss
on the public of no less a sum than 19,8841. He
should move, as an amendment, that this House
should express its opinion, " That this plan for con-
verting three .miliions of unfunded into funded debt
is one which will occasion loss to the public, is un-
necessary, and does not deserve the sanction of this
House, as it appears there will be a surplus revenue
of three millions, which may be applied to pay off
three millions of Exchequer Bills, without occasion-
ing any such loss to the Treasury, and without ren-

dering- the funding of bills necesiary."
The , CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that the House were not, at that time, pre-
pared to listen to the details of a complicated cal-
culation, or he could shew them that the Hon.
Member was wrong in supposing there would be a
lcifis by this transaction.
Mr. MABERLY was not surprised the Right
Hon. Gent. would not enter into calculations, and
make the question n matter of figures, for then he
would have convicted himself of error. It was an
extraordinary thing that he should attempt to pet-
suade the House that this scheme was for the bene-
fit of the people. It was neither more nor less than
this—that the Right Hon. Gentleman sold out on
one and the same day an annuity of 121. 10s. and
purchased another for 141. 10s. On that sum there
was a loss of 21. On a sum of 1001. the loss would
be 161., and on the sum of 3,000,0001. it would
amount to 450,0001. Where was the necessity of
his buying any thing ? If he had a surplus of three
millions, why did he not redeem debt'te that amount?
If this was a wise plan, he would follow it up next
year; but he would do no such thing ; and the House

ought to rejecthis proposition now, that it might
serve as a beacon to future Chancellors of the Ex.-
chequer, to warn them from a repetition of this (he
was almost inclined to say wasteful) use of the pub-
lic money. The Right Hon. Gentleman ought to
have reduced the 3f instead of the 3 per Cents.;
but he wont 1 not adopt that course, though it was
the most beneficial.

Mr. MONCK thought the plan disadvantageous.
Mr. HUME said he would not press his amend-
went; and the BM was accordingly passed without
a division.
On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER, the Order of the Pay for the
third reading of the Sinking Fund Bill was read.
Mr. HUME had blamed the Right Hon. Gen.
tleman when he deserved blame, and he would give
praise now he could. This Bill entirely deserved
his approbation.—(Hear, hear.)
The Bill was then passed.
EAST INDIA OFFICE BILL.
On the motion of Mr. BARING, the House re-
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House
upon the East India Office Bill.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER

(Hear, hear.)—His advice to the House was to take objected to the principle of the Bill, and said he
the votes this year as they stood, on the understand- should propose an amendment, to the effect, that the
ing that they pledged no one to any specific opinion vacating of scats should only apply to those ae-
on the question of education in Ireland. (Hear.) pointmcnts by the East India Company in which
4fter a few words from Lord LEVESON GOWER, his Majesty's Government exercised any approba-
Mr. G. Moon.E, Colonel SIaT4ORPE, Mr, PEEL, tiOn or veto.
Mr. CRESSET l'EutAst, and Mr. 'FRAN; the Rest)? Mr. BARING had no objection to the amend,
lution was agreed to. ment.
A vote of 25,000/. to the Socitry for Promoting Mr. FERGUSSON thought that if the principle
the Education of the Poor in Ireland was also of the Bill were good, it ought to extend much
agreed to. further; and if it were not good, it ought to be op-
ROtaithce4t)
Resolution
College of mayiioth
esolutioiifor grartiinogB; in Ireland,
928/. to the posed. He should vote against it.
ornn
Mr. P. THOMPSON supported the Bill.
Lord MANDEVILLE opposed the grant, and Mr. PEEL doubted if the amendment went far
expressed his determination to divide the Com- enough. The only point on which he had any
mittee. To agree to such a vote would, in his opi- s strong feeling was that part of the Bill which was
nion, pledge the House to support a school for the retrospective. It was a dangerous precedent; it
education of these who are bound to disseminate the was not
.worth while to violate a principle to
principles of religion which they declared to be meet one case. He doubted if a person re-elected
foUnded in error; and he thought if they persisted after this Bill had passed would not be liable to the
a tOuriie, they would•brmg down the wrath 6th of Queen Anne. He should oppose the retrii-
of_God on themselves and on the whole country. spectire operation of the Bill, and should support
Mr. PERCEVAL disaroved also of a vote to the amendment.
increase the power of the catholic Priesthood, and Mr. W. WYNN was disposed to support the