Star.
London, England, 1830-06-12 00:00:00

SVPTLY.

After a few words from Sir J. GRAHAM. on the subject of the bill
for taking four millions out of the Consolidated Fund for the pur-
pses of making up the deficiencea in the supplies granted to his
Majesty, the house. upon the motion of the CuAXCEI.I.OII of the
ExestEQUEN., resolved itself into a Committe of Supply.
Upon the motion of Lord F. GOWER, 500)01. was granted to his
Majesty. on account of the public works in Ireland.
Mr. G. DAWSON moved that 87,9701. be granted to his Ma-
jesty for the payment of the Consul Generals' pay, superannuated
Consuls, &c. The hon. member explained the nature of the vote,
and said that considerable reductions were in progress respecting the
salaries of the Consuls abroad. The salaries of the Consuls at Rio
Janeiro, Madeira, Ostend, Bogota, Lima, Savannah, Panama, &c.
were to be reduced to the extent of 44 per cent, upon the whole
amount of their salaries. The amount would be reduced next year
5,3001. There was no good ground of complaint against the present
government for keeping up unnecessarily the office of Consuls
abroad. A regulation had been adopted by his noble friend at the
head of the Foreign Department, by which Consuls when from their
post should only receive the half of their salary. It was also in-
terded that while absent the Consuls should not receive any money
fin house expences. (Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM congratulated the house on the altered tone of
has Majesty's Ministers respecting those expences.—(Hear.)—No-
thing was more objectionable than many of the items in the vote
under discussion. Mr. Canning objected to the change In the mode
of' paying the Consuls abroad, namely, from fees to salaries. He
(Sir .1. Graham) was also in favour of the Consul being paid by
means of fees. It was right in merchants who required the services
of the Consuls, to pay for those services. The expense ought not
to fall upon the people generally. If the Consuls were paid with
fees, they would be more attentive to their duties. They would have
a greater interest in increasing the trade of their respective ports.—
The Consul of Peru, who was only one year at his post, and four
from it, two of which were spent in England. received 13,0001. and
odd. Mr. Nugent, the Consul at Chili, who was also a year and a
half in England, and scarcely more than a year and a half at his
post, received also upwards of 13,0001. Mr. Kinsey, the consul at
Ilayti, who, during the three years ending 1829, was very much in
England, yet he received upwards of 8,1041. The case of Mr.
Theuling, the consul at Guatemala, was also a case that could not
be passed over. This gentleman was the greater portion' of his time
in England, and yet he received the entire of his salary; and all this
occurred during the golden years of economy of the noble Lord
Aberdeen. A vice-consul. named Fisher, although not at his post,
in 1827 received 5001. and odd. What he principally objected to
were the superannuation.. A committee had been appointed
to inquire Into these matters, but had as yet done Nothing.
He knew it was an unpalatable subject to draw contrasts be.
tween the United States and England, still he thought that a
useful lesson of economy might be learned from that republic, and
more particularly with regard to Consular expenses. The whole
expense of the United States only amounted to a little more than
3,0001. whilst it was well known that the commerce of that power
was as well protected as the trade of any nation in Europe. What he
proposed to reduce was, first, to put all the Consuls-General of
Europe on the same footing as that of Russia, which was fixed at
1.0001. a-year. By this means the Consuls-General of Hamburgh,
of France, of Spain, and of Portugal, would be reduced, and in
this first class he should effect a reduction of 4,0001. and up.
wards. With regard to South America and Africa, in consideration
of the climates and dearness of the countries, he was willing to
allow 15001. a year to each consul-general. Oa the whole, he
should propose to reduce the vote to 79,0001. instead of 87,0001. or
a reduction of about 8,0001. He thought the government were
called upon to consent to this reduction, the more particularly when
it was recollected that the Ministers had refused to act upon the re-
commendations of the finance committee, which was dissolved. In
fact, the time was come when it was to be known whether the pre-
sent was an economical government or not ; and he feared that re-
cent circumstances too strongly showed that ministers were rather
inclined to extravagance. There never were grosser jobs than the
late pensioning of the sons of two cabinet ministers, which governs
ment attempted to force upon the house, and actually went to a di.
vision on the question. The allowances to the lottery commissioners
were equally extravagant. On the whole, he felt himself called
upon to :rove as an amendment that 79,0001. be substituted for the
original motion of 91,0001.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER denied that
ministers were not inclined to economy. It was true that the hon.
baronet might select particular instances, therepresentation of which
might produce an impression upon those who were not sufficiently
conversant with details; in fact, the present government had uni-
formly acted upon principles of economy and retrenchment, and the
present premier had not in any instance used the influence he possessed
for purposes of patronage. With respect to consular expenses he did not
widely differ with the hon. ban. although he thought that the plan of
paying consuls by fixed salaries was a good one, yet he knew that
such a manner of remuneration would give rise to frequent attacks
upon ministers; but it ought to be recollected that when salaries
commenced fees were entirely abolished, and it was well known that
consuls received more by many degrees from fees than their salaries
amounted to. Ile could assure the house that the noble lord at the
head of thelbreign department had used every effort in his power to
retitee.the charges for consuls, but all the plans of the noble lord

had not yet been fully put in practice. As to some of the allow.
antes complained of, he would ask whether a public officer, losing
his health in a foreign climate, was not entitled to a superannua-
tion ? The honourable baronet had said that the salary of consuls
ought to be regulated according to that paid to the Consul-General
at Russia, which was 1,0001. a.year from Government; but then
that gentleman received also 1,5001. a-year from the Russian coin.
pony. As to the contrast with American Consuls, it must be recol-
lected that the mode of paying the consuls of the United States
was by fees, a plan which was rejected by the House of Commons
as objectionable ; and these consuls, it should be recollected, were
allowed to trade, a privilege which British Consuls were not al-
lowed. He must therefore oppose the amendment.
Mr. C. WI)01) supported the amendment, because he thought
the diplomatic and consular charges of the country were too extra-
vagant ; a stronger proof of this lie could not give than that the pre.
sent Consul at Columbia only received 8001. a-year, whilst his pre-
decessor,: had received 2,5001. It was true that great reductions had
been made, but what he contended was that much greater might
with safety be made.
The CIIA NCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained how the
reduction took place of the salary of the Consul at Columbia.
Mr. HI/31F. said that lie had taken an active part in the changes
which were made in the mode of remunerating Consuls ; but though
he approved of a change, yet he did not like the system which was
adopted. What he principally objected to in the old system was,
that Consuls in several ports were allowed to make whatever fees
they liked ; and he believed there was not a shipowner in England
who did not think it a hardship. What he proposed was, that
moderate fees should be collected. Now fees were still continued,
and salaries also given, and those Consuls acted in a mercenary
manner ; for a half-pay officer could not get his quarterly
affidavit signed without paying the fee of 2s. 6d. and the charges
were still higher on shipowners' and merchants' goods; in many
cases, the fee charges amounted to what would be considered a mo.
derate profit. The great evil in all changes was, that they were ef.
fceted with a view not to public benefit, but to Parliamentary influ.
ence. Jobs were carefully kept up. He recollected one instance
in which a salary was paid to a man for five years after his death
(a laugh); and it was only by chance it came out that he was no
longer entitled to a salary. In no instance were the fees of Consuls so
unjust as when affecting the shipping interest. Taking the average
of the shipping going into several ports in Europe, the fees
amounted to 401. upon every five hundred tons. This was
not the way to carry on commerce beneficially. He thought
these might be avoided, by appointing merchants or resident En-
glishmen to these situations. It was another misfortune that con.
suit were not selected for their lualifications, but for their claims
on government. Another objection to the vote was, that there were
too many consuls, one-third of whom ought to be reduced. He had
great pleasure in voting for the amendment.
Mr. ROBINSON thought the bill of 1625 ought to be repealed,
and the whole of the consulate establishments put on a reduced
scale.
Mr. hi ABERLY had no doubt but that a committee would re.
duce it by one half. He did 'not think that the hon. baronet had
proposed as great a reduction as should be made.
Mr. STUART (of Beverley) placed confidence in ministers, and
therefore should oppose the motion.
After a few observations from Mr. HultE and Sir R. PEEL,
Mr. P. THO3ISON thought that Government had no right to
take credit to themselves for any reductions which had been made in
the expenditure. They were compelled to do it by the voice of the
public, both within and without the doors of that house. He would
support the motion, because he thought that there was a useless ex-
penditure in the diplomatic department. The hon. member entered
into a statement of the different salaries paid to Consuls and Am.
bassadors in the various countries, observing that more efficient men
could be procured to fill such offices for half the salaries.

Colonel SIBTHORPE would support the motion, because, in
the present distressed state of the country, he wished that the vote
of every individual should go forth to his constituents. He thought
the arguments of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) very powerful.
Sir J. GRAHAM replied.
Sir R. PEEL thought that the whole system of the consular es-
tablishment should be revised.— ( Hear, hear.)—This was an expe-
riment made by Mr. Canning In 1825. It was not an experiment
which succeeded. He thought that the House of Commons was as
responsible for that establishment as his Majesty's Government.—
Many reductions had taken place already, as vacancies occurred.
There was every disposition in Ministers to consider the propriety
of abolishing it, but it would be bad economy to suspend the pre-
sent Consuls, and give them pensions.
Sir. COKE (of Norfolk) was of the same opinion now that he
had always been of, that there never was, nor would be a eduction
in the expenditure, unless pressed by his side of the house.
Sir S. CANNING corrected a mis-statement of some hon. mem-
hers respecting the home 'Hiring which the office of Consul at Paris
had been open.
The house then divided, when there appeared,
For the amendment
For the original resolution
Majority in favour of the vote —23
On the motion that 120,0001. be granted to defray bills drawn on
government on account of convicts in New South Wales.
Mr. HUME complained of the vast expenditure of that colony ;
the sum raised in the colony itself was 9,1,0001. which, along with
die present vote and expenses of the military establishment, would
make, in all, 250,0001. Every institution connected with New
South Wales was becoming more expensive. He was prepared to
prove that the expenses incurred on account of convicts, was three-
told what it should be if a proper course were adopted.
Sir R. PEEL intended that a committee should be appointed to
inquire into the system of secondary punishment. He hoped that
the hon. member would allow the present vote to pass, and early in
the next session the subject should be duly inquired into.
Mr. HUME was anxious to have a committee to inquire into the
whole system of the government in that colony. He perceived that
in many state prosecutions military officers were the jurors. There
were fourteen ex-officio informations against editors of newspapers
in the last three years, and these all tried by military officers. He
hoped the House would insist on the humiliate appointment of a
committee to Inquire into the subject.
Mr. W. HORTON observed that if we were to make New
South Wales a place of secondary punishment, the expense of con-
victs should be kept separate from the other expenditure of the
colony. In his opinion, the best mode of managing that department
was by contract.
Sir O. MURRAY, in a reply to a question put by Mr. Hume,
said that the pensions paid by the colonial agent in London were
1001. The right hon. secretary then entered into a statement res-
pecting the amount of the population at former times, and at pre-
sent, observing, that the amount of it new was 36,598, which
showed an extraordinary progressive increase, principally on se-
j count of the number of convicts sent out there ; and the natural re-
cult of an increase in the population, was an increase in the expen-
diture. He was not prepared to say that the present mode of con.
ducting the department of the convicts was the best ; but under the
present arrangement it could not be conducted with more economy.
3lr. O'CONNELL, in allusion to the fourteen ex-officio infor.
mations mentioned by Mr. Hume, observed, that one of those per-
sons prosecuted was sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, for
a paragraph in which there was not one word that was not true. The
hon. member here read the extract, observing that it was disgraceful
to attempt to stifle the press in that manner.
Sir G. MURRAY was convinced, from the expressions of the
judges on the bench, and even from the admission of the counsel for
the person tried, that the sentence was not pronounced for such a
frivolous publication as the hon. and learned gentleman would feign
make the house believe.

After a few words from Mr. JEPHSON,
Mr. BRIGHT was sure that a great benefit would be conferred
on that colony, by the appointment of a committee to inquire into
arrangements.
After a few words from Mr. H tr ME, the vote was agreed to.
On the motion that 9,0001. be granted to defray the fees of officers
of this house for bills passed relating to turnpike roads,
After a few words from Mr. Hums and the CHANCELLOR of
the EXCHEQUER, the motion was Agreed to.
Upon the motion that 10,11001. be granted for paying the salaries
and defraying the expenses connected with the commissioners ap-
pointed to inquire into the practice of the superior common law
courts,
Mr. HUME objected to the vote, on the ground that the commis.
stoners spun out the exigence of their commission, in order to get
their salaries.

Sir R. PEEL said that the names of the commissioners was a
sufficient answer to any charge against them.
Mr. BROUGHAM doubted the capacity of his hon. friend the
member for Aberdeen to judge of the merits of the report..—(A
laugh.) Never was public money more valuably laid out than es.
pended with respect to the Common Law Report. One Scotch canal
swallowed up more money than all the commissioners. lie should
wish, however, that this commission should be brought to a close
as quickly as possible.
Sir C. WETHERELL said that, although he had great respect
for the talent and abilities of the Commissioners in question, he
should be slow to adopt some of the propositions laid down in their
reports. The Judges of the land were not favourable to many of
those propositions.
After a few words from O'Connell, Mr. J. Wood, Sir C. We-
therell, Mr. Brougham, and Mr. Trent, the motion was agreed to.
Upon the motion that 3,0401. be granted for defraying the ex.
penses of the civil establishment of the Bahama Islands,
Mr. HUME made a few observations on the subject of the vote.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied.
Mr. W. HORTON was opposed to the vote.
Sir G. MURRAY said that, at a future and proper time, be
should lay before the house all the perticulars of the expenditure of
the colonies ; and as to the constitution of colonial governments, he

did not think they all could be assimilated to the British constitution.
After a few words from Mr. S. Rice, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. 111.
Fitzgerald, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. Hume, and Mr. Moberly, the reso-
lution was agreed to.
The house then resumed, and the report was ordered to be brought
up on Monday.
The house went into Committee on the Dean Forest Bill.
Mr. It. GORDON moved that the clause relating to the boun-
daries be omitted, upon which the House divided, when the clause
waa loot by a majority of One.
The other clauses were then agreed to, and the report ordered to
be received on Monday.
The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of ; and the
House adjourned at Half-past Two o'Clock.
THE TURF.