Star.
London, England, 1816-06-11 00:00:00

ALGIRINE CORSATRS.

Mr. BROUGHAM, seeing the Noble Secretary
of Stste in his place, begged leave to ask whether
Lord Exmouth had concluded a Trutt with the
De) of Algiers, respecting tne ransom of Christian
slaves, ana if it was with :the concurrence of the Bri-
tish Government ? •
Lord CASTLEREAGH replied, that some ar-
rangarnent had been concluded by Lord Exmouth
%with the Dey of Algiers, for placing the subjects of
the Italian States on the same footing as those of
other friendly rowers.
Mr. BROUGHAM asked whether Lord Exmouth
had not stipulated that some other Powers should pay
a ransom to Algiers, for which we were responsible ?
Lord CASt LEREAGH reF.lied, that the stipu-
lations made by• Lord EXIDOUth with the Dey of Al-
giers, wire under the direct authority of those other
Powers'immediatety concerned, !or which Great Bri-
tain offered no guarantee.
Mr. BROUGHA Has the Noble Lord any
objection t. produce the Treaty r'
Lord CASTLEREAGH-6' I can have no ob-
jection to produce it at the proper time, but until Lord
Exmouth's return, we Are inn in possession of it."

IRI'H UtIAND jUItY INDICT&IENTS.

Mr. HORNER. in .ved the second reading of the
Irish Grand Jury Indictment Bill.
Geiieral BARRE objected to the Bill, as render-
ing viva voce emir:lce necessary in every case. He
euppos,d a case where viva vsce evidence could not
be ehtained—as where a person violently assaulted
gives information against another, and soon after
dies. In this case the Grand Jury could proceed on
no oth..r evidence than the written information, and
they would be justified in returning a true bill against
the murderer. lie also supposed a case where a man
was indicted on his own contessiun—and mere, of
course, that corfes*ion should be sufficient evidence
to the Grand Jury. This case, however, was nut
provided for by ti,e present Bill—(4Vo. ns," from Mr.
Horner.) The Honourable Member concluded by
moving., "'that the But be read a second time this
day thri:e months."
S:r FREDERICK FLOOD disapproved of the
principle ot. this Bill, fir it went to ctrarge the Grand
Juries of Ireland, not with finding lints upon the
strength of written evidence, hut for finding them
without any evitlence at all— (flror)—end therefore
putting mot on their trial without any testimony
whatsoever. Some pi otession .1 Gentlemen here,
continued Atte Honourable Baronet, seem to be of
opinion, that they ought to legislate for Ireland, as
if she had not competent Judge* aid Lawyers of her
own, wno, if they thought the system of Grand Jurors
wrong, would not at orce, of themselves, proceed to
rectify it. " Suppose:n said he, " a Judge were to
ask me, who have often acted as a Grand Juror, on
what sort of evidence I found a particular Bill ? I
would decline to inform him, on the ground of my
oath of secrecy, and would merely say, the BM was
found accordieg to our best view of the evidence
before us. But the fact was, the Irish Grand Jurors
always had a viva voce examination, in any case of
doubt. It-was so, to his own knowledge, in the
couaty in which he lived ; and he might !wilier
. tiffitm it tobe the tact throughout all the other coun-
ties and cities in Ireland." Here the Honourable
Baronet referred to the authorities of Hale, Coke,
Forster, Buller, and other high law authorities, to
*hew that in none of them were the duties of Grand
Juries particularly defined as to their mode of prac-
tice in finning Bills. With the highest opinion for
the talents of the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
Man, he could not concur in his motion, but would

second the amendment. •
Mr. I'ILEL said, he had in the first instance ex-
pressed his warns approbation of this Bill, because
the general presumption appeared to him in favour
of an assimilation of the practice of both countries in
the administration of the law.—(Thar,
howevei, the proposed assimilation could not be car-
ried Into effect wttnont a substantial interference with
the ends tit justice, then he would be willing to 4d.
Mit the inapolicy of an alteration. The argl4::;::tits
of the two last Speakers had failed in prodo, this
conviction on his mind, and he retained his 'tomer
opinion in favour of the Bill, and still thought that
those who opposed it might be brought to a different
view of the case. The Honourable Baronet had in-
deed admitted that viva wove testimqny was received
by the Grand Jurors of his own county.---If it were
good there, 'why not equally so' in others (hear.)
The Right Honourable Gentleman. concluded by
recommending the omission of the words 44 it would
be right" in the preamble, and substitutE for them,
4, it would be expe.iient." This, with some other
verbal alteratieni, which could be done in the Com-
mittee, would, he was of opinion, facilitate the pro-
gress ti‘ the. Bill.
Lord CASTLEREAGH supported the principle
of the Bill, but bet, at the same time, suggested au
explanation on s..me points connected with its details.
It was quite clear, he thoughts that where no practi.
cal uuji-ction existed, the principle of the laws of this
country should be followed in Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
There as evidently a laxity in Ireland in the prac-
tice of finding Bills on the informations, unaccompa-
nied by viva vete testimony, which ought to be
remedied in Ireland. Now what he (Lord Castle-
reagh) wished to ask, was this, whether this Bill
provided, that in addition to the information and in.

dietment being read ever to the witness er Witnessee.'
the Grand Jury should have the power, in the event
of the party's not fulfilling his testimony, of prose-
cuting him for perjury ? His object was, that the
Grand Jury should, in cases where the prosecutor
' had departed from his original statement, have among
themselves a legal mode of prosecuting for perjury.
Mr. HORNER expressed his great satisfaction at
the candid, liberal, and enlightened manner in which
the Noble Lord and Right Hon. Gentleman opposite
( Mr. Peel) had met this Bill. '!'here could be no
doubt that a party was legally punishable for perjury,
if he departed from his testimony before a Grand
Jury. litre the Grand Juror's oath of secrecy would
not prevent his testimony as to the fact that passed
before him; the object of his office, and, of course,
of his oath, being, as was well said, to further and
not impede the course of justice. • The information
on which the indictment was foUnded, he mild not
consider as evidence for a Grand Juror. It should
be followed up, as in England, with viva woes testi-
mony. The Bill ordained this assimilation. Much,
of course, would be left to the discretion of the
Judges in the arrangements connected with this point.
He was not aware that any direct prosecution had
been instituted by a Grand Jury for the perjury of a
`witness before them, but there was an analogous case
in an indictment which had been thrown out in the
time of Judge Buller, and where the Grand Jury
were called upon to aid the prosecution.
Lord CASTLEREAGH repeated his satisfaction
at the Bill.
Mr. PEEL said, there was one instance in which
a prosecution for perjury had been sustained under
the circumstances alluded to.
Mr. HORNER was aware of the case, but did not
think it applicable. it had been held that the inquiry
f a Grand Jury was into the guilt of a prisoner, not
into the perjury of a witness.
Mr. WEBBER regretted that the Noble Lord
and the Secretary for Ireland had so early committed
themselves in favour of a Bill against which every
person conversant with the administration of the law
of Ireland had entered their protest. The alteration
that was now in transitu was not a novel one; it had
been attempted fifty years ago in that country. In
the year 1762, Chief Justice Aston, wt.° doubted the
legality of the Grand Jury Practice in finding bills,
submitted the question at a meeting of the Judges,
convened at the house of the then Lord Chancellor,
Bowes, where, after a solemn discussion. the proposi-
tion was negatived, with the excepting voices of
IChief Justice Aston and another Judge. This deci-
sien was confirmed at a subsequent meeting, atten-
ded by the Attorney and Solicitor-Generals, the
Prime Serjeant, &c. Modern authorities, (among
which was that of the Member for the Irish Univer-
sity, Mr. Plunkett,) were in accordance with the
old opinion, and decidedly against this Bill. Before
the Hutue went to assimilate the laws of both coun-
tries in this point, they should try and assimilate the
manners of the people, otherwise they would be crea-
ting a state of endless coofusiou in the administration
of justice. With the highest respect for the talents
of the lion. and Learned Gentleman, he must dissent
from his Bill. _ _ _

Sir J. STUART, though he was of opinion that
the wisdom of Judges and Jurors would surmount al-
most every obstacle, yet he thought the right of the
accused to be heard in the way proposed, before his
Case was sent to trial, so strong, that he would sup-
port the Bill before the Holm..
Mr. ABEItCROMBY expressed his wish for an
assimilation of the legal practice of both countries ;
and in allusion to what had been said of ChiefJustlce
Aston's former proceeding, the Honourable Gen-
tleman who quoted it forgot to add, that so strongly
impressed with the propriety of his course was that
Learned Judge, that on the next Assizes after the de-
cision alluded to, he refused to send up one informa-
tion to the Grand Jury as their guide in finding the
bills. Here the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man, to disproVe the assertion that all the modern
legal authorities in Ireland were against the principle
of the Dill, read an extract from the testimony of Mr.
Sneyd, in which the latter had stated, that, in conse-
quence of the recommendation of Baron tkorge, one
of the Irish Judges, seven years ago, it was the cus-
tom of the Grand Jury with which he was connected
to call for viva voce testimony, not in all cases. but
where the Jurors were in doubt. Now he (Mr.
Abercromby) would ask, was it not the duty of a
Grand Juror to commence his functions with doubt ?
The general outline of his duty requited that he
should. Grand Juries would be useless if no evi-
dence was to be taken until a case came on in open
Court. From the testimony of Mr. Brown of Mayo,
before the Committee, it appeared that suffiCient time
was not allowed for the Grand Jury to exercise those
duties. The business of the county was, he said,
done, but done badly, and not as the Constitution,
reason, and law, required that it should be. A
Right Honourable Gentleman, who was also exa-
mined before the Committee, ha)l stated, that the So-
licitor-General for Ireland, a man of the first talents
and reputation, had informed him, that to his own
knowledge, in one county (Tipperary) it was quite
impossible, from the number of presentments, for the
Grand Jury to attend to the bills of indictment in the
manner they ought to have done ; for the former were
so numerous, that in an instance to which he alluded,
if the Grand Jury had sat for thirteen hours during
the whale Assizes, they could not have devoted mere
than two minutes to each presentment. When he
(Mr. Abercombic) considered such to be the case, be
rejoiced at the introduction of a measure like the pre-
sent, and hailed it as au important forerunner to the
restoration and consolidation of tranquillity in Ire-
land. It would give to the people of that unfortu-
nate and distracted country that confidence in Jurors
and in the administration of the I.tw that must be at-
tended with the happiest results—(Hear, hear, hear.)
If the House were called upon to decide between the
Magistrates of both countries, and to say into the
hands of which class they would prefer to leave a
discretionary power, he bad no hesitation in saying
(and he said it with regret, and not with ao intention
of giving any offence) that the Magistra.tes of Ire-
land would not be that class to which a discretionary
preference would be given.—(Cries of Hear, hear.)—
Their state was one of the strongest reasons in favour
of a Bill providing the improvement contemplated by
the present—(Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. WEBBER explained, that he thought he
spoke the general sentiments of the Irish Judges.
Kr. W. POLE was persuaded that it would, be

'extremely beneficial to Ireland that the Grand biles.
Mould examine late OW evidence. At the Mind
time he thought it would be extremely detrimental if ,
the Grand Juries were precluded from inquiring into '
informations preferred before the MAgistracy. He
thought also, that what had been said upon the po-
licy of persons perjuring themselves before the Grand
Juries, being prosecuted, was unanswerable. Minh
praise was due for the mariner in which this Bill had
been brought forward; end, in the confidence that
those guards which prudence required would be pro:
vided in the Committee, he should concur in the se-
cond reading of the Bill.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, that his principal
objection to the law, as it applied to Grand Juries in
Ireland at present, was, that it deprived the subject
of that security and protection which was given to the
inhabitants of England—namely, the advantage of
having his case decided upon evidence adduced be-
fore two JUlieS. He considered, that the less the
Judges of Ireland meddled with legislation, the better.
The people of behind had a right to the same protec-1
tion which was given to the people of England; and, I
..considering as he did that this Bill would afford them
that protection, it should have his unqualified support.
Mr. PONSONBY was at a loss to imagine why
die people of Ireland sleaild be liable to imposition
and abuses to which the people of England were
exempt. They were fully sensible of the system of
job by which the law was administered to their op-
pression, and it was therefore the more important
that those causes of discontent should be removed.
The Right Hon. Gentleman then described the evil
as it existed under the present practice—and pointed
out, in strong terms, the necessity of alteration. With
regard to the motives of his Honourable Fr,end in
bringing forward this Bill, he was satisfied there was
not a man on any side of the House who would not
give him credit for the most honourable intentions.
Sir GEORGE HILL defended the present mode
of taking examinations in Ireland.
Mr. CURWEN spoke in favour of the Bill, and
deprecated the practice of sending to the Grand Juries
of Ireland the opinions of Magistrates to the preju-
dice of the offenders against whom bills of indictment
might be preferred.
A division then took place— In favour of the Bill
50—Against it 10—Majority 40.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered
to be committed on Wednesday.

REPORT OW SUPPLY.

Mr. BROGDEN brought up the Report of the
Committee of Supply.
On the resolution for granting 5f35,000, for the
purchase of the Elgin Marbles,
Mr. CURWEN opposed this resolution, and said,
he should not feel he did his duty if he did not op-
pose this vote, upon the ground that the state of the
country was such as rendered it highly improper to
incur a single shilling of expense which could be
avoided. •

Sir M. RIDLEY supported the Resolution as not
being an annual vote, but the vote of a single sum
for the purchase of a collection of marbles of the
most valuable description, both as regarded the im-
provement of the arts, and the honour and taste of
the country. . _ _

Wk. 1). GIDDY was satisfied that the purchase of
these marbles, so I from being attended with a loss.
would, on the contrary, be productive of infinite ad.
vantage to the country. Such had been the case in
the purchase of the Etruscan vases, which were pur.
chased of Sir W. Hamilton for £B,OOO. He was
informed by a respectable manufacturer, that the
possession of these vases had produced a profit to the
nation of ten times the sum which had been paid for
them.

The Resolution was then agreed to, as were the
other Resolutions of the Committee.
=CHEQUERS' CONSOLIDATION BILL.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the
EXCHEQUER. the House went into a Committee
on the Irish and English Exchequers Consolidation
Bill.—The first clause being read,
Sir H. PARNELL, adverting to the two new
Lords of the Treasury, intended to be appointed by
this Bill, said, be had always considered the majority

of those officers to hold mere sinecure situations ;
and, therefore, he considered the contemplated ap-'
pointmeots unnecessary. He was willing to admit,
that there was a necessity that some assistance should
be given to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in con-
sequence of the increase of business which would
take place in his department, but instead of two
Lords of the Treasury, he thought it would be much
better to appoint an additional Secretary. In this
feeling it was his intention to move at the proper
period, for striking out the words ,s Two Lords of ,
the Treasury," and inserting the word it Secretary,"
who, he thGught, under the direction of the Right
Honourable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer), would be equally competent to perform
the duties which might be required. It was also
provided by this Bill that the new Vice-Treasurer
in Ireland should have authority to sit in Parlia-
ment. As he apprehended that the main duty of
this officer would be to superintend the issues of
money from the Treasury in Ireland, he thought he
ought to be constantly resident in that country.
This, therefore, was another part of the Bill to
which he objected. With respect to the manner
in which the issues of, money took place in Ireland,
namely, under the authority of the Lord Lieute-
nant, he thought this demanded some alteration--
In his opinion it was extremely improper that those
issues should be under the influence of the Lord
Lieutenant, and he therefore hoped that the Right
Honourable Gentleman would reconsider the point,
and put the matter more under the controul of the
Treasury of this country. It also appeared to him
that some subjects were omitted in this Bill, which
ought not to have been neglected. According to the
existing practice in Ireland, all Boards in that coun-
try were subject to orders issued by the Lord Lieu-
tenant: whereas, in this country, the Boards was
under the direction of the Treasury. The same
system, he conceived, was applicable to Ireland, and
he hoped a provision would be made in this Bill to
that effect. Another point upon which he was de-
sirous the Committee should receive some idol-ma-
lice, was, respecting the manner in which all the
Officers employed under the several Boards in Ire-
land received their appointments. By the Irish law,
it was provided that the several Boards, the Excise
for instance, should appoint all the officers to their
largo departnianu. But at present all these ap-

peintineiti plaie tinder the authority of 64
Lord Lieutenant, and the Boards., in fact, were ney.
consulted upon the subject. This was a v,,,t
to which he had repeatedly called th,! .mm 64
the House, and which he hoped wouti at let.git,
remedied. He had thrown out these tem ais ,4,4
for the sake of obtaining information, than of eaaki,,t
observation.

The CHANCELLOR. of the EXCHEQUia
said, that he should be most happy in girl„h r,
Honourable Baronet, or the Committee,
motion they asieht require. The Honourable 1a,;„.`4.:
had put two questions, to which, he hoped, ht.,h,ii;
be able to give satitfactory answers. The Corri„.,:tt:.
had not yet come to that part of the till res..%ti.,
the appointment of the two tots./ Lois of the
silty. He had no difficulty, however, in ,t,,t;,;;4,1,
that question. The H.,nourahle Baronet mu,;
known, that for many years the Board of
in England had been so averwittimed by business
to be almost incessantly ard, in Lie,
have been obliged to give up those periods ot
Lion, to which in former times they were c.1,,,,i4re
entitled. Under these circuitstnrices, when they
cessious of labour, which the Irish business wo%ii
bring, was considered, it could net be'deemed tioN,
spnable to obtain some additional assistance, „d
therefore it was determined to select two newt, ;es
front among those persons who were beat acl.*
with the subject of Irish Finance. It sttuui,t
collected that this increase to the English Tream,
Board was but trifling, compared with the dieht'
tion which took place in the Irish Treasury,
exclusive of the Chancellor of tie Exelirquer,
consisted of five Lords of the Treasury. Tit
timidl ernolurmnt of the English Chansellor et the
Exchequer, on receiving tile Irish Seal, woLI4
only what the fees of the Seal produced, namely,
about £lOOO a year. With respect to the obsetrazi,6l
which the Hon. Barodet had made on the influence
which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had on ea
issues of money by the Vice-Treasurer, he begged to
remark, that the Lord Lieutenant had no power
whatever to grant money of himself —these points
being, of necessity, under the control of Ntlian.ca,
or the Board of Treasdry in this country„
In fact, en whatever occasions be acted with respect
.to the issue of money, he did so rather tuiriserieliy
than discretionarily. Another point in the Bill, to
which he had not yet come, but which he would Anti.
cipate, was the salary which it would be proper to
give the Vice Treasurer. When the dignity awl
importance of this officer was considered, he though
his salary could not be less than £3500 a year. 'Phi
Honourable Baronet had asked why the Vice:rico.
surer should be permitted to sit in Parliament? ds
an officer of rank and ccndition, he thought he might
not to be excluded from the House, but, on the con-
trary, should be a risen capable of adorning this or
the other House of Parliament. With respect to the
patronage at present vested in the Lord I..eutenant,
to appoint officers to the different Boards, it was nst
intended to deprive hint of tact privilege. Themes
patronage was vested in the 1.:3a id ot Treasury is
this country, with respect to all the Eoardr, except
tSe Board ot Excise. Having given these short an.
swers to the Honourable Baronet's questions, be
should only add, that he would be most ready to as•
swer any ntber question which might be put to bin
by any other Honourable Member with equal prompt.
ness. He had only to add, that it was his intention
to introduce a clause in the Bill to enable the Vice.
Treasurer to do his duty by deputy, when occasion
may require.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT stated, that his principal
objection to the plan unfolded by the Right Honour.
able Gentleman Was, in the first 'place, that it vend
the new appointment of a Vice-Treasurer for Inland.
He could not at all measure or conceive any lunc.
lions arising cut of such a capacity. which could de•
serve the remuneration ot £3,500 a-year and a seat
in that House.

reritia
they
ct
V:ce•
P'
Mr
Hon.
p VC
t! le 13
Lance
wen*
of tip
had r

been
the
fogn
12,01
w tS
1,4:*

Mr. PEEL said he was alwayi ready to argue tiut
the right of appointment to offices under the we at
in Ireland ought to rest in the Treasury Board of ta.it
country. It was, in fact, an office so str ctly apper-
taining to Iceland as the executive functions of its
governmeet, or the office which Le himself Lai the
hootiur to hold, and which was generally admited tv
, require his presence in that House.
Mr. PONSON BY said the proceedings with re.
spect to this Bill had been very incompatible widi
Parliamentary usage. The DU had been r ad A
first and second time, before they had heard it( i:1
the Chancellor of the Exclfequer the least in:41136.3
of its general score and obj..ct. They had now gent
into a Committee on the Bill, witheut profiting by
those previous stages which were iestituted to eaable
them to go into the Committee with a perfect know.
ledge of the measure under the consideration of the
House. The precedent which the Right 1-1(.1.00.
Able Gentleman (Mr. Peel) had quoted to jueily
the propriety of siifferh,g the Vice-Treasurer to
in Parliament, was quite irrelevant.—(Hear, hear.)
He (Mr. Peel) was, next to the Load Lica:wail',
the representative of the Crown in the Government e:
Ireland, and, when Parlianknt called on bine he
must give areaetount of his conduct. But okay see
the Vice-Treastarer ? An oiicer purely ministe;liil-•
with whom nothing orißinatej—who was obliged :0
obey the orders of those whom the law set osier him.
Whet business had that person in the House, utter
those who gave ilia) his orders were responsible far
them ? It might as well he said that the mile' et .
cers in the different departments of the State'-1:
Clerks of the Tieasury, for instance—should, in hie
manner, be brought before them. This Vice.T;ee
surer had a fine name given to him, and a ;treat sa-
lary added to it. He was, of .course, to be c.p.tbie
of talking in that House, or in the ether, much to
die entertainment of those who heard him. 13.:t
why was this enormens salary to be given? AVI:Y
was such a sum to be expended for the petit:mance
of duties which persons perfectly fitted :or the eiliee
would execute for half the money.?—(hear, kzar.;
The 'duties, he. Maintained, would be as yell pet.
formed for £I,OOO, or £1,500 a year, as for
larger sum. Such a measure would only be a pre-
cedent for executing a great office by deputy. A'A
why was it paposed ?. Merely that Ministers trii,ht
have the assistance, in Parliament, of the person app
pointed to the situation. Were they, at this time c.
day, when the voice of distress was heard throughout
the country, to sanction so improper a mode of (kill
business? 'lt was an instil" to the House to seppee:
they would agree to such a propoeitioa; and, Lc WA+

• •
rers'oaded, when Gentlemen cotsidered the subject,
they would not sanction that part of the measure.
jje certainly should oppose the clause relative to the
as it now stood, by every means in
1.6 power.
ivir.V. FITZGERALD observed, that the Right
Hoe. Gentleman was sn much taken up with Ms otvn
ular argument, that he seemed to forget that
pitlC
embraced a question of much more iropor-
twice than that of creating a Vice-Treasurer. It
went, in fact, to consolidate the debts and revenues
the two countries. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had not spoken correctly when he stated, that the B:U
liras brought in, without proper information having
been given «n the subkct. .He denied that this WAS
die fact. When the motion, on which the Bill was
fiwnjal, was laid before the House,. the scope of the
pin was pointed out. And whatever information
v., is
afterwards wanted on the subjzct,.had since been
iorly:provided, by papers laid oil their table.
PO.NSONBY contended, that the principle of
theaill-had not been properly explained.
Sir H. PARNELL defended his former state-,
pot, as to the manner in which the inferior officers
were appointed to the different Boards in Ireland.—
on referring to the Report of a Committee of that
. loose, it would be found, that the Lord Licuteirant,
sod not the Boards, nominated persons to fill the in-
ferior offices. The saving, by this new plan, would
tot, he was convinced, be so great, as the Right Ho-
'vocable Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exche.
goer) had stated. •
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
rid, the saving would be £B3OO per annum. He
Amid not now enter into the subject at any length,
lige he was willing to accede to the suggestion of
the Rieht Honourable Baronet (Sir J. Newport), to
have the Bill printed, and to allow sufficient time for
its -consideration. That Right Honourable Baronet
he consi.leied as a valuable friend to the principle of
the measure ; and, from his various hints, he expect
ted much benefit would be derived. He had no
doubt, that persons might be found who would fill
the office of Vice Treasurer for £I2OO a year—but
be was sure the House would not wish to confer a
sitvatien of such responsibility on an officer of interior
rank. Much complaint was made against the erec-
tion of a Vice-Treasurer, with liberty to sit in ['Arlie.
gent ; hut, it should be recollected, that, 4 a for-
mer period, there were three Vice-Treasurers for Ire-•
land, all of whom sit in the British Parliament.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT said, it was very true,
three Vice-Treasurers had at one time c;isted, for
the administration of the finances of Ireland. But
• cue of the great complaints of the people of Ireland
Was, that' those Gentlemen, for a long time per-
formed their duti..s solay in England—they never
came to Ireland at all.
Mr. C. WY NNE said, the principle of the Bill
Was, in his opinion, useful; and he thought that the
addition o: A'l,ooo per annum, which was to be
Bade to the ,:aiety of the Chancellor of the Excl:e-
quer for England, was not too much—since, he be-
ttered, no thee WAS !)OM inadequately provided for;
bet the hew Vice-Treasurer ought, he conceived, to
beprccliwed f rum sitting in parliament. He ought
so be welt pato, hut he ought not to have a seat in
that, or in the ot!'er fit,use.
' Mr. BA NNIES said, that whatever station the
'Vice-Treasurer was taken out of) it was right that
be should execute the duties of hi. new situation him-
self.—(Hear.)—He also thought that this being a
sew office, the person who filled it ought not to be
. allowed, in compliance with the provisions of the
'mite of Qecen Anne, to take a seat in that House.
If no other person took up this point, he would, in
the proper stage, move an amendment, eihbraciog die
principle he had just laid down.
After some observations from Mr. Pumas, Mr.
V. FITZGERALD, and Sir J. NEWPORT, the bill went
through the Committee ; the Report was brought up,
and ordered to be taken into further consideration on
Thursday next.