Star.
London, England, 1816-04-11 00:00:00

PRINCESS CHARLOTTE OF WALES.

The Bill for making a Provision fur the Princess
Charlotte of Wales and Prince Leopold, on their
marriage, was read a second tim?, and the committal
negatived.

The Earl of SHAFTESBURY moved the suspen-.
sion of the Standing Orders, as before.
Lord HOLLAND again retreated his objection
to the practice of suspending the Orders, without
having summoned the House, or given anz separate
and distinct notice the intention to suspend them;
as to each particular Bill. lie certainly was not in.
dined. to object to the enactments of the Bill, being
opinion that a liberal provision was extremely
proper : but if the :standing Ordi wre to be con.
sidered as havinir any sense or meaning at all, dis
tinct notice of the intention mov.! their suspension
ought to be given, and the I'+: ors, on all such occa-
sions, ought to be .uriitrioned.
The E.lrl of SHAFTESBURY said, that distinct
notices .s to each of the Bails had been given.
The Earl of DA.RNLEY asked why there was
no provision in the Bill as to the style of living of
the parties, and in what manner and with what de-
gree of state the parties were to spend their income.
He had no . bjection, however, to the Bill as far as
it went, thinking a liberal provision highly proper.
Ear! BATHURST said, that it vas not custo-
mary in Bills of this description • to insert any direr
tions as to the mode in which the parties were to
Tend their income. _ _ _

The Orders were then snspended, and the Bill
read a third One, and passed.
CP1.4.11C1.1.1.C11 5.11,1, that it
bees. visual, in cases of Bills relating to such exalted
,personages, to send them to t:te Commons by the
Judge, : but as the Judges were Absent on their cir.
taits, he proposed that this Bill be sent to the Corn-
mons in the usual way by the Masters, which was
ordered accordingly.

BANK-NOTES RIVENUR.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE stated, that he
proposed on some future occasion, to move I(,r an
Account of Exchequer BiNs purchased by.the Bank
in the'market, and some other acconnts, relative to
the Bank Restricticn 8.11, which would scion be be•
fore their Lordships. and which he wa.g, resolved to
oppose. At present he should movie lot two accounts,
pursuant to the notice which he had given Last night.
The one was the net produce of the revenue 'in 1815
an& 1816; and the other was an account of Bank
Notes in circulation in 1813 and ISI6, distinguishing
the numbers of the notes for WI, £3, RIO, £2O,
4:30, £lOO, f5OO, 41,000. A:3,000, and upwards;
and be also moved fora similar account with refe-
rence to the years 179 ii and 1797, previous to the
restriction on the Bank.

The Accounts were ordered Accordingly.

• Mr. BROUDICN and others. front the Commons,
brought up the Bonaparte and St. Helena Intercourse
Bills, and announced the assent of the Commons to
their Lordship? Amendments in these Bills.--Ad-
HOUSE OF COMMONS.

A new Writ Max ordered for Lte'fad.
A Petition oar receirztd from the butrer-leatera of Newcastle.
ttnd••r-l.yiae, presented by lord Golvga; and a similar Petition
Unit% N'a.ford.

A Petittou front Weymouth w•as presented against the Insol-
vent .1,1.

A Petition was prewnkti front a place in Devonshire, com-
plaining of Agricultural 4istrte&ses.
A Motion of Mr. P. Mopaa was postpottecl, after some con-
versation with Mr. Gout.BIIR U.

Lord LASCELLES pre.ented a Petition from Tanners in Ha-
lifax, against the Leather Duties.
The Habeas Corpus Bill was read a third time.
The 1 tatisportatiou DIU, on the motion of Mr. H. ADDING-
TON, was read a third time.

Leave was given to bring in a Bill to enLrge the powers of
the SUrgeOns' Cullegr. -
A Petition wa, received from Ideworth respecting Commuta-
tion of Tithes, &or.
Pape& respecting Ranisgate Harboer were presented.
Lord KIRKWALL presensed a Petition from Dri,bigb against
the Leather Duties. Ordered to 1k on the Table.
Mr. LAMB lON presented a similar Petition from the Tan-
ners of Sunderland. Ordi red to lie on the "i]utt!e.
Mr. CURWEN presented a Pritiun from Ongar, complain-,
ing of the System ot Tv lies. Ordered to lie on the l'abh..
Mr. Serjrant ONSLOW gave notice o'f a Mot:on, for en early
day atter the recess, to bring in a Bin :Or altering and amending
the present Rates of Interest on Loans of Money.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXLHEVER brought in a
Bill to enable his Msjesty'r Commissioners of the Exchequer to
issue Exchequer Bilk. Read a first tittle.
The Local Poor
_Bill wai read a Second time. To be corn-
mined on the 3d of May. •
The CHANCELI.OR of the EXCHEQUER gave notice,
that to-morrow he should move, that the House do, 'at its rising,
adjourn idol Wednesday se'nuight.
Mr. LUSHING I ON presented Copies of all Corresperdence
between the Lords of the Treasury and the Reienue Boards, re.
lithe to any increa.e Or diminution of salaries. Laid on. the table,
Sir S. RO MIL Li( presented a Petition from the prisoners con.
fined for debt in the gaol of Dtirham, praying against any akera-
don in the Insolvent-Debtors' Act. He pees; fired Petitions also
from the Debtors of the gaol of Exeter, to the same effect ;from
the Debtors confused in Nesvgate in thew of theft, and cous-

Mr.TIEI(NEY rose, in pursuance of rotice, to
call the attention of the House to this question. Hs
-would not detain the Hobse five minutes, nor vas
his intention,. if the motion he wes ab ut to Make
should be opposed, to go to a division, hut his ebject
was to ascertain why the Estimate of the Lord
Chamberlain's department, of the sth of January,
hid not been produced ? In the report of last year
there was 'an order or warrant directing that the
Lord Stewart and the Lord Chamberlain should, at
the coMmenceruent of every quarter, deliver :o ttse
Lords of the Treasury an estimate of the expenses
actually incurred in that quarter. In consequence
of this warrant, be had moved for a return of these
estimates : and the result of that motion was, that
an account was produced of the expenses of all the
quarters, excepting that. ending on sth January, 1816,
of the Lord Chamberlain's department. Having
been informed that nn such estimate was returned,
he had moved for a cepy of the correspondence be-
tween tte Lords of the Treasury and the Lord
Chamberlain, on the subject of the non return of the
estimates for the quarter ending stl. January. Put.
ting, then, all this together, he: zooid not tell what
to make of the traasactio, ; end it was impocsl-:le to
avoid presuming that there was sornetfieg cQnnectea
with this unfottunate affair which Ministlns
afraid to lae before Pathament. He sheuld new
move for the production of there p/ocrs which had
been so omitted, and, should anxiously wait for tte
explanation of the Noble Lord, as he tinfesnd that
at present he was totally at a loss to cunceive in
what manner this.chlay could he accounted fee.—
He concluded With moving that the Estimate of ate
11 Expenses in the Lerd Chainhertain's Department for
the quarter ending the .sth of Janaarr, 1!-.:16, -Se ratd
before the House forthwith. _ _

Lord CASI'LEREAGH had no objection *to the
motion of the Right Honotirable Gen:leman. lie.
..•,,014 ir;;Orrn the liohre, that illciv was In ril ti
quarter alluded to, no estimate returned to thiT ea•
sury by .the Lord Chamberlain. There Was; 14
truth, very little difference of opinion upon this sub.
ject hettve.ch.itim (Lord Castlereagh) and the Right
Honourable Gentleman,..for he *as ready to admit
that it reqitireal explaaatior : but the only question
...
was, .at what particular period that explanation
should be given ? He certainly did not consider
that it woad be consistent with his ditty to give that •
explanation now, because it could not but he consi-
dered as imperfect and ill-timed. It was quite im-
possible to enter into the discussion of that most inv•
portant qur.Stion at this mninent, without the neces-
sary intormatilm being before the House; and as it
was •in contemplation of his Majesty's Ministers to
submit the whole queitii;n before the House as soon
after the holidays as possible, he was sure the House
would agree with him, that any prior discussion
would be premature. All he claimed, therefore,
from the House was, Altit it should not now go into
the.consideration of so important and interesting a
question at the present period, but to wait until the
Honie might, when the proper documents were pro-
alined, enter into a full, fair, and deliberate investi.
'guide of the whole of the transactions connected
with this subject. Certainly there was a considerable
arrear in the Civil List ; and .Parliarnent had deter.
mined that it was mote consistent with public econo.
my not to make any fixed or permanent provision
for it, bat that the droits of the Crown should b*
made answerable to supply the deficiencies in that
provision. Thus the question stood ; and it now
became necessary that Parliament should take dra
whole subject under its consideration, in order ilia) it
might be determined what amount of provision
should be allowed to answer the various ernenc.t.s in-
curred under the title of the Civil List ; anti here ho
wished the House to recollect, that it was toe. only
to preserve the dignity of the Crown that t`iis money
was voted, but there were various other t %pease: in-
curred, of which the maintenance of Foirtign Ana-
bassadors 'limed only a small part, and of ..:alich it
was impossible the House could have any.conception
until the question should be hilly investigated. The
Right Honourable Gentleman,. he hoped, would be
'satisfied that it was the wish, the ambition of G.
vernment, to meet this question in the fairest Manner,
and to give the fullest information to Parliament.—
He believed that that had always been the system of
his Majesty's Ministers: a,nd,, as far as he could se.
collect, the, Right Honourable Gentleman had not
called for a single paper on this question that was
not produced. It had, indeed, been proposed to go
into a minute detail of these circumstances, and it
had
—b
paperbeenut
he
whichrw )uu 511 :daddy aebsiieuenar
venture
nit noogvae
clts*.riorpn
ir prejudge
wut
that
ter e
ft
nhuoestda.
s questionin
fig :
hoped, therefore, the IfoUse would feel, that itt d►
dining to give this explanation, it did net arise from
any .difficulty in giving it, or from any doubt but
that at the proper time. it ought to be given; but
that it arose front a desire not to prejudge so import-
tent a question, and also to deprecate this personal
mode of inquiry, which was • too much the habit of
Honourable Gentlemen over the way. He would
not peximit this personal dictation of the Right Ho.

....,

Stowable Gentleman to induce him to sleet ve from
sl qty ttirt. t5.3.d he, as the Right Honourable
Gentleman owned so mod) to desire, erect him into
• a House of Commons, and listen to his opinions' as
tieing those of the whole House.. " When the proper
ime should srdet, therefore, he shoold fed himself,
ballad to give that explanation so rnoch desired ;
and, in the mean time, he should not oppose the
motion for the production of the papers.
Mr. 'I'IERNEY said, that his great reason for
moving for the estimate was, to receive such an ex-
rilanation as would prevent those speeches, founded
On misrepresentation which the Noble Lord had
referred to, from being made. Nothing could pre—
went such occurrences ineffectually as having 41 the
documents before the House—he meant, on this par-
ticular paper to have fouaJed a separate motion.—
When he knew that a WAfTA,)t was issued under the
sign manual of the Prince,ltegent, directing the Lord
Chamberlain to lay before the Lords of the Treasury
an estimate of the -probable expense of each quarter;
and when he was aware that no estimate was made
for the varlet ending in January—was it too much
for him ru ask CI. explanation ? The Rade Lod
said, he would give the explanation at a future time.
This was one of his denials of explanation, founded
on no ground whatever. The House could not bp
satisfied that a regulation, which commenced only
in April last, should be set aside merely at the plea-
sure of Lord Hertford. The secret correspondence
which had taken place, rendered the transaction sus-
Ficious. The House would wish to know why the
treasury did not force Lord Hertford to send in an
estimate. All he (Mr. Tierney) got in citisequence
of his motion, was a statement that no such estimate
existed ; but all explanation was refused. The No-
ble Lord said, he would give the necessary explana-
tion, when the whole subject came under discussion.
He would, therefore, inform the Noble Lord, 66 that'
on Monday, the 6th of May, be should move
to refer the papers relative to the Civil List, to a
Comniittee of the whole House, the said Committee
to have the powerof sending for, and'examining per-
sons, papers, and records" It was most important
to the public, that the subject should be thoroughly
investigated. It was peculiarly suspicious that three
weeks before the discussion of the question, the No-
ble Lord should state there was a circumstance which
Le could explai.i, but which he refused to clear up,
without giving any good reason for adopting such a
cbusse. Strictly speaking, he (Mr. Tierney) had
taken nothing by his motion. But he conceived the
line pursued by the Nt.ble Lord, furnished. him with
the most unanswerable argument, in favour of the
propriety of arming the Committee with the power
to bend for persons, papers, and records. The No-
ble Lord said it was unusual to invest a Committee
with such powers. Now, after what had occurred,
1u could not help examining Lord Hertford, if lie
even wished to avoid it. Could any person now doubt
the propriety of examining him as to what was door
in his department ?
The motion was then agreed to.
PIiCHNIARY EINGAGESUCNTS WITH FRAME?.
Mr. HAMM:MEV rose to move for an ac-
count of the sums of looney due to this country by
the French Government, for the maintenance tit pri-
SOWS of war, and which the British Government
had abandAntd in consequepce a the claims of
British subjects on the French funds having been ac-
knowledged. The Honourable Member retuarked
on the imp 'licy and danger of encouraging by any
means the placing of British capital in foreign funds.
His observations at present might be, perhaps, con-
sidered ill timed, as the pecuniary conventions-with
)fiance had aiready received the sanction of the
House; but as it was impossible in one night to dis-
cuss the substance of seventy treaties, he did not con-
ceive himself precluded, by any previous vote, front
future observations—(Hear.) Tome treaties, in his
mind, did honour to me Noble Lord opposite ; but
that one which referred to the surrender of the claim
for the support of French prisoners had not been suf-
ficiently examined, He was anxious to know exactly
what sacrifice we bad made, and for that purpose he
had brought his present motion.
The motion being read,
Lord CASTLEREAGH rose, and said, that he
had Alt) Gbit:Cllern to the principle of the motion, but
would wish to havetome alteration in it for the purpose
of facilitating the return. He feared, however, that
if the Honourable Member expected from any return
of the claim of this Government, to learn how much
WAS actually due by trance, be would be disap-
pointed—for the question of claim respecting priso-
ners of war had been on both sides subject to much
dipute, and atter ascertaining the demands of the
French Government, the balance would either be
struck u kb difficulty, or be perhaps very little in our
Lower. He declared that he had never been disposA
to look ith special favour on those who speculated
in foreign funds ; and if the demands of British sub-
jects on France rested simply on that ground, he
would not have endeavoured to establish thend. But
they were of a match higher nature, inasmuch as they
bed been fortified by Treaty—had been taken up at
the Treaty of Amiens—and the final arrangement, in
1814, was but a continuance of the protection that
bad been previously granted. That property had been
sequestered by the French Guveniment ; and the
question was, whether that sequestration, in breach
of Treaty, should be submitted to by the British
Government ? On that principle alone had he ran.
dertaken to establish the claim, fur had he acted on
the general principle on obtaining indemnity for all
the losses sustained by the sequestration of British'
property, such a claim would have been endless, for
not in France alone, but in almost every part of
the Continent, had France, either directly, or by her
ihfloence, caused itnmenW Joists to this country.-
1:11w sequestration had, however, been made in breach
of treaty, and it was one of his strongest arguments
with' the French Government, that the Treaty bad
been made with the Bourbons, as it was also no
slight reason for that Government to accede to it.—
With respect to the general good faith of that Go-
vernment, be felt it uetessary to state, that not only
io this instance, but also in its other engagements
shish the Allies, it bird uniformly manifested the
purest principles. None of the payments under the
Conventions were in arrear ; all had been regularly
paid to the present momeut.
Mr.- TIERNEY said, that no one tier doubted
that a large balance had been due by France to this
cutrutzt, on account of iiriassicrs 01 war-4unsethina,

he believes', about seven millions sterling.; and die
only 'reason- hi could see for the Noble Lord's not
on.: that claim. was' the greater. edat
hihoped to pan by procuring from France a large
'suns, under the name of indemnities and contribii-
tions. He took advantage of the opportunity affor-
ded him by the present motion to state to the Houie
the result of the Noble Lord's pecuniary negotiations
with France.. The House and the country had been
given to understand, that those contributions would
be sufficient to defray all the expenses of the army of
occupation, and leave to England besides a consider-
able sum. 01 the 125,000,000 of livres indemnity to
this country, the Government had thought. proper, of
its own authority, to give 25,000,000 Al the army
that fought at the battle of Waterloo. He had many
strong objections to make to such a donation; but
those he should waive for the present, to consider
what actually remained to this country of all the No.
bit Lord's promise. Those 25,000,000 to the army
were, of course, to be thrown out of the indemnities,
so that the total sum which was remaining at the dis.
posal of the country for the payment of the army was
£6,598,000. This could not be denied, for the offi-
cial return was on the table. The charge for sup-
porting the army was to be set against this, and the
annual outgoings for the pay, ordnance, provisione,
forage, increased rations for officers, hospital medi-
cine, Bcc. would amount to £1,160,000, which raol-
tiplied by five, the number of years that our army
was to remain in France, would give a sum total oaf ,
R 5,800,000; so that the suer total remaining in this
country at the end of that period would, making
every fair allowance, not exceed £300,000. In the
present year we had received about e 8892,000, leav-
ing a deficiency to be supplied by this country for the
support of the army, of £267,000. Next year, when
the grant to the.army would become due, we would
receive so much less, only £595,000, leavingifts6l4ooo
to be made good by this country for the expenses of
the army during that year. But the Noble Lord
will say, 44 Why don't you go on to the third year?"
Undoubtedly, in the third year we shall receive a
larger 5um0e1,636,000, making a surplus in that
year of £176,000 ; but Mixt that surplus from thei
deficiencies of the two preceding years, and there
would still remain a deficiency in the third year of
£355,000. In the fourth year, the surplus would
about make up the deficiency on the three preceding,
and defray the interest of the sum ; while the surplus
of the fifth and last year would leave to this count's'
a disposable sum for 46 indemnity for the past, and
security for the future," of about R 598,0001 Anti
if unfortunately during . the three or four first years
the relations if peace with France should by any mis-
fortune be broken, instead of having received any
Imoney from that country, we should lie down under
a very considerable loss. Such were the indemnities'
of five millions Which the Noble Lord had promised.
Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that the Right
Honourable Gentleman seemed to have forgotten
every thing that he (Lord Castlereagh) had stated,
and had imputed to him' things that he had never
stated. He had never given the House or the coun-
try ary reason to expect an indemnity of five mil-
lions, having merely stated, that although the French
Government had recognized the principle of defray-
ing the expenses of the army of occupation, yet the
contributions for that purpose were on the general
scale of Continental armies, and not with reference to
the special expense of a British army. It was, how-
' ever, no small sacrifice on the part of France, and no'
linconsiderable advantage for England, as well as for
the rest of Europe, to have an army of 150,000 men
supported on the French frontier, at the sole expense
of the French Government. Suppose that the pro-
position had been reversed, and that it was necessary
for this country and the other Allied Powers to have
such an army maintained on the French frontier, to
which we should pay our regular contingent, would
any person in the country object to such an arrange-
ment Z He felt convinced that the country would
not recede from its duty, and that the arguments of
the Right Hon. Gentleman would not cause it to feel
less the advantages of the existing Treaties.
Mr. BARING thought the House and the country
should feel grateful to his Right Hon. Friend for set-
ting them right on the subject of our pecuniary en-
gagements with France. He said, that by substituting
British for foreign troops, in maintaining the native
Government of France, we had sacrificed .100
lions of traucs. The Noble Lord-seemed in every re-
spect to have been over-reached in his money dealings
with the French Government. He had given up all
the charges incurred by this country for the mainte-
nance of prisoners of war, and had altogether over.
looked the expense incurred by the recovery of the
French colonies, after the return of Bonaparte from
the island of Elba. Even since that event, considera-
ble charges had been undergone for prisoners of war,
which had been also sacrificed. The Noble Lord bad
said that great difficulty would be experienced in
making up the returns, in consequence of the diffe-
rent and contested claims of both Governments ; and
because France had, at the breaking out of the war,
detained many persons whom we were unwilling to
acknowledge prisoners of war. This claim on the
part of the French Government could not, in his opi-
nion, be productive of much difficulty, for those
persons then detained were most of them idle travel-
lers, in no want of money, and by no means of that
class of persons who required food and clothing from'
the Government. There could not, he was confident,
be 5,000 of them who could have caused any expense
to that country. It would, indeed, seem as if the
Noble Lord had put forward those persons to conceal
the real facts and the sacrifices made by the country. i
One kind of property had been given op to obtain
another of less value—the property of the country
had been socrificed to secure that of a few individuals.
If the Treaty of 1786 had given this county a lair,
claim to the property of British subjects in the French
Funds, he saw no reason why two or three times its
value should now be, paid for it. But be denied that
there was a fair ground of claim. The fact *as this,
the French Government found it necessary to reduce
its debt to one-third of its original amount, and in
the consequences of this reduction, all the public cre-
ditors were necessarily involved, and among them
certain British subjects. The British Government
then demanded that the other two-thirds should be
returned, bui this he considered as unjust and impo-
litic : for if ever a necessity should unfortunately arise
in this country of- wiping 001 part of our debt, we
have established a precedent in favour of the French
creditor from whit* we could not depart.

The CHANCELLOR or The EXCIIE4PER
Waterer heard >ugh stianee atguments as had been
advanced by the Henoerable,Gentleman opposite;
but he was particularly surprised at the censure that
had been directed against his Majesty's Ministers, for
net enforcing the payment of the expenses incurred
by the maiiirerance of prisoners of war. Such an
accusation had never on any former Treaty been
made against the Ministers, and it should be Terrier:.
tiered that if we were victorious with respect to
France at the conclusion of the last war, sn were af:e
other Allies, and yet not one of them had insisted on
such asclaim, although Russia must have had a very
considerable nee against- France. The Right Hon.
Gentleman ( Mr. Tierney) had said, that the Gevern-
meat had neglected to enforce the claim, for the pur-
pose of obtaining an indemnity; but the transactions
were altogether different ; for the former had been
commuted for the claims of British subjects on the
fends, in 1814, and the indemnities were acquired in
1815. He contended, that it was a just principle,
that. British subjects in France should have the same
protection that was enjoyed by French subjects in
England. When Parliament thought it necessary to
impose a general tax on the income of every persan
in the State, French subjects were free from it ;
and he considered ihe two.thirds taken away by the
French Government, from the public creditors, to
bear an exact resemblance to the 10 per cent. on the
property of individuals in this country. The dif-
ference was in amount, and no; in principle.
Mr. HAMMERSLEY and Lord CASTLERICAOH ex-
plained.
Mr. BROUGHAM conceived the resemblance
drawn by the Caancellor of the Exchequer between
the Property Tax in England, and the operation of
the tiers constlidies in' France, extremely ill-advised,
and one winch would be gladly seized on by France,
to turn against him. There was not, in tact, the
least analogy between them. He would not be taken
fir a favourer of the Property Tax; but to give it
its due, as the worst character is said to deserve, it
could not be likened to the sweeping act of coiai-,ca.
Lion practised by the French Government.
The CHANCELLOR of the 'EXCIJEQUER
disclaimed any intention of aslimilating a general
tax on the entire community with a breach of pallic
faith. lie wished merely to remark on the liberality
of this country, Nhich exempted foreigners from the
operation of the Property Tax, while it affected every
subject. He then proposed as an Arnendmet-a,
" That an saccount or estimate be laid belie the
House of the wins claimed by the British Govern.
ment from the French- Government, for the maim...
aance of prisoners of war in the years 11;14 aiel 18 15,
and also the sums claimed by the French Govern-
ment from the British Government on the same.
account." _ _

Mr. HAMMER SLEY had no objection t!ist the
amendment should be substituted for his motion.
Mr. TIERNEY could not see any difference be..
tween them; he, however, would propose an audi-
tion, merely to know host the conduct of the legiti
mate Government differed from that of the
mate. The addition was—" And the sums muttill!),
demanded at any period within the last ten years."
Lord CASTLEREr'IGI-I—‘, It will be toond
that every Government endeavoured to press the best
claim it coull"
The Motion, with the addition, was then carried.

Mr. FORBES expressed Rn anxiety, that the Navy
should be enabled to draw their pay on their foreign
stations. The only objection he had heard to such a 1
proposition was, the additional expense that it would
cause. For the purpose then of ascertaining whether
that duty might not be committed to some odicer
already paid by the country, and whose duty at pre-
bent was fight, he begged leave to move for a Return
of the duty of the sevrral Officers in the Puymaster-
General's Department, with their respective salaries
and establishments.

Sir C. POLE said, that the Navy were at present
allowed to send hall.their pay to their wives and fa-
milies—to draw one-third wore in sl.ps, with a pound
of tobacco—by which means very little of their pay
remained. He did not think it pOitic to enable them'
to draw all their pay on foreign stations; thus pre-
venting them from looking to England for some en-
joyment on their return, and some money atter the,-
long services. They were thoughtless, and on re•
turning from the Pay-office at home with only a kw
pounds, alter two or three years service, never re-
membering that they had previously enjoyed their
money. they would esteem k severe not to have more
to shew atter so long an absence. Considering, as
he did, that the principle of the proposition of the
Honourable Gentleman in itself was bad, and that
the argument in support of it was worse, he should,
if he stood alone, divide the House.

Sir GEORGE HOPE agreed in sentiment with
the gallant Admiral who had just sat (town. lie
said it was utterly impracticable to pay the crews of
ships of war every time they came into poll. The
consequence of such a system would produce
culable mischief both in point of delay aii,l
If the regulations at present adopted were atteluied
to, it would be impossible to pay a ship in less than
three weeks. The books would all require to 1w
made up, and the accounts regularly audited —s,)
that if once a ship came into harbour, it would be
impossible again to get her to sea until all tip; timi
been done. Had such a practice been in torte when
Lord St. Vincent was off Cadiz, and, iptitting his
' station, went to Gibraltar for provisions and water,
[ the French fleet, which in consequence came cut,
might have ranged triumthant in the Mediterranean
for three weeks.
Mr. ROSE said, it was utterly impossible to cf.
fect the payment of the navy abroad, an the same
manner as was done by the Paymasters of the army.
Admiral MOO &SOM. agreed in the impossibility
of effecting the Hon. Gentleman's object.. •
Sir G. WARRENDER deprecated the discussion
of these questions, which only excited hopes that .it
was Impossible w realise: He moved, with a view
of getting rid of the motion, the resumption of the
-debate on the Navy Estimates.
Mr. FORBES said, that he had the opinion of
several Admirals is the service as to .the. practicabi.
lity of the measure he had suggested; and he trusted
the House would agree tisk as one which was both
just and necessary. It there was an objection to pay
the common seamen in this way, he would ask why
the officers could not be allowed to draw their pay t
'He did not desire that they should receive:the whole
sum. If they wad only get two or direr months

pa, nut of the twelve mrmrh, that wont be 4,4
advant4re.
Mr. W SMITH said, that the Hon. Gentlem,,
(Mr. Fru bt-f) had much ti nth and juspee 0,1
side. tie teyretted that in Tuitions of this mute'.
ptoftssional gentlemen were too apt to adhere to e44*
!rums. He thought there was a grand defect in IN
system of the Bfitish Nrvy, and particularly that
more farce and coercion WAS used than was new.
sary. By adopting a &intent course, and by grart.
jpg every indttleenre t thr sraman, constitetit with
propriety, he nr.,c satisfied the sifamen would bec•infe
more attacli.d to the public service.
Sir C. POLE observed, if, answer to the Homan.
able Gentleman who' spt,lte P,•it, that such wls the
nature of our naval rervice, tl!at coercion was 4!,5„.
le.tely recersary—unief-s tliis was the case, he ~„,„.,1,1
be the l.ist :non to support it Anothf,r
against the proposition of the ilinnourableG,w,„,,,,,
(Mr. Forbes) was the immense tepe:,ce *Liji it
would require to keep pay.clut ks in every foreign port.
Mr. FORBES explained.
Sir GEORGE WA R RENDER no r begged to
withdraw his amendment, and move a dirtct negative
to the motion. The papers ailuded to by the tine.
Gentleman being already on the table of the Home,
in the Army Estimates.
Mr. FORBES said, the returns of the duties of the
Officers in question were not in those Estiliat'!s.
The question was then put, and negativel without
a division.