Star.
London, England, 1820-07-05 00:00:00

The warrant for Its tie-establislimetit tad been made
out and sent to the treasury, without coniug or
communicating with the Commissioners themselves,
or any part of them; so that it was possible that the
Commission might have been revived, without the
individuals who were empowered to act under it
being. at all acquainted with the circumstance. In
his opinion, those Gentlemen were treated most con-
temptuously by the Secretary for the Home Depart-
ment. All this he would corroborate by the corre-
spondence ; and he would ask the House whether an
individual making a statement,
,which he professed
to be able to substantiate by correspondence, deserved
more the confidence of the House than he who con-
troverted that statement, and-would, at the same

time, conceal the correspondence? He then moved,
That there be laid before the House copies of all corre-
spcmdence that bad taken place between the Secretary for the
Home Department and the Commissioners, or any one of them,
appointed to inquire into the state of tht Courts of Justice in Scot-
land, with reference to the duration and continuance of the same."
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that there was no
difference between Ministers and the Noble Lord op:
posite with respect to the course to be pursued.
There was no disposition on the part of Government
to stop the Commission or restrict their inquiries—
on the contrary, it having been found, after the ex-
piration of the Commission, that many subjects wor-
thy of investigation were left untouched, Govern
ment determined to renew it—and the only question.
was, whether or not the demise of his late Majesty
dissolved it? If such were the case, it followed that

all the acts done after the period of the demise
would be invalid, and it was his intention to bring in
a Bill to render all such acts valid. However, the
result of the inquiry was, that the Commission did
not terminate by the demise of the Crown, and con-

sequently, that all their acts were valid since the de-

raise. The Noble Lord opposite had complained
that the suggestions of the Commissioners had not
been attended to. The time for carrying into effect
such stigFestions, it was apparent, must be when the
Commissioners had concluded their labours. It being,
then the intention of Government to revive the Com-
mission without delay; the Noble Lord would see
that all the practical advantages which he might ex-
pect to derive from the production of the correspon•
dente were attained, and therefore that there was no
ground for pressing the Motion—(llear).
Mr. J. P. GRANT took this opportunity of sug-
gesting the postponement of a Bill relating to the
Court of Session in Scotland. The Bill had his en-

tire concurrence; but he knew that amongst his pro-
fessional brethren in Scotland a great difference of
opinion existed, and as at this particular period a
great press of business rendered their mutual com-
munications more difficult, he hoped that the Bill
would be postponed to next Session, in order to give
those Gentlemen an opportunity of consulting each
other upon the propriety of its provisions.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, it was the disposi-
tion, he believed, of the Hon. Mover of the Bill to
fill up the blanks, and postpone it till next Session.
Lord A. HAMILTON said, that after what had
fallen from the Noble Lord, he had no difficulty in
withdrawing his Motion.'
Mr. KENICE DY wished to know how soon the Com-
Missioners might be expected to finish their labours?
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, it was the opinion
of the Commissioners that they might be able to con.
dude in ont year.—The Motion was then withdiawm

UOLLECTION OF THE REVENUE.

Mr. HUME said, that in rising to submit certain
Resolutions concerning the expense of collecting the
Revenue, he should disclaim all hostility to Ministers,
because they had appeared desirous of encouraging
the objects which he had in view, and, in fact, had,
courted inquiry. The calculations which he held is
his hand were all founded on official documents, and.,
in order to avoid all possibility of difference, he chose
to take the calculations as they had been officially
made up, although there were instances where his
own comrtations led to very different inferences
from those set forth in the documents. The first
Resolution, he was sure, would meet with the concur-
rence of the House. It stated the necessity of eco-
nomy and retrenchment in every branch of the pub-
lic expenditure, and was as follows:
" 1. That with a view of accelerating the period at which re-
lief may be afforded to the country item a pan of its birchen,
a continued and vigilant superintendence ought to be exercised
over the expenditure of the State in all its several Departments;
and that a minute investigation should be instituted into the
mode and expense of Management and Collection in the several
Branches of the Revenue, in order that every Reduction may
be made therein, which can be effected without detriment to the.
public interest."
—The same Resolution had last year been proposed
by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he pro-
posed the additional taxes. The second Resolution
related to the collection of the Revenue in the years
1796, 1810, and 1820; and a comparison of the
expense of the collection in these years respectively ;
as also the gross amount. The amount of the
Revenue in 1796, had been £23,000,000; in 1810,1
£45,000,000 ; and, in 1820, £53,000,000. In the
last year the expense of the collection bad borne a
per tentage of £6 Is. 2d. forming an .increase of
20 per cent. above what it had been before, in 1796.
In that year the expense of collecting the Revenue
had amounted to £1,700,000, while in 1820 it had
risen to the sum of £3,341,000. At the time that
the circulating mediuni had been so much depre-
ciated, it was but, fair that the salaries of public
officers should be increased, but as that depreciation
had in a great degree ceased, the salaries ought to
be reduced in th same proportion. So far, how-
tverrwas that from being the case, that an addi-
tional expense of £160,000 had taken place since
January, 1819; and, in 1820, an addition had been
made of seventy•two individuals above the number
of those employed in the preceding year, with sala-
ries amounting in t!‘e aggregate to £4,904.—1n
1796 the expense of collecting the Revenue had been
6 per cent. and in the present year the total expense
had been £3,341,000. That calculation was confined
to Great Britain, and did not include Ireland.—
In 1819 the expenses of quarantine amounted to
1:92,000 and had increased in the present year. The
Revenue of Ireland for 1820 was £5,220,000, and
the gross per tentage on collection was £l6. 85..11d.,
and £2O on the net receipt, though in 1808 it had
only been £l5. He should confine himself to the
great heads of Revenue, and he must observe, that
in general, the increase in the Customs had exceeded
that in the other branches of the Revenue. In taking
the amount of the rate per cent. at which the Rev*.
oues of Great Britain and Ireland were collected in