Star.
London, England, 1821-04-07 00:00:00

,

were proposed in detail, his objections would be re-
moved. What he wished to be understood was, that
he was not voting against the principles of the Iteso-.
lution, but against the sweeping manner in which it
had been brought forward. He had intended to say
a few words about the discords existing in the Admi-
nistration, but he should take another opportunity of
so doing. The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by
repeating his opinion as to the nature of the question
respecting the Earl of Fife.
Mr. H. G. BENNETT said, with respect to the dis-
missal of the Earl of Fife, the Earl did say, that he
was dismissed for the vote which he gave, and that
he was so informed by high *authority ; those were
his Lordship's words; and he added, that he believed
the dismissal was intended as a punishment to him-
self and an example te others. He regretted no one
took the words down ; then they would have been
able to force Ministers town explanation of their con-
duct. As the ease now stood, however, these was
sufficient to joitify him in the vote he should give.
He trusted his Honourable Friend would press his
motion, and if no other person went out with him,
he (Mr. Bennett) would.
Lord ,AA HAMILTON had little doubt as to the
words used by Lord Fife, but he doubted much
whether Lord Fife would now state that he had u-ed
them. The Administration expected the Noble Lord
would have disgraced himself by giving a different
vote, but as the Noble Lord did not, the Administra-
tion had done that which disgraced them, by dis-
missal—( Hear, hear, hear). He would ask, in what
situation had this dismissal placed Lord Fife's suc-
cessor, and what character would his votes, if in the
House, bear?—(Hear, hear). He (Lord A. Hamilton)
agreed with the assertion in the Resolution of his
Honourable Friend, that the House had not paid at-
tention to the Petitions of the People ; neither had
they adopted retrenchment or economy on any point ;
and therefore he would on every occasion which oc-
curred vote for reduction.
Mr. CREEVEY repeated' his assertion as to the
words used by Lord Fife.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division—
For the Resolution - 36
Against it - - 120
Majority against the Resolution - —B4
On the re-admission of strangers
Mr. HUME was regretting the division which had
just taken place. He was aware of the difficulty of
wording a Resolution so as to meet the wishes and
views of 200 Gentlemen ; and sorry he was to find
Gentlemen agreeing in facts, differing in forms of
expression. The House now met like school-boys,
the Noble Lord their master—(Hear, hear)—and well
he managed his scholars ; for he impressed effectually
on their minds the doctrine that one who should
presume to act contrary to the master's orders, should
be turned out of school!—(Hear, hear).—The Hon.
Gentleman then proceeded to comment on the enor-
mous expenditure kept up in the Civil Department;
and said lib would now move, “that it be an instruc-
tion to the Committee that they should take into con-
sideration the Resolution of the Finance Committee
of 1817, recommending every possible reduction irr
the salaries of the Clerks, and others, in the Civil
Department." He entreated the House to adopt this
Resolution, by which they would not pledge them-
selves to any extent of reduction, but only to adopt
it to the utmost extent which was practicable. He
concluded by moving the Resolution in question.
Lord ARCHIBALD HAMILTON seconded the
Resolution, and strongly reprobated the system of
retired allowance, as it at present existed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said,
those Gentlemen who asserted that no reduction had
taken place in the public expenditure, had paid but
little attention to the voluminous Returns laid before
the House, from which it would appear that very
considerable reduction had taken place. It was a ge-
neral instruction to the superiors of office, that when-
ever a vacancy occurred, inquiry should be made
whether the place could be abolished, and if it could
not, whether the salary could not be reduced?. and
reduction had taken place, although not to the extent',
which Government wished, yet to the utmost which
circumstances would allow. To reduce the allow-,
ance to retired public servants, or to the widows of
such, would not benefit the public service or the pub-
lic revenue; but would, he was persuaded, have a
directly different effect. The Right Honourable Gen.
tleman then proceeded to defend the compensation
and allowances given to the different retired Public
Officers, as advantageous, rather than otherwise, to
the public service.
Sir J. NEWPORT condemned the grant of £2,000‘
a-year to Lord Tyrawley, as retired Barrack Master
General of Ireland, as too large; and expressed a de.
sire to know whether, the accounts of his office, which
were in arrear, had been audited?
Mr. D. BROWNE defended Lord Tyrawley.
Mr. W. POLE said, some years ago Lord Tyraw-
ley's allowance or pension was stopped, and that with
his own consent, till his accounts should be settled.
And he was happy to say, the Noble Lord's account.
was settled, and there was a balance due to him.
Mr. ELLICE was not one of those who desired to
take away remuneration for public services; on the
contrary, he thought some public servants were not
paid sufficiently. He would only instance the situa-
tion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, for all
the arduous duties he had to perform, received only
1.300 a-year more than Lord Tyrawley's pension. He
suggested the propriety of taking a per tentage from
the salaries of persons holding offices, to form a fund
for retired servants of the Public—(Hear, hear).
Mr. HUSKISSON was for referring the Report to
the Committee altogether, instead of adopting a par.l
tial Resolution, as now proposed. With respect to the
income of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, since the
union of the Exchequers of Ireland and England, the
two salaries had raised his Right Hon Friend's salary,
'almost to a level •with the other Great Officers of State.
Mr. HUME was ready to accede to the proposition
of the Right Hoil. Gentleman, to refer the whole Re-
port to the Committee.,
Mr. W. SMITH said, it was an invidious duty to
be imposed on any Hon. Member, to be called on to"
point out any individual'as being too well paid.
The Resolution was then withdrawn, and the mo-
tion for referring the Sixth Report to the Committee
was adopted.
' The House then went into a Committee.—On the,
Resolution for granting £50,418 for the office of Se-
cretary at Wax, •
Colonel DAVIES went through the items df these
Estimate's, and contended, that If the War Office was