The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1833-07-19 00:00:00

PORTUGAL.

Mr. RoutNsoN said, he felt it his duty to call the attention of
the house to a circumstance of some importance connected
with the trade of Portugal. A notification had that morning
been sent to Lloyd's, from the Foreign-office, to the effect that
the Regency of Donna Marcia intended to establish a blockade
of the port of Lisbon, and all other Portuguese ports which
refused to acknowledge the sovereignty ,of Donna Maria. It
was contrary to all rule to announce an intended blockade.
Notification was never made until the blockade had actually
taken place.
Colonel EVANS rose to order. The hon. member had not
given notice of a motion, and it was irregular to enter into such
statements when no question was before the house.
The SPEAKER said that though it was not regular to bring
forward a motion without notice, a member had a right to do so
if he pleased, and he supposed that the hon. member would
conclude by a motion.
Mr. ROBINSON said it was impossible that any communica-
tion could have been made to the Foreign-office from the
Regency at Oporto since the capture of Don MiguePs fleet. He
could not help admiring the gallantry of Capt. Napier (cheers) ;
but as a commercial man he must regret that British officers
and seamen had been engaged in the contest. (Oh !) He
had suffered severely from the suspension of our commerce with
Portugal. The hon. member concluded with moving for a
copy of the notification issued from the Foreign-office respect-
ing the intention of the Regency of Donna Maria to institute
a blockade of Lisbon.
Lord ALTHORP said that the hon. member had a perfect
right to submit his motion without notice, but he regretted that
he had done so, because it bad deprived him of the opportunity
of considering whether or not he ought to accede to it. The
hon. member's object appeared to be to complain of the notifi-
cation which had been made to Lloyd's. He was not aware
whether the notification was in the usual form; but the hon.
member must perceive that the object was merely to warn Bri-
tish merchants, and he could not conceive that there was any
ground to complain of that. (Hear.) The hon. member had
alluded to what it was impossible not to admit to be a most gal-
lant action. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member knew that the
British officers who interfered in the contest at present going
on did so at their peril. The government could not sanction
such proceedings, but at the same time it was impossible not to
admire the bravery whichvhad been displayed. (Cheers.) If
the answer which he had given the hon. member was not so
satisfactory as he could have wished, he must attribute it to his
not having
O given notice of his motion.
Mr. P. 'CONNOR withdrew his motion on the subject of the
, repeal of the union.

TAXATION.
Mr. RETHVEN, after expressing his opinion as to the neces-
sity of affording relief to the people by the reduction of taxation,
and censuring the house for having disappointed the hopes of
the country in this respect, moved the following resolution,—
" That the reduction of taxation and the diminution of the pub-
lic burdens, by every attention to economy, are objects of para-
mount importance, and that in justice to the people who pay
taxes, all sinecure places should be abolished throughout the
British empire."
Mr. Rica was glad of the opportunity just furnished him by
the hon. gentleman of showing in detail, of placing it beyond
a am, that ministers had effected extraordinary redactions,
indeed to an extent that would be incredible if promised but
very few, say four years ago. It should be recollected when
hon. members taunted ministers with having done little or no-
thing in the way of retrenchment, that the administration which
preceded them had effected great reductions and savings in the
public expenditure (hear) ; but in proportion as that reduction
was considerable, did it not evidently lessen the means of their
successors to effect equal or proportional retrenchment? (Hear.)
Then when the supporters of ministers were taunted with hav-
ing theihselves neglected to make those reductions which were
expected at the' hands of the government, it should in like
manner be considered that in proportion as that government
carried the principle of economy into effect, by so' much were
hon. members at large precluded from an opportunity—indeed,
the possibility—of effecting those peculiar reductions which
each thought the most fitting. (Hear.) There was one test
which in itself he thought would place the services of the present
government in regard to economy beyond all dispute—be meant
the standard of value of retrenchment set down by the great
economist of that house, Mr. Hume, in his celebrated motion in
June, 1821. What would that hon. gentleman and the house
say when he told them that ministers had reduced the estimates
expenditure £798,896 less than the hon. member fixed as
the maximum amount of . reduction (hear), and the expense
of collecting the revenue £112,033 less than the hon. member
said it might be collected on a better system ? (Hear, hear.)
Be it remembered, too, that ministers had reduced the estimates
from £15,000,000 to £12,000,000 since their accession to office •
and be it further remembered, that this I:15,000,000er £12,000,006
was all the public expenditure which fell actually within the
control of Parliament. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to
show that ministers had reduced the cost of collecting the reve-
nue 20 per cent. since their accession to office, 23 per cent. with
a prospective reduction, which would make it 39 per cent.; and
that they had reduced their salariea (in Sir J. Graham's list) Of
£l,OOO per annum and upwards not less than 40 per cent.—
( Hear, hear.) What would any old member have said if told
these things some four years ago—that the expenditure of the
country had been reduced by ministers £3,000,000 since their
accession to office—that is, that they bad reduced the taxes
which bore upon the industry of the country not less than
£3,000,000 a year since 1830 (hear), and this too, be it recollect-
ed, after a reduction of not less than £35,000,000 of taxes since
1814 ? (Hear, hear.) One word as to sinecures. He agreed
with the hon. gentleman that the principle of sinecures was bad,
and that they should be abolished, but be differed with him that
vested right sinecures, such as Lord Ellenborough's and Lord
Kenyon's, which every person must condemn in the abstract,
should be abolished with as little ceremony as sinecures held
during pleasure. There was no sinecure on the pension list
which ministers had not so regulated that they must at no dis-
tanteriod be altogether abolished, and the moment they fell
vacant that moment they were abolished, so that the public
would prospectively view their entire abolition. (Hear.) It

were. indeed to be wished that such noble and unexampled in-
stances of patriotism as the Marquis Camden's were imitate dby
those who enjoyed 'a vested right sinecure, but who had the
means of living without them; but as ministers could not coin-
pel those persons to, be patriotic, all that they could do was to
take care that the public should be ensured, on their demise,
against a continuance of the sinecure ; dnd this had been acted •
upod whenever such fell in. (Hear; hear.) They had in this
spirit abolished the salary of the office or the keeper of the
(xi eat seal of Scotland, leaving its present owner,, the Duke of
Argyll, to enjoy the honour, and some fees attached to the office.
The hon, gentleman concluded with appealing to the house,—
had not ministers
,redeemed their pledge of economy, and were
they not therefore worthy of public approbation ?
Mr. HUME assured his hon. friend that he had never stated
that no reductions had been made by the present government;
on the contrary, he had always admitted that great reductions
had been made by it,- but still not such reductions as were com-
mensurate either with the wants or wishes of the country. He
was sorry to be obliged to tell his hon. friend that, after all the
reductions which had been effected by the government, they
had only just left the expenditure at the level at which he
found it when he took up this subject in 1821.. The expendi-
ture of 1833 was within a very small fraction as large as the
expenditure of 1820. (Hear, hear.) The reduction in the
amount of it arose entirely from the diminished charge of the
national debt since that time. (Cries of " Hear," and " No.")
He would prove that point beyond all contradiction. He must-
begin by reminding his hon. friend of what he (Mr. Hume)
had stated in 1821.-- He had said that in the year 1792 our whole
expenditure amounted to £15,000,000; of this sum £9,000,000
was devoted to defraying the charge of the national debt, and
the other £5,000,000, or rather more, say £5,500,000, was dis-
tributed over the military, naval, civil, and diplomatic services
of the country. He had then put it to the house that in the
year 1819 the expense of those services had risen from £5,500,000
to £22,000,000, and that the expense of the debt had risen from
£9,000,000 to £30,250,000. In the year 1821 the expenditure was
53,000,000 ; now it was £50,000,000. Of this sum £28,000,000
and upwards went to pay the interest of the 'debt, so that the
difference in the amount of the charge of the debt in 1819, and
in 1823, was in round numbers, 2,900,000. Now this was, within
a very small fraction, the sum of the difference between the
amount of the expenditure in 1819 and in 1833. -He therefore
contended that he had a right to say that the difference in the
expenditure of the two years arose from the diminished charge
of the national debt, effected, as everybody knew, by the re-
ductiou of the £4 and the £5 per cents. to a stock of a lower
denomination. The saving on the establishments Of the year
1820 was now, in the year 1833, not more than £lOO,OOO. ( Hear.)
He admitted that in that interim the expenses of our establish-
ments had much increased, and that the late government had
done much, and that the present government had done more
,to reduce our expenditure to the level of 1820. (Hear, hear.)
Ile thought that where a government had made a profligate
grant, where, it had allowed a man money for which he had
tperforme no stirvice, the same distinction ou"ht,, to be drawn
by Parliament which, in a similar case, would le drawn by in-
dividuals in private life. (Cheers.) Parliament ought, he
contended, to took at every pension, and to stop the issue of
every farthing of public money which was not merited by public
service. ,(Hear, hear.) If it would only adopt that rule, the
taxes would not produce misery to the extent to which they did
produce. it, and which exceeded the credibility,of many gentle-
men who then heard him. (Hear.) He should not be acting'
the part of a good steward to the public if he allowed any in-
ducement to prevent him from instituting such an inquiry. He
cared not for the rank of the parties; the higher they were the
more strict should be the investigaton; the more means they
had at command the less regard should be paid to their com-
plaints and remonstrances. (Cheers.) 'He recollected well
that on.a former occasion, when this subject was before Parlia-
ment, the noble lord opposite had said, " I admit that the par-
ties have no legal claims to these pensions, but I ask the house
to grant them on the score of charity." To that assertion he
had replied, that " our charity should begin at home, and that
we should consider how many of our poorer countrymen were
without a home in order to pamper the pride and swell the
pensions of the junior members of the aristocracy." (Hear.)
To these sentiments he still adhered, and he would again repeat
that all pensions and sinecures ought to he swept away unless
the holders could show that they had deserved them by public
services. (Hear, hear.) ' He thought that the house had much
to answer for in allowing this session to go by without investi-
gating, into this subject. He trusted that in the next session it.
would show more respect to the rights of the people, and that it
would not be induced, either by a feeling of false delicacy, or by
a deference to individuals of high rank, to sanction grants which
had been improperly made by former Parliainents. (Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL objected to the resolution, because he thought
the truth which it contained too obvious to need enforcement,
and because he disliked to see individual members bringing for-
ward, without the slightest necessity, abstract propositions,
about which there was no dispute, and which tended to no prac-
tical result. He thought it rather a weakening than an en-
forcement of the obligation of economy (which all admitted to
be indispensable) to produce mere abstract resolutions on the
subject, as if the matter admitted of any doubt or dispute.
Gentlemen should not think to elude their duties with respect to
attention to details by unmeaning generalities such as these.
As the resolution conveyed no censure upon government, in-
asmuch as no particular tax was assailed by it—in a word,
because it led to no practical result, he objected to it. He
readily admitted that the day. for sinecures was-gone by, and
that as soon as existing interests had terminated they
should be abolished. But he rested the abolition on this ground,
that the public having enabled the crown to reward public ser-
vices by superannuations and pensions, sinecures were no
longer necessary.
'llse house then divided—
For Mr. Ruthven's motion . 9O
Against it.

Majority against ministers 9
CORPORATION OF GALWAY.

On the motion of Mr. Blaker, a return was ordered " of the
landed or other estates, ecclesiastical benefices, to which there
is a right of presentation, monies, and other properties, speci-
fying particularly the full amount or annual value a each, at
the disposal of, or by royal grant, charter, custom, prescription
or otherwise, vested in the corporation of Galway ; setting forth
the names and abodes of all tenants, lessees, beneficiaries, and
other persons deriving any estate, interest, income, or emolu-
ment, under or from said corporation : also, an account of all
monies levied or received by said corporation in each year since
the year 1800, by right or claim of any toll, custom, duty,
courage, pontage, or any other demand, with the names of all
persons concerned in the receipt andappropriation thereof, and
the names of those who have been paid- therefroM, tke amount
paid, and for what consideration in each particular case: also,
a return of all lands, rights, and properties of .I.ny description,
which have been sold, mortgaged, or alienated by said corpora-
tion."