The Statesman.
London, England, 1822-07-23 00:00:00

soppor•eol Ministers. The Hon. Member here eutereol
into a history of tit! Fund, and contended that the col-
lector shosiold monthly, at most, make returns of the ba-
lsa. es which canoe into his hands, instead of retaining
it two or three months. fie (.lr. Som,ner) had proved
before the Committee. that the io hosine-s might be
done for a salary of UO/. a-tear, and this hr proved, by
the evidence of the Hon. Baronet's Deputy, who fur
more than twenty years did the whole business for that
sum, when the Hon. Baronet had only to receive the
money. There was' no necessity for requiring security
to ilie amount of 12,000 L, as was usual, berre.e, by
making weekly retort's, no snore than 1,000/.could ever
be in his hands. It was possible the Hon. Baronet never
made any use of the balances to the amount of 7,ollth' to
8,000/., which he retained in his hands for two OR three
months; but though he made no gain by these balances,
yet it was a loss to the fund of four per cent. In the pe-
tition presented by the Common Council, the prayer to
be beard by Counsel was omitted, and, therefore, when
Counsel were going into the Committee-room the oloor was
shut io their face. Unless' the word „weekly" wasaub-
stituted for "quarterly," he would move that the
amendments be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. BROODEN defended the character of the Hon.
Bart. (Sir W. Curtis.) His conduct was most honour-
able, and nothing appeared before the Committee to im-
peach the Hon. Baronet's character. He was the more
astonished at the statements of the Hon. Member for
Surrey (Mr. H. Sumner) as he understood he had before
withdrawn his opposition to the Bill.
Mr. Aid. WOOD said be had a clause to propose. fie
first moved (as we understood) that the word " quarter-
ly" be left out, with a view afterwards fo substitute the
word " weekly." •
Mr. LUSHINGTON suggested the propriety of post- e
porting the further consideration of the Report until the
Hon. Bart, should be in his place. .
Mr. BROGDEN said that an additional reams for de-
lay arose out of the opposition by the Hon. Member for •
Surrey, who said in the Ct emitter he would withdraw
his opposition to the Bill.
Mr. H. SUMNER said that the Hon. Wernher (Mr.
Brogden) had made a very broad assertion. He (Mr. S.)
did give up his opposition to the Bill. He never
meant to give up Lis opposition, and therefore it could
not be any excuse for the Hon. Baronet's absence. that •
lie expected no opposition to his Bill. Every thing be
had said either in that House or in the Committee was
fully borne out by the evidence produced before that
Committee.
Mr. BROODEN said that the Hon. Member (Mr. S.) •I
observed that he (Mr. B.) bad made a broad assertion in
saying that the Hon. Member in the Committee declared
he would give no farther opposition to the Bill. Whe-
ther that a 'on was true or false—(Cries of " order,
order)"—he would appeal to the Hon. Bart. (Sir J. Gra-
ham, we believe) behind him.
Mr. H. SUMNER desired the Hon. Member (Mr.
Brogdee) would explain what be meant.
BROGDEN said (as we understood him) that if
the Hon. Member (Mr. H. Sumner) meant to say he did
not mention in the Committee that be would not give the
Bill any farther opposition, that was untrue—(Cries of
" order, order."—" Chair, chair!'')
The SPEAKER observed that both the Members
could not but feel that they used expressions which they
ought not to ase. He hoped both of them would explain
to the house. He was satisfied that title was a misunder-
standing which arose out of a subject in which the feel-
ings were warm.
Mr. BROODEN said he submitted with the greatest
deference to the call of the Chair. When he came down
to the house he expected no opposition from the Hon.
Member (Mr. H. Sumner) said that was " a broad as-
sertion," and that he never said he withdrew Isis oppo-
sition. he (Mr. B) said that was not the fact, and he
appealed so the Moe. Baronet (Sir J. Graham). whether
he was wrong.—(Order,order.)
The SPEAKER again interposed, and said be was sa-
tisfied there was a misunderstanding. Nothing could be
more misunderstood than what was said by the lion.
Member for Surrey. when he used the words broad as-
sertion, as applied to the lion. Member's (Mr. Brag-
den's) statement. The words were not meant in an of-
fensive sense as the Hon. Member (Mr. Brogdeo)
mis-
conceived them.

Mr. H. SUMNER said be agreed with the Speaker.—
His use of the expression " broad assertion" applied to
the point that no part of what he said was calumnious,.
and also to what he said in the Committee, that he never
meant to give up his opposition to the Bill.
Sir J. ORetHAhl said that certainly he inferred from
what bad fallen from the Hon. Member for Surrey in the
Committee, that he would give no farther opposition to
the Bill, and that he could not be in the house on the
present evening.
Mr.T. WILSON observed that the debate and discus-
sion which arose in the Committee were on the whole
carried on with a great deal of 'rood humour. The
Hon. Member then went into a defence of the conduct of
Sir W. Curtis on the business.

Mr. 11. SUMNER said be did not rise to offer any ob-
servation on what was said by the Hon. Member for
the City of London (Mr. Wilson); but there were two
circumstances stated which went to impeach his charac-
ter, and far which he would wish for an explamition
from the Hon Member (Mr.l3rogdes) before he left the
house. What lie said in the Committee was, that ,he $,, •
would not touch the question if no other person would.
.44,
oppose it; but he never meant to say that he would gin. • '
up the apposition. 1.0.
The SPEAKER here again rose to order, and thellailt •• 4.
Member sat itown.
-,
Mr. BENNET said be could not see why there, •
should be one moment's delay between the collection,
of the money and the paying it into t 4 Chamberlain*: . '
hands. •

Mr. HUME said that those in the collection of the
Excise and other branches of the public Revenue were
required, by a Bill now in progress before the Lords,
to pay into the Treasury weetly, and some even twice
a week, the sums collected. lie could not conceive
why a different principle should be applied to this Re.
venue of the City of London. Attention ought to be
paid to the petition presented from the City on the bu-
siness.
After a few words from Mr. Alderman WOOD, •
The House divided on the question, that the word
quarterly" be left out.
The numbers were for leaving it out, 4—Against it,
37—Majority for the clause as it stood, 23.
On the question that the Bill be engrossed, the house
again divided. The numbers were—
For the Motion, 30—Against it, 12—Majority, IS.
TCRKISII PRIGATE.
Colonel DAVIES wished to correct a mi•reppresenta.
Lion which had gone forth from what 113:1 fallen from
him respecting the Turkish frigate. What he stated
was this—that be was on board this frigate; that he saw
the person second in command; that the ship was capa-
ble of mounting 35 guns; that he was told she would
have those guns on board, and stores : n proportion; that
be was told by the same antlinrity that she was to be
manned by 250 British seamen.

CORON6IIII IN IRII.AND.
Mr. S. RICE presented a Petition frnrn several Co-
roners in Ireland, against the Coroners' Bill—Laid on
the table.

QUEEN'S !lERVANTII.

The Report on the Queen's Servants Pension Bill was
brought up, and the amendments agreed tu. The Bill
was then ordered to he •ndrotrrd.

The Malt Dutiei-Colleetiou Lill pisse4l through the

~' ,I
1
v V