The Statesman.
London, England, 1812-05-08 00:00:00

~;

Dipzitur. Pdi~blkMEP J.
'BOWIE of comkosp;, MAY 7.
The third beading of the Etabestiemont Bill was postponed
to Weduesday meet.
PADDINGTON CANAL.
On the Motion that the Report of the Paddington and Lime.
house Cana) Bill be taken into consideration,
Mr. cagEVEY, after some observations, moved that It be
taken lota oasidatatian this day fortnight.
Mr. MANNING opposed the Amendment, on the ground that !
those totausted In the Bill lad already ex' erienced too sash

Mr. BIDDU I•Pli supported the Amendment, contending fbr
t„. ":11AM opposed the Bill, which he did on the
groun:i dim k -.vas one of a series of measures which would tend
to cut up aiti deprive the M•tmpolis of the salubrious effects
that would re :•t Irma the Mary-le-bone Park. It ought to he
kept open as free for the benefit of the town.
Mr. : • )I.li PARE`. denied that the new Canal would de-
prive Mary-le-hare of its " openness"—of any of those advan-
tages which tended to promote the salubrity of the town.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, when a division
took place. The numbers were—
For the original Motion - - 49
Against it - 15
Majority - - —St
The Report was then received. None of the Subscribers to
the Canal voted.
Report agreed to, and the Bill ordered to beengrossed.
DUBLIN CANAL.
Mr. W. W. POLE presented a Petition from the Directors
of the DoMin Canal, praying for aid.—Ordered to lie on the

table.
Mr. W. POLE save no'ice, that he should to-morrow move
for leaveto bring in a Bill to mate better provision for the Pe-
titionen
DISTRESSED MANUFACTURERS.
Oa the Motion of Mr.. BROUtaIAiM, the house then re-
solved itself into a Committee on the Petitions respecting the
present distressed state of trade.
Several witnesses were examined. •
Mr. George Naylor, Mr. Benjamin Row, Mr. Josiah Wedge-
wood son Mr. Ralph Stevenson, were urnonget. the witnesses
examined.
Shortly before nine o'clock the House resumed, and the Com-
mittee °bylined lease to sit again.

TELLERS OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Mr. CREEVEY rose to make his Motion with

respect to the Tellers of the Exchequer. He would
explain, he said, as briefly as possible, what was the
nature of the grievance which it was the object of his
motion to have redressed, and-what would be an ap.
propriate remedy. The Hen. Gentlemen then pro-
ceeded to detail the various fees receivable by the
Tellers of the Exchequer, Lord Buckingham and
Lord Camden, which, he contended, were inordinate.
Their teceipts, he observed, in time of peace, did
not amount to more than 20001. per ann. each, but,
since the war, in consequence of the increased ex.
penditureof the nation, had been raised several thou-
sand poutuls. They did not now receive less than
the interest of one million sterling, and he begged the
House to consider this fact in conjunction with the
manner in which other men, who had mot, after all,
deserved much less of their country than Lords Buck-
ingham and Camden, ere remunerated. The pen-
sions which' had been granted to Lord Nelson, Lord
Wellington, and other defenders of their country,
did not, in the aggr:gate, form any thing like the
sum which was received by those Noble Lords.—
That there should be so great a distinction made be-
tween these late and all . r Olficers of the Crown,
he could perceive no reason for, and the object of his
motion was to create an equality in this respect.--.
He was aware that he would be told that the grant of
these offices was as valid as any other made by the
Crown ; but there was in his opinion a very ma-

terial distinction between such grants as were made
by the Crown out or the estates, immediately belong
'g to it, and those, the funds of which were to be
sv,,ght for in the public revenue. He was of opinion
that the Noble Lords themselves would never main-
tain the converse of this doctrine. He would like to
see their counsel appear at the Bar of that House,
pleading that their clients had a right to maintain the
splendour of their rank by contributing to the ruin
of their country. The Hon. Gentleman then pro-
ceeded to read a document, in which the opinion of
Sir Arthur Plggott,and several other eminent Lawyers
was deliveree, to the effect that offices similar to that
under the consideratieln of the House, were proper
objects of Parliamentary interference ; and contend:.
ed that it would be absurd to consider any office so
sacred which would give to its owner emolument
greater than those with which the nation thought
proper to reward a number of Naval and Military
Commanders, who had so much contributed to the
glory and welfare of their country. Ile stated, that
the increase of income to each of the Noble Lords,
resulting from the annuity lately granted to the
Princesses, alone amounted, to 2001. per ann. ; and
after animadverting on the impolicy of grants of so
lavish a nature at the •present time, ,concluded
moving seven Resolutions, calculated to put into
action the principles laid down in his speech. • -
These were seconded by Mr. P. MOORE. - '

The CHANCELLOR.. of the EXCHEQUER
contended; that it would be taking a very erroneous
view of the subject to put the question on a similar
footing with any matter litigated in u Court of Jus-
tice, as the Ron. Gent. seemed disposed to do: It
was the unquestionable right of the Crown to grant
such offices as those towards which the present mo-
tion was directed, and which were coeval with the
Exchequer itself. The question was not one with
respect to which •Parlientewtcoold with an, propriety
interfere; the subject was not new to Parliament,
principles of a similar nature to those advanced by
the Hon. Gent. had been upheld, hut were not ad-
mitted. The economical saving which any alteration
in the offices might produce to the station, would by
no means balance the inconveniences that would re-
sult from breaking in as it would do upon all the
plinciple by which the stability of property was
maintained.

Mr. PONSONBY said, that there was no species
of estate more fully recognized by the law of Eng.
land than that which was founded on the grant of an
office for life ; if Gentlemen doubted this UlllOll,
they would find it confirmed by a reference to those
writers, who were considered as competent autho-
rity on the subject. Such an estate, he would re.
peat, was as much protected by the laws as every
other of any description whatever. He was not in-
clined to deny that Plrliament had the power to inter.
fere in the regulation of such offices, bat he entirely
denied that it had such a right. The grants, it was
said, had for their object the Public benefit, and•
should not be suffered to continue longer than they
appeared calculated for the attainment of that end.
The CroWn itself was held a sacred trust for the be-
nefit of the people, by }vhom the *accession wits
aemeti.nes regulated. Parliament had indeed inter.
fered with the revenues Al the church, -but that hap-
ppned during the tuo+iflEeot -}Mblic calamity, acid

• •••