was introduced should have arisen out of the deliberations of a committee, and the grounds for it should have been clearly stated. But here was a proposition determined on without any inquiry; as if, truly, that which was good sixty years ago must be equally good now, the circumstances of the times being wholly altered. He did not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of men of high rank going over to Ireland as lords-lieutenant, but the House owed it to the public to examine what was necessary for the support of that office. Sir Henry Parnell contended, that the office of lord lieutenant of Ireland was altogether as useless as it was expensive. He was of opinion that having separate governments for England and for Ireland, led to inconvenience and embarrassment. At present it was well known that a serious division existed between the members of the government of that country. To the present lord lieutenant and the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Grant) every thanks and gratitude were due. That right hon. gentleman had displayed both policy and liberality, integrity in his views, and conciliation in his manner; but he regretted to say that other members of the Irish government were not distinguished for similar virtues. He believed that the office of lord lieutenant, instead of an expence of 30,000!, cost the nation at least a sura of 100,000. Independent of the saving of so large a sum, it would produce regu larity and uniformity in the system of the government if the office were altogether abolished. talked of the difference of times and circumstances. Now, in deciding this question, they ought to look to the expense of keeping up the court in Ireland, at former periods, and contrast it with the present. They ought also to consider the difference which existed between their means of defraying expenses formerly and now. It was, in his opinion, very improper to go on granting a certain sum, without stating any sufficient reason for it. Some gentlemen thought that the office was not at all necessary. On that point he would offer no opinion; for he did not know how the fact stood. But when they called on him to make a permanent arrangement for the present reign, he wished to know on what ground they proceeded. Was it on the same principle as that on which the English civil list was to be settled, namely, an average estimate of four years? The whole argument, brief as it was, was contained in the statement of that estimate; but, with respect to the Irish eivil list, it was a thing of which he knew nothing; and, with the exception of his right hon. friend (sir J. Newport) and one or two others, he believed the House were as much in the dark on it as himself. The sum of 30,000l. might not be enough for a lord-lieutenant, assuming that the whole of his private fortune must be allowed to accumulate; but he should hope that, in selecting a proper person for the situation, his ma jesty would look to those who cherished objects of greater importance than mere emolument. If, however, it were merely a matter of money and nothing else, he must consider it as a money transaction, and demand a proper reason for granting Lord Castlereagh said, that as to the oba specific sum. Therefore he considered servation made, that the House had no inquiry was necessary. He knew, how- information before them respecting the ever, that ministers wished to grant no Irish civil list for coming to a decision, he information to the House. All they de-apprehended they had. There had never sired was, to get the matter through parliament as fast as possible, and without any debate. He had got his answer on that head the other night. He had called for inquiry, but he was told that there was no necessity to investigate the matter at all. As to fighting the bill in detail, it was utterly impossible. He could not do so, in the absence of inform-charges to other funds. Yet the civil list ation. If it were attempted, one amendment would come on the back of another in such confusion that they could not proceed. This was the inevitable consequence of proposing a gross sum without examination. Whatever measure been occasion to bring the civil list of Ireland before parliament with a view of calling for any supply to make up its deficiency. It had never been in debt; while the civil list of England had been several times under consideration, either with the view of supplying its deficiency, or with the view of transferring some of its of Ireland had been brought under review. The sum of 225,000l. had been before the committee, of which the hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. Bankes) had been chairman, when inquiry was made what offices, especially of a sinecure cha racter, could be abolished. With respect to the 207,000l. now granted, it ought to be remembered that by the abolition of offices of a sinecure character, or that had been subjected to regulation, 17,000l. would fall in, and in that event this sum would not be at the disposal of the Crown, but would fall into the consolidated fund. As to the 13 classes in the Irish civil list, they were so numerous, not because the expence was greater, but for the purpose of giving more information. If the right hon. gentleman wished for a specification of the expenses down to the lowest sum, he had no objection to give it to him, for he held it now in his hand; but he should be sorry that the bill should stand till the paper could be printed. The only item that appeared now to be in question was, the addition made, in 1810, to the lord lieutenant's salary. That had been made after full consideration. This discussion upon it seemed only preparatory, and by a side-wind aiming at the abolition of the lord lieutenancy, and the consolidation of the government of both countries. The hon. baronet who spoke last, had distinctly avowed this object. He thought there were circumstances in the local situation, in the internal government, in the difficulty of communication with this country, which would make the abolition of this office highly detrimental. He could not see how matters of police and revenue could be managed without the presence of a person of this importance. It was, however, a very large question of general policy, on which he would not enter further now. The right hon. gentleman had said that the currency had been ameliorated 25 per cent. He, however, was ignorant of this influx of wealth. Several articles were lowered in prices, but still he believed household expences were not much lower. If the hon. gentleman had found his wealth improved 25 per cent. he believed he was a solitary instance. The addition to the salary had not been made for the purpose of making the situation lucrative, nor was it first suggested by his side of the House. When lord Hardwicke returned from that office, he strongly represented the injury that would be done to his successor if the situation was not made better. He deprecated such an allowance to the lord lieutenant of Ireland as would prevent any from holding that office but leviathans in point of property. If none could hold it but such as the duke of Devonshire or the duke of Bedford, with all possible respect for their station and independence, he thought it would be a misfortune. He could not view it but as a great misfortune if persons of great respectability and character-if lord Whitworth, for instance, who was so well fitted for such an office by personal respectability and previous services-could not encounter its expenses without sacrificing their private fortune. The question, in fact, resolved itself into this-whether a committee should be instituted to inquire into the private expenses of the lord lieutenant? But this was foreign to the purpose of a civil list. It was not intended to regulate the expenses of the lord chamberlain or the lord steward. He knew that accounts of such expenses had been called for; but the civil list was for general services, and accounts were called for only to ascertain the debt, and to bring before the House the grounds on which any sum was afterwards to be appropriated. Particular charges were not so much the object, as the general expenses, and the manner in which the civil list was to be regulated. Mr. Shaw expressed his regret and astonishment to hear any Irish member suggesting in that House, the policy of abolishing the office of lord lieutenant of Ireland. Dublin had suffered most severely by the Act of Union, and no saving that might follow the abolition of the office could be compared to the destruction which that measure would bring upon the citizens of Dublin. Every one at all acquainted with the state of Ireland, knew how much, and how severely she suffered by absentees, but if the office of lord lieutenant, the last remaining inducement for men of property to remain at home, was abolished, it would have the effect of banishing them altogether from Ireland. Sir John Newport said, he had never entertained the idea of the abolition of the lord-lieutenancy, and begged not to be implicated in that charge. Mr. Wellesley Pole said, that his late right hon. friend Mr. Perceval had brought forward the motion for augmenting the salary of the lord lieutenant, after he had ascertained that no lord lieutenant could hold the office without expending double the sum allowed. The noble duke who then held the office was not aware of the investigation, and to any inquiry of the kind he would have turned a deaf ear. It was all done without his knowledge. It was thought unjust that the lord lieu tenant should spend 30,000l. while his salary was only 20,000l. Greater attention could not have been paid to economy than that noble duke paid, yet he could not perform his duty to the country without far exceeding his salary. There were a great number of public duties which he had to perform, and none more important than that of being at the head of all public charities; and it would be found that a very large portion of the income of the lord lieutenant was expended in charities. Nothing would give greater dissatisfaction in Ireland than the abolition of the lord lieutenancy. His hon colleague had now said it should be abolished, but he had never heard such a proposition mentioned in Ireland without exciting a high degree of dissatisfaction. He agreed with the hon. member for Dublin, that such a measure would excite great discontent, and would be as great a calamity as Ireland ever felt. Families of rank in that country would be deprived of a court-they would have no court to resort to, to which they might present their wives and daughters [a laugh]. He could assure the House that the gentlemen of Ireland were as high and as proud as could be found in any other part of the world; they would look on it as a degradation, if having communications of importance to make to the government, they were refer red to the chief secretary, instead of havin a direct communication with the representative of majesty. Events had happened, and might happen again in Ireland, which might require measures of the utmost promptitude and decision. The lord lieutenant, in critical emergencies could take upon himself to act with vigour, when a person of the rank of the secretary could not venture to do so. He believed, indeed, that there was no man of respectability in Ireland who would wish to see the office of lord lieutenant abolished. As to the salary when it was settled at its present increased rate, it was never imagined that it was adequate to cover the expenses of the office, but it was intended that it should be such as to enable a man of fortune to exercise the office, without too much encroaching on his own property. No man could undertake properly to fill the of fice of lord lieutenant without spending 10,000l. a year of his private income. Mr. Tierney said, he had never lent himself to any such proposition as that of the abolition of the office of lord lieu tenant. He had always conceived that propositions respecting the abolition of offices retained at the Union should come from Irish gentlemen. Sir H. Parnell wished to be understood that he had not imputed the least blame to earl Talbot. As to the propriety of retaining the office of lord lieutenant, there was a difference in his opinion and that of his right hon. friend, of the view taken of that question in Ireland; and the difference was easily accounted for. His right hon. friend (Mr. W. Pole) had spent most of his time in the Castle at Dublin, where there was not a whisper, no doubt, against such an office. He (sir H. P.) on the other hand, spent most of his time in the country in Ireland, where he often heard the opinion that a change might advantageously take place in the executive government of Ireland. It was not his wish to abolish the office of lord lieutenant without finding a substitute; but he thought the business of the police of Ireland would be much better managed by appointing lords lieutenants of counties, after the English system. Much difficulty was at present felt from the want of authorities in the different counties, to communicate with the government, as the governors of counties did not answer this purpose. Formerly there was a strong opinion in favour of the office of lord lieutenant, but at present the general opinion respecting it was much changed. Mr. Baring allowed, that it was not proper for an English member to interfere to propose the abolition of such an office as that of lord lieutenant of Ireland, and he thought, that whatever little pomp remained in the capital of Ireland, should not be abolished. But, he observed, in general, that propositions for the increase of the salaries of offices passed very easily in the House, and that during all the time he had sat there, he had never known any reduction of those salaries to be made. When 10,000/. was added to the salary of the lord lieutenant, there was a sort of pretence for it, which did not at present exist, viz. the state of the currency. Though it was impossible for him to know whether 20 or 30,000l. a year was precisely the fit salary for a lord lieutenant, he protested against the doctrine, that salaries should be increased merely because it was said that otherwise only men of great fortune could fill the offices. This might lead to an indefinite augmentation of salaries. For instance, if it was asked why the governor of the Cape of Good Hope had now 10,000l. a year, or twice as much as any other governor, which was perfectly absurd, the same answer might be made, that without such a salary, only those whom the noble lord called the leviathans of fortune, could fill the office. Since the change in the state of the circulation, there was no man of any condition, whose fortune numerically in pounds sterling had not been dirainished, though it was a question whether the sum they now possessed would not go as far in the purchase of the necessaries or comforts of life, as the larger nominal sum would heretofore. It therefore be came, at least, a fair matter of consider ation, whether the salaries of the great public officers which had been increased during the depreciation of the currency, should not also suffer reduction. The clause was agreed to, and the House resumed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 18. CIVIL LIST BILL.] On the order of the day for receiving the report of this bill, Mr. Curwen said, he could not but deeply lament, that, in the present state of the country, ministers had not recommended and acted upon that system of economy, the necessity for which was so universally admitted. Instead of the measure now before them, he had hoped that ministers, on the part of the Crown, would have stated that a considerable diminution of the civil list expenditure was intended; because, however desirable it was to support the dignity of the Crown, still, at a period like the present, the sufferings and privations of the people ought to be attended to and removed as much as possible. With this feeling, he conceived the greatest ornament of the Crown at this moment would be economy and retrenchment. Every man who felt the real state of the country must be convinced that its prosperity could alone be hoped for by considerably diminishing the public expenditure. He regretted that a proposition of that kind had not been made on the part of ministers, particularly with reference to the civil list. He conceived that a well-con sidered diminution of that expenditure would at once conduce to the true dignity of the Crown, and be found in every point of view serviceable to the country. Mr. Monck observed, that the allowances granted to our ambassadors and envoys were extravagant and enormous. He did not wish the country to be niggardly towards those individuals, but he conceived that it would not be derogatory to the dignity of this government if they were put on the same footing as one of the greatest monarchs of Europe he meant the king of France-placed the ambassadors of that nation. He was credibly informed that there were but two classes of French ambassadors, the higher and the inferior. The members of the first class were paid 6,000l. a year each, with the single exception of the ambassador to the court of London, who, in consequence of the high rate of living in this metropolis, was allowed 200,000 francs, or about 8,000l. sterling. Now, our principal ambassadors had not less than 12,000l. a year; and the salaries of our ambassadors at the inferior courts varied from 5,000l. to 4,000l. and 3,000%. Thus this government gave, as nearly as could be, double the allowances granted to the ambassadors of one of the first monarchs in Europe. This made a dif ference, on the whole, of nearly 80,000. a year, or, in other words, our government were paying 80,000l. annually more than was paid by the French government for similar service. Such a saving was important at all times, but particularly so in the present circumstances of the country. Lord Castlereagh said, that in 1815 a committee of the House of Commons investigated this branch of expenditure and recommended that the present allowances should be granted. That recommendation was acceded to without opposition; and the provision then suggested, and which was made on a general view of the subject, had been continued ever since. Prior to that period particular sums were granted for particular branches of expense to which our ambassadors were liable, but it was thought better to give a specific salary. He could assure the hon. member that the subject had undergone a great deal of consideration, with a view to the greatest possible economy, and at the same time to avoid impoverishing or embarrassing individuals employed as ambassadors. There were, at the former period, large demands under the head of extraordinaries, which created much embarrassment; and it was therefore thought expedient to do away with claims of that description, and to give in lieu of them a fair and liberal addition to the rate of salary to our ministers abroad. With respect to the observation made by the hon. member relative to the course pursued by the French government, he did not think it was an infallible criterion as to the amount of salary which British ambassadors should receive, that, because other courts only paid certain sums, they were bound to follow the example. exist between this government and that of France. He had not stated why our expenses should be double those of the French government. Lord Castlereagh said, that when the arrangement was made, it was specifically agreed that our ambassadors should have a fixed salary, independent of any alteration in the currency. That salary was to cover all extraordinaries, and was not liable to be increased on account of any unfavourable fluctuation in the foreign exchanges. As to the hon. member's information relative to the payment of foreign ambassadors, he knew not the source from which he had derived it, and of course could not answer for its cor Mr. Monck said, he had derived his information from a French gentleman who was in the diplomatic line. Sir R. Wilson said, that having had an opportunity of seeing our ambassadors in other countries, he thought it but an act of candour to say, that there were claims made on the hospitality of the English ambassadors which were not made on the ambassadors of any other court. The report was then agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Mr. D. W. Harvey said, the observations that had fallen from the hon. mem-rectness. ber afforded a further proof of the neces sity of that discussion and inquiry relative to the items of the civil list which had been so repeatedly called for by gentlemen on his side of the House, and as repeatedly refused by the gentlemen opposite. A committee had, it appeared, sat in 1815, and it was said that their decision proceeded on such grounds, that there could be no mistake in the correctness of their calculations. It was, however, properly replied, that the government had stripped that committee of all those powers which could alone enable them to perform their duties effectually. hon. member for Taunton had truly stated, that ministers had prevented a close, vigorous, and efficient investigation of every part of the civil list expenditure, and had refused to the committee those facilities by the use of which alone they could hope to arrive at a just conclusion. But, supposing, in 1815, a committee, clothed with such power as would have enabled them to have properly examined the subject, had been appointed, still a fresh inquiry was, he contended, necessary, because the two periods were wholly dissimilar, and the state of the country now was far more critical. The Mr. Philips said, that the noble lord, in speaking of the salaries granted to our ambassadors, seemed to have forgotten the depreciated state of the currency when the last arrangement was made. The sum of 12,000l. granted in 1815 was now equal to 15,000l. This circumstance afforded a strong reason either for diminishing the expense, or for inquiring into its necessity. The noble lord had given no satisfactory answer as to the difference in diplomatic expenses which appeared to Friday, May 19. COMMERCIAL RESTRICTIONS PETI TION FROM MANCHESTER.] Mr. Blackburne presented a Petition from the merchants, manufacturers, and other inhabitants of Manchester, praying a removal of those restrictions by which our commercial intercourse with other nations was impeded. Mr. Philips expressed his satisfaction at finding that petitions of this kind were presented from such extensive manufac turing districts as those of Manchester and its vicinity. It was a convincing proof of the progress of information on the true principle of commercial policy. It was to be lamented that, while such respectable bodies were proceeding thus, another body of persons, the agriculturists, should con tinue to call for separate protection and relief. He regretted to find that the exploded doctrine of partial protection should still be adhered to by any one set of persons in the country. It was impossible that any such protection, extended exclusively to one branch of society, should not injure not only itself, but the other branches also. He was of opinion |