1,000,000l. as an adequate remuneration for its trouble in the character of accountant? Now, the utmost that could be obtained from the bill before the House was, that the public would receive what was equivalent to the interest upon three millions instead of six. As a confirmation of what he had advanced as to the promises of the chancellor of the exchequer, he might appeal to the right hon. gentleman at the head of the woods and forests, (Mr. Huskisson), who had asserted, that in his opinion, the arrangement suggested on Friday last would not be more advantageous than that made by Mr. Perceval and himself. It was well known, that there were no less than 56 balances of various kinds in the hands of the Bank, and the measure now proposed only touched one of them; so that, in fact, the House and the country had been totally misled by the flattering expectations held out by the chancellor of the exchequer. to the exchequer. Perhaps the total of The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the very title of this bill, certainly the resolution he moved for in the committee of the whole House, was the best answer to the hon. gentleman's observations. The title was for the application to the public service of a part of the Mr. Tierney begged to ask the right. growing produce of the consolidated fund. hon. gentleman, what was his own underIt professed solely to refer to the exche- taking when first he announced to the quer bills account, which was certainly House his intention of making the public only one (though a very important one) balances in the Bank available to the of the 56 accounts of balances. The hon. public service? Was it not that he congentleman was well aware, that since the templated the reduction from seven milpeace, the public balances in the hands of lions to one, applying thereby six millions the Bank had been reduced to six or seven to the use of the public? He now asked, millions; he must also know, that with whether in the answer, or rather no anrespect to several of these balances, the swer, he had given to the speech of his sums for instance from the court of chan- hon. friend, he had not altogether abancery, in the hands of the accomptant-ge-doned that intention? These Bank baneral, and the monies for the public creditor, he had no control, as their appropriation was specifically enjoined by a distinct act of parliament. He could assure the House, that in the general public departments, where cash must be in the first instance deposited for the ordinary transactions of business, care was always taken not to leave a deposit for a larger sum than would cover the exigencies of a week or ten days in advance. There was, it was true, another branch of public balances in the hands of the Bank, he meant the revenue balances, which were no longer suffered to remain in the hands of private bankers, in the names of the receivers-general, and these were weekly, and sometimes oftener, paid over lances consisted of two descriptions— one from the growing produce of the consolidated fund, the other arising from the general receipts of the departments of the government. How came it then, that the proposed measure was now reduced to so limited a scale? He verily believed the chancellor of the exehequer would, if he could, have been consistent, but the truth was, that he was overruled by the Bauk, and consequently obliged to hedge from his original engagement. As to these six millions being made available, he believed such a hope had no existence but in the imagination of the chancellor of the exchequer. He, however, first took credit for 3,300,000l. going to meet certain arrears and deficiencies arising on former ght come very shortly under the consi eration and regulation of the House. This would form no ground whatever for delaying the operation of the present bill. Mr. Tierney said, that all he wanted was, to know the effect of the principle of this bill. If the bill were referred to a committee, he would pledge his existence they would make no such report as the right hon. gentleman had made in anticipation of its efficacy. Mr. Lushington observed, that he had found no reason to depart from the explanation he had given on a former occasion, namely, that 3,300,000l. would be on account of arrears of the consolidated fund, and 2,700,000l. would be applied to the payment of the Bank. The House divided on the chancellor of the exchequer's motion: Ayes, 154; Noes, 80 The House having resolved itself into the committee, Mr. Tierney pressed the right hon. gentleman to state, in what manner he expected to have between two and three millions available to go in reduction of the Bank loan. quarters out of the consolidated fund. | balance The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that his bill went to regulate the whole question respecting the exchequer balances, and he could not consent to postpone it for the object alluded to; at the same time, he felt no difficulty in admitting, that the whole of the other (VOL. XXXIX.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that he expected the amount would turn out to be as he had already stated it. Mr. Tierney repeated, that all he desired to know was, what was the probable amount of the sum which was expected to accrue at the end of the quarter, when this bill was to come into operation? The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that he thought the average amount alluded to would be about three millions, as far as he could judge. Mr. Tierney. The right hon. gentleman says he believes, as far as he can judge, the quarter's average will be about three millions; now, as far as I can judge, I don't believe a single word of it. Mr. Grenfell asked, what was to be done respecting the exchequer bills which had been issued at an interest of 2d. per diem, where they had remained over in the hands of the Bank? The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that they would be subject to the usual regulations. Mr. Maberly desired to know whether the Bank had not received an interest at the rate of 24d. on these bills, when the public only received 2d.? The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that whenever they had held over those bills, they received the interest according (3 X) to the regular arrangement made at the time. Mr. Maberly said, he understood it was admitted, that where the public only derived an interest of 2d. the Bank had contrived from the nature of their bargains, to get 24d. per day on these exchequer bills. The public bought their bills, and received their interest at the rate of 2d.; the Bank held out and got 21d.: so that the difference, instead of being in favour of the public, who purchased with real capital was in favour of the Bank, whose capital was formed by the working of its paper-mill. Mr. Williams thought it now quite clear, that after the public were shut out from receiving interest on exchequer bills, which had been held over after a certain day, the Bank continued to obtain an exclusive amount of interest. Mr. Grenfell again protested against the provisions of this bill. Why was its operation restricted to the saving of the interest on six millions, which was expected to accrue out of the exchequer? The amount first accruing was, after the arrear on the consolidated fund was settled, to be applied to the payment of the Bank loan. He referred to the quarterly accounts, and said it was impossible to carry this saving higher than three millions by the present bill. He pointedly condemned the limitation of the operation of this bill, and asked, why it should not be made to apply to the whole amount of the growing produce of the consolidated fund? He could see no reason why this should be the case, except that the attempt to make it so, however beneficial to the public, would trench on the profits of the Bank. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that this bill was made only by way of experiment, and its principle might hereafter be extended to the other balances. In his present plan, he kept in view the principle of the negotiation between Mr. Perceval and the Bank, in 1808. Mr. Maberly said, that from the ambiguity of the explanations offered in the committee, he was more than ever convinced of the necessity of referring the subject to the Finance Committee. Mr. Huskisson said, the system now proposed protected the interests of the public creditor as much as any that could be devised. The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow. BANKRUPT LAWS.] Mr. J. Smith rose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Bankrupt Laws. He observed, that, in calling the attention of the House to this subject, he meant not to enter into the history of those laws. There were, he was convinced, many gentlemen in that House who believed they were not interested in this question, because they imagined that the bankrupt laws did not affect them. It was, however, very difficult to say, who were, or who were not, subject to them. In fact, persons who were never directly connected with trade, might, as appeared from recent decisions, be subjected to the operation of those acts. That a revision of the laws should take place, was most important to the interests of the commercial world, and more so, to the interests of humanity. He should say no more at present, but move "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend the laws relating to Bankrupts."- Leave given. JUNIOR LORDS OF THE ADMIRALTY.] Sir M. W. Ridley rose, in consequence of the notice which he had already given, to move an Address to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, praying that he would be graciously pleased to give directions for a reduction in the number of Junior Lords of the Admiralty. He was sensible of the peculiar difficulty of the task he had undertaken. It was with great diffidence that he at any time ventured to address the House; but on the present occasion more particularly he felt diffident of his ability to arrest their attention, because he was aware, that it was scarcely in his power to throw any additional light on a subject which had already been so thoroughly discussed. He was cheered however by the consciousness that he was performing a public duty, and he trusted, that in the importance of the question itself the House would forget the inadequacy of the individual by whom it was brought under their consideration. He confessed that he had almost flattered himself he should be prevented from finding any necessity for the performance of this task. Recollecting the opinions delivered in the House of Commons at the time when he had formerly taken the liberty to introduce this subject, recollecting that he was on that occasion supported by as numerous a minority as ever divided on a question of that nature, he very curious to observe the variation of opinion expressed by the noble lord at one time in the House and at another in the committee above stairs. The noble lord (he repeated) said, that it would be expedient for the House to defer the consideration of the motion which he had made, because it related to a subject on which the committee of finance would be called to report. That was said by the noble lord in the month of February. In the month of June the committee made its report. The first paragraph in that report which related to the subject of the motion was to the following effect, viz."That the consideration of the number and salaries of the lords commissioners of the admiralty seemed to the committee to be withdrawn from the scope of its investigation, by the late vote of the House of Commons." Thus it appeared that the noble lord, when in the House, argued that the number of the lords of the Admiralty ought not to be reduced, because the subject was about to undergo the examination of the committee of finance, and that in the committee of finance the noble lord argued, as appeared by the report (in the formation of which the noble lord had, no doubt, sufficient influence), that the committee had not the power to investigate the subject, because by a late vote the House of Commons had determined not to entertain it. This was a sample of the value of the report made by the committee of finance in 1817, and of the little weight which it ought to have with the House, if brought forward to-night to assist in the opposition to his present motion. But, even supposing the report of the committee of 1817 had been hostile to the continuance of the existing number of junior lords of the Admiralty, there was reason to conclude, from analogy, that the recommendation of that committee would not have been attended to by his majesty's ministers. He begged to call the recollection of the House to what had taken place with respect to the commissioners of the navy board. In the report made by the committee of finance on the subject of the commissioners of the navy board, it was specifically stated, that the committee was far from being satisfied that so many commissioners of the navy board were necessary in time of peace, that the difficulties which appeared to exist in the way of a reduction in their number seemed to the committee to be merely really had hoped that the sentiments ex- | pressed in the House, and echoed by the public from one end of the kingdom to the other, would have induced his majesty's ministers to embrace the opportunity which lately presented itself to them, of advising their royal master to do an act of grace and liberality by withholding any appointment to fill up the vacancy which had recently occurred. As far as he was personally concerned in the question, he should have had no wish to press it, had he not considered it a duty imperative on him to do so in consequence of the neglect of his majesty's government to comply with the general feeling on the subject. And here he must say, that he thought there had been something of precipitation, not to say of indelicacy, in hurrying the appointment to which he had alluded pending the discussion of the subject. He gave notice of his motion the moment the new writ was moved, and with whatever confidence his majesty's ministers might reckon on the result of the decision of the House on that evening, he conceived that it would have shown but a proper deference to the House to wait until that result was ascertained. When the subject was last under consideration the noble lord opposite had endeavoured, and too successfully endeavoured, to persuade the House to reject his (sir M. W. Ridley's) motion, principally on this ground, namely, that the question was likely soon to be submitted to the investigation of the committee of finance, and, therefore, that if the House were to come to any decision upon it, they would prejudge a question on which it was the business of the committee of finance to pronounce. For his part, he (sir M. W. Ridley) owned he was one of those who regretted the departure in the House of Commons from the good old system of taking upon themselves the responsibility of considering subjects of importance; and who lamented to see that responsibility almost invariably cast on the shoulders of a committee. When, however, the House had confided the investigation of such a subject to a committee, he was as little inclined as any man to differ from or find fault with the opinion entertained by it. But on the present occasion he felt it to be indispensable to request the attention of the House to that part of the report of the committee of finance which related to the subject under discussion.. It was technical (these difficulties, it might be necessary to state to the House, were started by the commissioners themselves, and other officers of the Admiralty, on their examination) and that the committee recommended a careful examination of the subject and great caution and hesitation before any future vacancies should be filled up. It was scarcely to be expected that his majesty's ministers should have availed themselves of the only opportunity that offered for proceeding in the direct teeth of the recommendation of the committee. As to the individual who had been in consequence appointed a commissioner of the navy board, if the most respectable character and good qualities of every description were a bar to any objection to the proceeding, he was free to confess that that individual was as likely as any man to form an exception to a general rule of remark. But it was not the character or respectability of any man which could justify his appointment to the office. Nothing but the expediency to the public service of any appointment could be its justification. So much for the effect which the report of the committee of finance of 1817 had on the proceedings of his majesty's ministers. He now wished to direct the attention of the House to the report of a committee deserving of still greater attention; he meant the report of the committee of 1797. That committee was composed of individuals, of whom the country could boast of no persons possess ing greater knowledge of business, or more inclined to do every thing that was calculated to benefit the public service. In looking over the names of the members of the committee of 1797, there would be found very few individuals who would be disposed to recommend any reduction of public establishments, the tendency of which might impede or embarrass the discharge of great public duties. Among them were Mr. Abbot (now lord Colchester), Mr. Dudley Ryder (now earl of Harrowby), the late Mr. H. Thornton (a name associated with recollections of the most honourable description), Mr. Yorke, and a number of other persons of a character to inspire perfect confidence in the recommendation which they might offer to parliament. He would read to the House a passage from the report of that committee, as he founded upon it his main argument for the adoption of the motion which he was about to submit to them. It was to the following effect:"That the committee thought it their duty to observe, that the number of commissioners of the board of Admiralty, being six, exclusively of the first lord, was not likely to be susceptible of reduction during the war (the committee here alluded to a correspondence with the Admiralty board, in which the latter represented, that in time of war it would not be possible to carry on the business of that department of the public service with a smaller number), but that they thought it worthy of consideration, whether in the event of the restoration of peace such a reduction of business might not ensue, as would render practicable a reduction of the num ber of commissioners, and other persons employed in the Admiralty department, consistently with the advantage of the public service." Such was the report of the committee of 1797. Undoubtedly, his majesty's ministers had recently acted in conformity to a part of it. They had dismissed a number of "persons employed in the Admiralty department." These they had considered no longer useful or necessary. They had dismissed a great many clerks, reducing the number on the establishment from sixty, he believed, to thirty. Such persons were sent to the right about without hesitation. But the moment a word was said of the uselessness of any of the commissioners, and of the expediency of reducing their number, the feelings of his majesty's ministers were strongly excited. They experienced a reluctance to act which they could not overcome. tronage, influence, and power, being on one side, and love of economy and retrenchment on the other, the latter soon gave way; and the junior lords of the Admiralty continued to hold their places, and to take their salaries, and to do nothing, in spite of the report of the committee of 1797. He would now endeavour to prove to the House, that such a diminution of the business of the Admiralty department had taken place, as that which was contemplated in the report of the committee of 1797, as forming, whenever it might occur, a just ground for diminishing the number of commissioners of the board of Admi. ralty. In the first place, there could scarcely be a greater proof of the diminution of bu siness, than the dismissal of so many clerks. Another proof was to be found in the reduction of the number of public board days at the Admiralty. He spoke in the presence of those who would correct him Pa |