the Bank, he ought to have considered pe became absolutely necessary, that another currency should be substituted in its place. He thought the charges which the hon. member had made against the Bank, were neither founded on fact nor reason. As an individual, he considered every acknowledgement due to the directors for the high honour and integrity which had marked the whole of their proceedings. In 1797, their issues of paper amount Mr. Calcraft said, that hon. gentle men had argued as if the Bank restriction act was a measure asked for by the Bank, whereas it was forced upon them by the government, and by the political occurrences of the day. It should be recollected that the Bank was the representative of a large body of persons, whose interests they were bound to protect. He saw nothing reprehensible in the conduct of the Bank; on the contrary, his opinion had always been, that their conduct reflected the highest credit upon them as trustees of the body for whom they acted. Mr. Wilson said, that when the hon. member spoke of the increased issues of Mr. Alderman Heygate expressed his doubt as to the efficacy of the bill. He wished to ask the chancellor of the exchequer, whether the Bank had a sufficient quantity of specie to replace, not only the whole of their own small notes, but those also of the country banks, which must be drawn out of circulation. He made this inquiry because it was not unlikely that the country bankers would withdraw their one pound notes as soon as this measure came into operation. The issue of those notes, by country bankers, was the least profitable, but most troublesome part of their business; and they had some time since an intention of withdrawing their small notes, which was not carried into effect, purely out of a consideration for the inconvenience it would produce to the country. If the Bank had been forced into their situation by the government, it was not fair to blame them for the effects which that situation had produced. Mr. Ricardo said, he should not have blamed the Bank if they had only increas ed their issues to an amount sufficient to replace the gold coin that had been removed from the country; but they had extended their issues far beyond what was necessary for that purpose, and to this increase of circulation he ascribed all the depreciation which had followed. After The bill was read a third time. which, Mr. Ellice brought up a clause for compelling the Bank to give in exchange for their large notes either 17. notes, or legal coin of the realm. The bill was then passed. ARMY ESTIMATES.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, and parliament moved, "Tha 14,474. 15s. 5d. be granted for defraying the charge of the allowance to the Com mander in chief and his personal staff, his secretaries, their assistants and clerks, &c. for the year 1821." Mr. Hume said, he rose to move a reduction of 2000l. and would state the grounds. In 1807, the allowance to the commander-in-chief was nine guineas a day; but in 1815, it was raised to 16guineas a day. He thought it would be proper to reduce it to what it was in 1807, which would make a reduction of somewhat more than 2000. That sum, however, he would have reduced on the whole department, leaving it to the head of the department to apportion the allowances provided for by the remaining 12,000l. There was a military secretary, who had 2,000l. He did not intend to meddle with the principle of increasing allowances with the increase of duties, but would state the facts. In 1803, the salary was but 9001; it was increased when the important duties which general Gordon had to perform made some augmentation necessary; but it was never intended that such increase should be permanent. Then there was another secretary, and an assistant secretary, one of 600l. the other at 3651. He thought that the 600l. might be saved to the country. He then proceeded to observe upon the increase which had taken place in the allowance to the other officers of the department, and which, he contended, ought to be diminished. In 1807, the first clerk had 300l. now it was double; the established clerks had 1907. 160%. and 1207. each; now they had 4501. The minor clerks were 80. and 904. now they had 2001. each. If the reduction brought the establishment down to what it was in 1807, it would not be too great a reduction. The establishment then altogether, along with its contigencies, was about 12,000l. now it was increased to 14,474/. He knew it was the opinion of some who wished for reduction, that it should not fall on the commander-inchief. He did not wish to fix it upon any one; but would leave the head of the department, as he before stated, to apportion the reduction among the officers as he saw proper. He thought also, that a chaplain to the commander-in-chief was unnecessary, as there were four chaplains to the forces, besides several others who could perform the service. He concluded by moving as an amendment, that the sum proposed should be reduced by 2,000/. Lord Palmerston said, that in the refer- ence which the hon. member made to the establishment of 1807, acccording to which he proposed to reduce the present one, he did not understand whether the hon. member intended that the pay of the commander-in-chief should be reduced or not; but whether he did mean that or not, there was no good ground laid for his amendment. The duties of the commander-in-chief were not paid higher than their importance required. Was it of little moment that the commander-in-chief had to dispose of the patronage of the whole army [Cheers from the Opposition]? He said this advisedly. The more high and delicate patronage was, the greater the responsibility of the office, and the more necessary that the salary should be an adequate one. Supposing there was a possibility of abuse, and he said this only in the abstract, the salary ought to be such as to give an additional security against such an abuse, by removing the chances of temptation. Then, as to the civil part of the establishment; the hon. member had not given any sufficient ground for reducing it. The expense of that branch in 1807, including two secretaries, was 7,560l. and now it was only 7,666!., making only and increase of 106%. There was therefore no ground for a reduction of 2,000l. He then proceeded to show, that the military secretary was not too highly paid, on account of the numerous and laborious duties which he had to perform. Those duties occupied him eight hours a day, sometimes including Sundays. The military secretary had interviews with officers to the number of 50 and 60 a day, who had statements to make; and he had likewise to conduct the correspon. dence. The assistant secretary had also very laborious duties to perform; he had to manage the details of correspondence, on which the military secretary decided; 600l. a year was not too much for this service. As to the chaplain, it was an ap❤ pointment belonging to the chaplain-general, and the salary was fixed by the act of 1817. He repeated, that there was no room for reduction, as there was only 100%. difference between the allowances for the civil department of 1807 and the present time. Mr. Bernal contended, that the country had a right to look for some reductions in the sixth year of peace. He objected to the practice of making an augmentation once allowed perpetual. The argument against reduction upon this P ground would be equally strong in the twelth year of peace as at present; so that the country was not to expect any diminution of those war establishments, whatever, might be the duration of tranquillity. Lord Palmerston said, that the argument of the hon. member was not correct. The charge for this establishment was not of a fixed nature, but varied according to circumstances. The estimates were always made out with a view to the necessity of the current year. Colonel Davies, though he agreed that the commander-in-chief was not overpaid, considered it absurd that the present reduced number of clerks in the office should receive an equally large amount of salary as when they were eight more in number. He had the strongest objection to the continuance of the chaplaincy,which might very well be dispensed with. Mr. Sykes said, there was always an ingenious excuse offered for any increase of public expense. The noble lord had argued, that large patronage justified large salary; but if this were correct, the commander-in-chief ought to have had three times his present salary during the war. He confessed that he looked at the situation of the country with dismay; especially as he saw no disposition on the part of the House to economize. The salaries had been raised on account of the unfavourable change in the currency, and as that currency had now arrived at a more favourable state, those salaries ought to be proportionably reduced. General Gascoyne bore testimony to the severe duties of the military secretary to the commander-in-chief. The present holder of that important office had been there so early as the year 1793; and surely the same principle of remuneration which prevailed in every other public office, might reasonably be applied to the office of the commander-in-chief. When the duke of York was first appointed commander-in-chief, his salary and allowances were lower, than at present, because his own rank was then lower. When the duke of Wellington was made field-marshal he had insisted upon his full pay for the situation as well as for his rank. Lord Palmerston said, that so far from the duke of Wellington having insisted upon his full pay for his situation and his rank, that arrangement was made with out any previous communication with his grace. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that if the 2,000l. proposed to be reduced were left to be a scramble, perhaps the reduction would fall upon those who could least afford to become the objects of its operation. He would rather that it should be effected on the salaries and emoluments of those noble persons who were better qualified to sustain such a reduction. Lord Milton could not consent to give the same salaries now as in former years. The situation of the country was much altered from what it had been, when those salaries were granted. It behoved parliament to look into the different statutes by which increased allowances had been made to the royal family, the salaries of the judges, and so on; and into all the other acts passed at a time when the state of the currency and the rise of prices made such provisions necessary. He called upon the landed gentlemen not to lose sight of this important duty. could not collect their rents; the farmer could not dispose of his produce; and almost every class had to deplore the same overwhelming depreciation. He saw no reason why persons in public offices, and annuitants upon the public, should be alone exempted from any decrease of means or fluctuation of property. They Mr. Goulburn said, that such an argument, if it were good for any thing, was equally applicable to the stockholder and public annuitanta doctrine which was too absurd to require refutation. Mr. Abercromby suggested the expediency of a review, by government, of the situation of all the clerks of all the public departments, with a view of making every possible reduction. Mr. Monck contended, that the time had arrived when every possible reduction ought to be effected. Sir H. Parnell observed, that when in 1804 Mr. Pitt proposed an increase of salaries to various public officers, it was on the ground of the depreciation of the currency. That depreciation no longer existing, the salaries ought to be reduced to their original amount. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that the highest offices ought to sacrifice a part of their salaries, and then they might fairly call upon the subordinates to do the same. Mr. Hume expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the worthy alderman. The commander-in-chief should begin the reduction, and not the minor clerks. C The committee again divided on an amendment, to reduce the vote to 12,474/. 15s. 5d. Ayes 27; Noes 90. A third division took place, on an amendment to reduce the vote to 13,474/. 15s. 5d. Ayes 40; Noes 125. The original resolution was then agreed to. Lord Palmerston then moved, "That 650l. be granted for the allowance to the deputy judge advocate in North Britain." Colonel Davies objected to this vote, on the ground that there were not above two courts-martial in the course of a year requiring the attention of such an officer. Lord Palmerston said, that the judge advocate had been called upon to attend six courts-martial last year. Mr. Bennet did not think the arduous duty of attending six courts-martial out of 3,000 men, sufficient to justify the payment of so large a sum. Mr. O'Grady thought, that any field officer might discharge the duty of a judge advocate. Mr. Hume wished to know whether if 2000 men were about to be sent to a foreign station, the noble lord would -think it necessary to appoint a deputy judge advocate to attend them. If not, he did not see how he could defend the appointment for the same number in Scotland. Lord Palmerston said, it would be beneficial to the service in general if such appointments were made, although in pursuance of that system of economy which had been adopted in the military departments, many foreign deputy judge advocates general had been reduced. Mr. Hutchinson said, that ministers heretofore were put to their shifts; but now they had not a rag to cover them. Mr. W. Dundas contended, that the office was an ancient Scotch office. Mr. Ellice observed, that the reason stated by the hon. gentleman for preserving the office, was precisely the reason why he would wish to abolish it, namely, that it was an old Scotch office. Mr. Bennet considered the office nothing but a Scotch job. Sir R. Fergusson considered the office as altogether unnecessary. After some further conversation, the committee divided: Ayes 111; Noes 74. majority 37. On the resolution," That 12,6421. 10s. be granted, for defraying the charge of the allowance to the Comptrollers of the accounts of the army," Colonel Davies objected to the item. He said, that in 1797, when the army extraordinaries amounted to upwards of six millions, the expences of the comptrollers did not amount to more than 4,475l. In 1821, when the extraordinaries did not exceed a million, the expences of the Comptrollers amounted to three times the expence in 1797. He would move, that the sum of 8,6421, should be substituted in place of 12,6421. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, there was no parity between the duties of army comptrollers in 1797 and the present period. The nature of the duties was almost wholly changed since 1806. In point of fact, their business was increased four-fold. Besides, they were not only comptrollers but auditors. Mr. Bernal supported the amendment. Mr. Bankes thought that an inconsiderable saving ought not be put in competition with the perfect auditing of accounts. Mr. Creevey observed, that as on a former evening he had said he should like to see one of those clerks who had 1,400. a year called to the bar to make good his claim to that sum, so on the present occasion he should like to see one of the comptrollers of army accounts make good his claim to 2,000l. a year: and then he should be glad to compare that claim with that of some brave officer who, having purchased his commission in the first instance, had fought his way to honour and promotion, and having at length for his service been called to the peerage, received only 2,000l. a year, as compensation for his services and to support his dignity as a peer. What comparison could be made between the services of the two individuals? that the House would, if not repeal the present Excise laws, at least endeavour to prevent any more bills from being sanctioned which were to support such a system. Sir R. Fergusson could not avoid complaining of the conduct of government to general officers of a particular class. By a former regulation, an allowance was Mr. Hobhouse said, that the whole of the made to general officers without regi- coast of Sussex was in a state of irritation ments. This allowance was now with- and alarm, which had been aggravated by drawn, and thereby the public faith had a recent melancholy occurrence. A fishbeen broken with those officers. At the erman had been, as was well known, close of the war it was determined that killed under very suspicious circumonly a certain number of general officers stances; two juries had declared that the should be kept up: and those who were seaman of the preventive service who reduced had only a claim to the half-pay killed him was guilty of wilful murder. of that rank which they had held in the The judge had thought fit to recommend army before their promotion as general the man to mercy, on which recommenofficers. This, he conceived, was a great dation the government had acted. The injustice to very many meritorious ge- alarm was now such that all the fishermen neral officers, some of whom had spent at Hastings had drawn up their boats, 30 years in the service. Many general and the whole population were in fear of officers, who, before the termination of the recurrence of these dreadful atrothe war, and before their promotion, cities. Within the last eighteen months, might have made a considerable sum by some dozen of persons had been put to the sale of their commissions, were now death on that coast. It could never be living upon their half pay as majors. maintained that these murders should be This he considered as not just treatment committed (for some of them unto so deserving a class of men. Major-doubtedly were murders) to prevent gin generals were deprived of all pay, except the half-pay which they had before they had been promoted. Mr. Huskisson said, that if the system of the gentlemen opposite were acted upon, instead of producing regularity and uniformity it would produce the utmost confusion. He was confident that by adopting the wild theories laid down, the whole affairs of the country would be thrown into disorder. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he wished it was in the power of the go-vernment to reward military officers to a greater extent: but nothing could be more unjust than to charge government with illiberality. The committee divided: For the amendment 45. For the resolution, 105. After which, the chairman reported progress and asked leave to sit again. or lace from being now and then landed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that a judge who conceived that a prisoner was innocent of a crime of which he was found guilty by the prejudices of a jury, and yet did not recommend him to mercy, would be unworthy of his station. To a recommendation in such a case, the government could not do otherwise than attend. With regard to the feelings on the coast, they unhappily shewed that a great portion of the population was disposed to smuggling, and that, that disposition could only be repressed by moderate, yet efficacious measures. flicts similar to those now complained of had formerly taken place, when the state of the revenue was very different from what it now was. Con Mr. R. Gordon deprecated the existing state of the revenue laws, and assured the House that the coast of Dorsetshire and Devonshire were in a state quite as disturbed as the coast of Sussex. Sir G. Cockburn said, there were no grounds for the alarm which prevailed on the coast. He lamented what had recently occurred as much as any man. The person who was accused of murder on going into a boat to search, had been in the first instance thrown out of it. This led to that struggle which had occurred, and which grew out of the resistance offered |