by the next day, he would take occafion to fubmit the bufinefs to the confideration of the Houfe; but if not, he hoped he fhould stand excused for poftponing it to another day. Mr. John Latouche expreffed his regret that, under the fevere preffure of the evil, which now bore on the people of Ireland, and particularly on the inhabitants of the metropolis, the right honourable Gentleman should think it proper to put off for a moment the propofition of fome remedy. The honourable Member was proceeding, w hen The Speaker called to order, as there was no question before the House. PAYMENT OF IRISH OFFICERS AT PAR. Lord Archibald Hamilton called the attention of the Houfe to the fubject of the payment of the falaries of the Minifters. of Ireland, who occafionally refided in this country, at par. When this circumftance was first mentioned to the Houfe, which it was by him, it appeared to every body who heard it,. to be an extraordinary fact, when it was admitted to be a fact, and he must be allowed to remind the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) who admitted it, with what reluctance he brought the matter forward; however, he was impelled to it by a fenfe of public duty, and for the fame reafon he was bound to purfue it; and here he muft premife what he had to fay with obferving, that there was no part of the duty of that Houfe more imperative than that of watching over every part of the expenditure of the public money. There generally did exist, and always ought to exift in that House, a jealoufy concerning all money transactions, and it ought to be exercised with vigilance on the prefent occafion; and he was glad to fay, that the question which he fhould lay before the Houfe for its confideration, would lie within a narrow compass, for the chief part of it was to be confidered as the meaning of the plain letter of an act of Parliament. The amount of the furn out of which this arose was indeed small, but it was the principle which conftituted the importance of the fubject. Here he proceeded to read the act of Parlia ment of the 30th of the King, for regulating the payment of the falaries of all the fervants of the Crown in the civil departments of the state; and then contended, that the Commiffioners of the Treafury in Ireland had no right to interfere with the payment of the falaries of the officers of Govern [COMMONS, ment, nor with any fum of money whatever while it was in tranfitu; for it was not only repugnant to the law he had jult quoted, but contrary alfo to precedent. He contended that the order which had been iffued by the Commiffioners of the Treafury in Ireland, for the payment at pár of the civil officers of the Government of the country occafionally refident in this, was not warranted, and was therefore an excess of their authority. He would ask, what were the falaries of thefe officers of Government? Were they not charges upon the public revenue of the country? If fo, by what authority was any alteration made in them? He faid, that payment to any person out of the public revenue of the country, of more than was allowed by law, was irregular, and quite unwarrantable; and if the right hon. Gentleman oppofite to him (Mr. Corry) was allowed to proceed in this manner, where were we to ftop? He contended, therefore, that this was an unwarrantable act. He did not charge Ministers with a deliberate defign to over-rule the law; but he said, that thefe irregular and unwarrantable acts would have that effect, unless checked by the Houfe. It was admitted that the half-pay officers of Ireland were not paid at par, while they might be occafional refidents in this country. Now, upon what ground the civil officers of Government claimed, to be paid at par, when no fuch advantage was allowed to the half-pay officers, he was at a lofs to conceive. He knew many reasons why the half-pay officers, who had devoted the whole of their time, and often rifked their lives in defence and for the fervice of their country, fhould have more advantages in the mode of receiving their little pay, but not one reafon why they fhould have less than the civil officers of the Government. There was therefore no principle on which this mode of payment could be fupported; because, if it was upon principle, the thing thould be adopted generally to all whofe fervices belonged to the Government of Ireland, and who were occafionally refident in this country. But by this practice of paving officers of the Irish Government at par, if they should happen to come over here for fix weeks, they had an advantage of ten per cent. on the course of exchange. He knew not why many of the civil officers of the Irith Government came into this country. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, for instance, what reafon was there why he should be in England at all, otherwife than as a Member of Parlia ment, in which character he had no falary? The fame obfervation fervation might be made on the cafe of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry); there was no occafion for his refidence in England, otherwise than as a Member of Parliament, in which character he was entitled to no falary. The fame might be faid of the Infpector General of the imports and exports, who was not of neceffity here; the fame of the officers of the customs of the port of Dublin, and many others; yet they were all here, and had the advantage of receiving their falaries at par. Thefe multiplied inftances of this advantage given to the civil officers of the Executive Government of Ireland, confirmed him in the conviction of the impropriety of the practice. Here the noble Lord read paf lages from the account on the table, of the money paid to different officers for their falaries at par, from which he ar gued that there were abufes in the fyftem, and the more he confidered the fubject, the more he was convinced of the impropriety of the practice. He then infifted on the particular inexpediency of the practice, under all the prefent circumftances of that country, and that the more remarkably, on account of the deplorable state of the currency of that country, which had for a long time paft been felt as a very great evil. He maintained, that without imputing any improper motives, it looked unfavourably that the commiffioners of the revenue thonid benefit themfelves by an order which they made contrary to law, and fhould themselves claim, by their own order, a benefit which they did not allow to others, who, if the measure was right, had a better claim to it. He obferved alfo, that this matter remained a fecret for a while, and until he brought it forward in the Houfe: if it was right, why was it concealed at all? this had an unfavourable appearance. He contended that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Corry) could not, of his own individual authority, do any act for the raifing any money not allowed by law, for any body; ftill lefs proper did it feem to be when that money went partly to himfelf; fuch money not being in the Exchequer, and, therefore, not fubject to his cognizance. Thefe were two points on which his objection to this practice refted. The third point was that the principle on which the practice was defended, had completely failed, for it was not general in its application; the half-pay offcers deriving no advantage from it, and before it could deferve the name of a principle, the application of it must be general. Laftly, the only perfons who were made to benefit by the practice, were the laft from whom it ought to be expected, namely, the Commiffioners of the Treasury of Ireland, Ireland, who iffued the order; nor was there any excufe for this having happened by inadvertency, or any thing of that fort, for there was no account made out on the fubject of the revenue of Ireland, in which the course of exchange did not appear, therefore they had the fubject conftantly before their eyes. He fhould have thought that their being in a fituation of truft, would have prevented them from converting it, for they had converted it, into. their own emolument: he must be allowed to deliver his vpinion upon thefe matters, without foftening his language; but to ufe fuch as were applicable to the facts, as they appeared in proof. He faid, he was warranted in afferting that they had turned their fituation of truft to their own private emolument. He then read the refolutions which he propofed to fubmit to the House; 1. Refolved, That it appears to this Houfe, that payments have been made in London, of falaries charged on the Irish establishment, out of money to be remitted to the Irish Treasury, thereby preventing the profits of the exchange thereof from being of credit to the public, as is done in other cafes. 2. Refolved, That they have been made without fufficient authority. 3. Refolved, That fuch practice is unwarrantable, and ought to be difcontinued. Lord Caftlereagh obferved, that the noble Lord, in the ftatement he had been pleafed to make upon this occafion, had travelled more into general propofitions than was ne ceffary. The main queftion was a very fimple one, namely, whether money in poffeffion of the agent in England belonging to the Irish Treafury, was or was not fubject to the order of the Commiffioners of the Irish Treafury? Then fuppofing that to be decided in the affirmative, the next queftion would be, whether the application that was made of that money under that order, was a fit and proper application, under all the circumftances of the cafe? in other words, whether. the order of the Commiffioners of the Irith Treasury proceeded from a competent legal authority, or not? And he apprehended the noble Lord had taken the matter too widely, when he confidered that the money transferred from the Treafury of that country to the Irish agent in this, must be confidered as money in tranfitu to the Irish Exchequer. In the fituation of all money in tranfitu, it was fubject to the order of the Lords of the Treafury there, they being in in that cafe, as they were in every other, refponfible for the exercife of their authority in the application of that money; for as the money was iffued under the authority of the three Lords of the Treafury, the order was a legal order in itself, and as fuch binding on the Irish agent; and he agreed entirely with the noble Lord, that the officers of the Treafury were refponfible to Parliament for every thing in execution of their truit, and that they fhould draw every thing to the advantage of the public, in the best manner circumftances would permit; and that if the course of exchange between this country could be applied to the benefit of Ireland, in the iffue of any orders or otherwise, it was a part of their duty to make it applicable to the intereft of the public as much as poffible, unless fome particular circumftances of fome particular cafe called for a relaxation from the general principle, which he apprehended to be the cafe now under confideration. The noble Lord feemed to argue the mtater as if there was an actual increase of salary to thefe officers, by the mode of payment which had been adopted in this cafe; if fo, he fhould agree with the noble Lord in the conclufion that the mode was improper; for it was beyond the competency of the Irish Treafury to increafe the falaries of thefe officers, the amount of which was fpecified by law. The act of Parliament had faid what the falaries of thefe officers thould be, but that was while they exercised their functions in Ireland, and when they were to be paid there; but in the cafe now before the Houfe, the officers of Government, whofe falaries were thus paid, had been taken from the natural sphere of action in which they had been ufually called upon to move, and brought, for fpecial purposes, to exercife their functions in this country. It was true that application might be made to Parliament, if any alteration was neceffary, in the courie of the payment of these falaries; at the fame time the noble Lord would fee, that the whole of the question arofe, not from the amount of the falaries of thefe officers, but from the mode of paying them, in confequence of their functions being altered and extended beyond their ordinary sphere of action; and the queftion was merely, whether an officer coming from Ireland to England to do his duty, fhall be paid in England without the difadvantage of Exchange? He would fee that it would be ftraining the ftatement to go bcyond this, or to fay that it was any thing like an increase of falary. The question was, whether, as an officer did his duty |