compence for their fervices they thought themfelves entitled to, or any indemnity for loffes they might fuftain,.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer laid, this appeared to him to be a queftion upon which there could not exist any difference of opinion, if the facts were thoroughly, underfood. The officers of the Irith Government, employed in this country, did not, as had been fuppofed by fome, receive 100l. British, in lieu of 1001 Irish, (that would in fact be an increase of falary) but they only received 321. Britith, which was equivalent to 1001. Irish: the only difference was, whether that fum was paid in England or in Ireland. If it was paid in England, then the officer received only as much as he would have received if he had remained in Ireland; but if while the officer was in England, his falary were paid to him in Ireland, then he would be obliged to draw it over here for his fubfiftence, and fuppofing the exchange was rol. per cent against Ireland, then he would receive instead of 921. only 821.; fo that the queftion came literally to this, whether perfons in public offices, who were ordered over here upon public bufinefs, ought to receive 821. or the amount of rool. Irish currency? It should always be obferved, that thefe offices were created, and their falaries fixed long before the union, and confequently before it could be in contemplation that their fervices would be neceffary in this country. It had been affumed, that the Irish officers received the benefit of this arrangement for the whole of their falaries; this was by no means the cafe; they were only allowed to draw certain portions of their falaries for their fubfiftence, according to the term of their refidence in this country. It seemed admitted that the officers ought to have fome additional allowance made to them for coming over to this country; the fact was they had no allowance, they were only allowed their travelling expences, and this was granted only to the inferior officers. It was to be confidered alfo, that many of thefe officers were obliged to maintain a double establishment; they were obliged to keep their families in Ireland, while they were living here at a confiderable expence, and yet they received no greater falary than if they had remained in Ireland. They were obliged to come from a country that was cheap, and to keep a, separate establishment in a country that was dear, and all they asked was that they fhould receive their falaries, and that they hould not have 10 per cent, taken off because they were forced to come here by the orders of their fuperiors.

Mr.

Mr. John Latouche fupported the original motion, upon the ground that this which he confidered as an increase of their falaries was entirely defrayed by Ireland; whereas, as it was a part of the joint expenditure of the empire, England ought to defray the proportion ftipulated by the union.

Mr. Windham difapproved of making diftinctions in regard to thofe in the employ of Ireland, and argued in favour of the original motion, that in so far as you take off a minus you neceffarily add a plus. He had very ferious objections to the prefent practice, both in regard to the perfons to whom, and to the mode in which that indulgence was fhewn. In regard to the perfons to whom the indulgence was fhewn, he put feveral cafes, among which one was, that if a perfon hould be fent on military duty from a cheaper county to a dearer one in this country, would any allowance be made? Such allowances were not usual. If they were poor and could not afford any loffes from a temporary exchange, he certainly would not object to the prefent practice. If they were only poor Chancellors that were in queftion, and that required fome immunities to enable them to fubfift, he thould not perhaps fupport the prefent motion. To perfons of this defcription fome compenfation might be allowed. But it unfortunately happened that thofe who ftood moft in need of fuch compenfation were the laft to receive it. You allow this advantage to people coming over of their own option, and deny it to many whofe duty is fuppofed to require their attendance in this country, and to many whofe duty prevents their coming here. They are exactly in the fituation of a man who should wish to borrow another man's bellows: No, fays the man, if you wish to blow up your fire, you must come over to my house and do it. I'fhall willingly allow you the ufe of my bellows, but I cannot lend them out of my own houfe. (A loud laugh.) He did not think it proper that fome fhould be exonerated from the depreciation of the paper currency in Ireland, while others, who had no lefs title to exemption, fhould be fubjected to that inconvenience. This diftinction was the more objectionable, he conceived, as it was permitted to refide, according to the prefent practice, in the power and difcretion of the Lords of the Treasury.

The Mafter of the Rolls faid, that the noble Lord who had brought forward the motion, had laid down as a general principle that no officer of the Irish Government, who was employed in this country, thould receive his falary, except fub

jec

ject to the lofs by the exchange between this country and Ireland: other hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in fupport of the motion, had admitted that there might be cafes entitled. to more or lefs indulgence; but the noble Lord made no fuch diftinction, he had afferted generally, that whether an officer had been ordered over here by his fuperiors or not, ftill his falary ought to be paid in Ireland, in order that he might lofe 10 per cent. by bringing it over to England. He would not enter into an inquiry how far it was neceffary for any of the principal officers under the Irish Government to come. over to this country nor would he now confider whether it was right to compenfate any officers in a particular manner: he fuppofed that fome of the officers, who before the union could difcharge the duties of their offices in Ireland, were now obliged to come over to England. If he was correct in his fuppofition, it appeared to him clear that the officers who engaged in Ireland to ferve for a certain fum, ought to receive the fame falary if they were ordered to come to England. He did not mean to contend that there ought to be any compenfation; he only meant that there ought to be no diminution of the falary. A man who received 100l. a year in Ireland, had no occafion to inquire what would be its value in London, he would have nothing to do with the rate of exchange, because he would not want to bring it over to England, but if the Government change that man's fituation, if they bring him over to England where he performs the fame duties, is he not then entitled to the fame falary? If he is compelled to fuftain the lofs by exchange, then he has not the fame falary, and he fuftains a lofs of 10 per cent. on his fatary, merely becaufe Government think it right to employ him in one place rather than another. It appeared to him clear that the officer ought to be paid where he performed his duty. It had been argued, that because a man performed bulinefs for the Government of Ireland in England, that therefore he muft of neceffity be paid in Ireland; upon the fame principle, the members of the Board of Controul ought to be paid in India. It had been contended that taking off a burthen was equivalent to an increase of a falary; but in this inftance, it was not taking off a burthen, it was only placing the officer in the fame fituation, with regard to the amount of his falary, as he would have been in if he had remained at home. If the fervice of the public required that he fhould perform the duties of his office at York, he fhould expect to be paid at York. The cafe of half-pay

officers

officers which had been put, did not in his opinion apply, becaule the principle, contended for, in this cafe was merely this, that where the duties of any particular office required that the perfon holding it,fhould come to England, that he fhould receive the falary of that office in England.

Dr. Laurence argued that fuch payments were made without any conftitutional authority, and therefore, independently of their equity, he found himself called on to oppofe the ge neral principle. He contended particularly that the proportion ftated by the right hon. Gentleman oppofite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was by no means obferved, if any credit might be given to the papers on the table.,, The learned Doctor here turned up an article where Mr. Wickham had received an order to draw his falary in this country to any amount, not exceeding the whole for the year, which was four thousand five hundred pounds. From fuch an order he argued any perfon here might receive the falary, and tranfmit it to Ireland at fo much additional profit. He laid confiderable ftrefs on the periods neceffary for their refidence in this country, and that their payments might be made and really were made, as appeared from the papers before them, without regard to the proportion or neceflity of fuch periods.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that Mr. Wickham was only empowered to draw at the rate of his whole falary.

Lord Henry Pety objected to the Members of the Irish Government taking their own cafes into confideration, and making their own remuneration, however juft the principle might be on which they had acted; he inftanced particularly in the cafe of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Francis faid, that among many weighty arguments, which determined him to vote for the original motion, there were two, which he wished particularly to state and insist on, becaufe they were of a plain and obvious quality, and not liable to be perplexed and confounded by technical skill or fophiftical diftinctions. To thefe, Sir, (faid the hon. Gen leman) I expect to hear a plain and rational anfwer, which hitherto has not been attempted. In the firfl place, I hold it to be a principle infeparable from the duties of all Government, and from the duties of this Government more than any other, that the perfonal intereft of every individual trufted with power thould in all cafes be one and the fame with the intereft of the community. If a general calamity

should

should exift, or a general burthen is to be endured, to the remedy or relief of which the labour, the industry and the fkill of perfons in high office ought to be unremittingly applied, it is not wife, it is not fafe to exempt fuch perfons from their fhare in the general preffure or fuffering that falls upon all the rest. You take away a principal motive or ftimulus to fuch perfons to exert themfelves in the public fervice, when you tell them, that, whether they neglect their duty or not, they are fure to be borne harmlefs in the receipt of their own income. Leaft of all, is it prudent or fafe to fuffer fuch parties to form the measure and to diftribute the amount of their own relief. But, even if the contrary were true, if it could be maintained that perfons in high and lucrative offices ought to be fpecially and exclufively exempted from any thare in a public fuffering, ftill the course which has been taken ought not to be endured. It is afferted that the payments in queftion have not been fecret-have not been clandeftine. My answer is, that they have been inade not only without the authority, but without the knowledge of Parliament. I, for one, never heard of the fact, until it was introduced by the noble Lord on this fide. If the thing be proper, it ought to be done by a vote of this Houfe, or in fome other regular parliamentary way. Whenever the general principle of reimburfing individuals for loffes on exchange of falaries comes to be confidered, you will have other cafes infinitely more prefling to provide for. I shall state only one, which I think could hardly be refifted, and which has frequently occurred: I mean that of an English regiment difbanded in Ireland, and of which the officers, all English, are compelled by their fituation, circumstances, and connections to refide in England on their Irish half pay. Out of that pittance they lofe ten per cent. on the remittance from Ireland. Would you refufe to indemnify fuch perfons, while the principal officers of Government are permitted to refinburfe themfelves out of the public purfe? Now, Sir, I afk for information on a point of parliamentary conftruction, in which I think the honour, because I am fure the duty of this Houfe, is effentially concerned. Suppofing the motion of the noble Lord thould be fet afide, with fuch facts brought into the view of the Houfe, and fo immediately connected with our first duty as guardians of the public purfe, and that this thould be done by an expedient fo difgraceful, and I believe in fuch a cafe fo unprecedented in the proceedings of Parliament, as that of moving the order of the day, in what VOL. II. 1803-4.

Ο 3

state