CIVIL LIST—DIPLOMATIC EXPENDITURE.

HC Deb 15 May 1822 vol 7 cc604-52

Mr. Lennard

rose, for the purpose, of proposing to the House to appoint a committee to inquire into the Expenses of the Third Class of the Civil List. In considering the subject, his propositions were—that the present time was admitted to be one of overwhelming distress; that economy was called for, with no feeble voice, by every class, from the throne to the peasant; that, without the most rigid economy, public credit could not he maintained; it could not, as had been said by Mr. Burke, exist under the arm of necessity; "necessity and credit are natural enemies, and cannot long be reconciled in any. Situation." This being admitted, it must, he thought, be as easily admitted, that in the different departments of the expenditure of the taxes, there was no one which embraced so much useless expenditure as the civil list. These two positions being admitted, there was no difficulty in arriving at the third—that when economy was demanded imperiously by our distresses, there was no department in which it could be more safely adopted, than in severely searching into this department of the civil list. Since he had first given notice of his motion, a partial reduction had taken place of the private expenditure of his majesty, in his privy purse, his household, and in the salaries of the ambassadors. That reduction had induced him to confine his motion to the reduction of the third class of the civil list, including the expenses of our embassies; and he thought be should have little difficulty in showing, that whatever, might once have been thought proper to be expended in state splendor and pomp, nothing should now be called for but what absolute necessity required. He must confess he had been grievously disappointed, that the retrenchments should not have been more extensive; he thought he should satisfy the House that much more might have been done, without diminishing the proper dignity of the Crown: or what was so much talked of now, the influence of the Crown. In the observations which he would make, he should take an opportunity of taking a short general view of the funds applicable to the payment of the civil list, and of their application. He would not allow himself for a moment to suppose that it was possible but his majesty's heart must indeed feel deeply for the distresses of his subjects. Indeed, there had not lately been one Speech delivered from the throne, in which his majesty had not declared that he sincerely sympathized with his people. It would be for him (Mr. L.) to show, that the expenses of this department were excessive; and that the main point he had in view was their diminution. It was hardly necessary that he should recall to the recollection of members, his majesty's gracious speech, delivered at the opening of the session, in which he had recommended to that House, in the most decided terms, the adoption of economical measures. He was sorry to say, that that Speech had been followed up, by its very penners coming down to the House, and, in defiance of their own proposition, contending that no practical good would result from the adoption of retrenchments. The country would see by the vote of that night, whether, after the recommendation contained in the Speech from the throne, it was the will and pleasure of those who framed that speech, or his majesty's gracious disposition, so expressed, that was to be the rule by Which that House was to be governed. Seeing what were the distresses of the country, every reduction which could be effected, ought to be adopted; and there were many members who were equally surprised with himself, that amongst the many expedients for relief suggested by ministers, and after all their promises of economy, no reduction had been made in the salaries of the great officers of state and ambassadors, except the trifling one of 10 per cent. Another argument which ought to avail in the consideration of this subject was, that the civil list had been at various times augmented; because the value of money had fallen in this country. It was upon this ground that an augmentation took place in 1804. Mr. Pitt on that occasion said, that "his proposition had for its object the support of that increased expense of the Crown, which arose not from any disposition to prodigality or extravagance, but from that enhancement in all the necessary articles of life which had taken place since the revenue of the civil list was last fixed, and of which every individual in private life must be sensible. The arrangement he proposed had no view to any advance in the quantum of magnificence, or the indulgences which should belong to the royal family, as the only intention was, to enable that illustrious family to maintain the rank, which, according to the grant of 1786, it was admitted they ought to hold."^* Now, he should contend, that the great alteration which had, within the last three or four years, occurred in the value of money, although it might not essentially affect the salaries of our ambassadors abroad, did essentially affect our means of paying those salaries. He took the implied condition of this, and of every other public grant to be, that such salaries were not to be paid, it they were likely to reduce to beggary and distress, many of those classes by whom the means of payment were to be furnished. It must be very plain to all who heard him, that the taxes out of which those means were to be provided, many classes were now no longer able to pay. They had ceased to be rich. The question, therefore, was, not merely what it was fitting that the Crown should pay to its ambassadors abroad, but what it was possible for us to pay? But, independently of that powerful argument, the necessity of the case, there was still another reason why this class of the civil list should be reduced. Many gentlemen would concur with him in thinking, that the vast expenses incurred by this class were in no way conducive to the proper representation of the sovereign, or to the advancement or distinction of any body else; but that they were merely a means by which ministers were enabled to purchase those venal services, which otherwise they would be unable to procure. He might, possibly, be met with the argument, that compared to the total of expense, the savings he should propose ^* See First Series, v. 2, p. 909. would be but as a drop of water in the ocean—that they would come within that description of savings of which the chancellor of the exchequer had said that they could effect no real relief to the people. But, he would say, that the moral effect of adopting them would be beneficial to the country, by giving the people reason to believe that there was some sincerity in those professions of sympathy for their sufferings which the House had so repeatedly made. It was not requisite that he should go into the details of the several branches of the civil list: but he would observe, that at different periods that list had been augmented in three different ways—by progressive advances; by being relieved at different times from charges to the amount of 3 or 400,000l.; and by the suppression of several offices. He would allude briefly to the first class, in which there had been a reduction of 10 per cent. But it was necessary to bear in mind that besides what here appeared to be received by the Crown, it possessed other large sources of revenue in the Duchies of Cornwall and Lancaster, and in the droits of Admiralty. All ought, in his opinion, to be put under one head, that it might be known what was applicable to the private and personal expenses of the sovereign. As to the second class, containing the bills of the royal household, no man could take the most cursory glance at it without being convinced that it was utterly impossible to expend the money charged under that head, unless it was wasted in perquisites of office, or applied in the most gross and infamous manner. The pension list ought also to be essentially reduced. However fit the selection in some cases might be, it could not be denied that there were many persons in it not of that class of life to make it necessary that they should continue to take such large sums from the pockets of the people.—He now came to the third class. It was most fertile in expense, and he hoped to persuade the House, that very great reductions might be made in it, without lowering the dignity or importance of the country in the eyes of foreign nations. Independently of the ambassadors at the great courts of Europe, there were a variety of charges for second and even for third rate courts, which could only be viewed as poor dependents and satellites on the grand holy alliance. Where formerly there was only a charge d'affaires, there was now an envoy extraordinary, at the cost of about twenty times the sum originally paid. The mission to Switzerland was a most striking instance in point. That appointment was one of a recent and peculiar character, and it was impossible it should escape the vigilance of parliament. If he succeeded in his motion for a committee, he hoped to be able to show that that extravagant charge was unnecessary. In proportion as Switzerland had fallen in the scale of Europe, had the emoluments of the ambassador been increased, until they were actually twenty times the amount formerly paid [Hear.] This job had most properly been made the object of a separate motion. On this account he would studiously avoid further remarks upon it. It was so odious in itself, that he wished to disclaim such a reference to it in his proposition: it was an anomaly even among the many unwarrantable transactions regarding foreign missions disclosed by the papers upon the table. If, therefore, he could not lay sufficient ground for his motion, without including the appointment to Switzerland, he was willing to relinquish it altogether.—His objections to the third class of the civil list were various. He fist looked at the establishments of this kind in 1792, and compared them with the amount charged for them upon the public in 1822, taking into consideration the state of the country at each period, the price of different articles, and the rank Great Britain then held among the states of Europe. He found that since 1792 the grand total of expense had been augmented to 150,000l. Merely the salaries of ambassadors, putting out of view extraordinary missions the emoluments of secretaries, and other items, increasing from year to year, had been augmented 60,000l. Was it that the country could now better afford to pay these extravagant demands? He had yet to learn that the rank of this country in Europe was higher now than in 1792. The truth was, that charges d'affaires were not suited to the present extravagant scale of expense, and what was formerly known by the economical term of a resident was now wholly unknown. Notwithstanding the new-fangled doctrines on the alterations recently made in the kingdoms of Europe, the noble marquis would find it difficult to persuade the House that in the impotent states of Italy, groaning under the iron sway of Austria, it was necessary to maintain an ambassador. Comparing 1792 with the present period it would be found that all the minor states of the continent were made dependent upon one or other of the members of the grand quintuple alliance. Nevertheless the most costly embassies were kept up at these inferior courts. In 1792, the whole expense of ambassadors in Italy was 9,000l., yet now it approached to 14,000l. In 1792 the embassy to the United States of America cost 3,670l., it was now 7,426l. The British minister there was paid 6,000l.; and this fact was Most remarkable, since it was actually more by 500l. a year than the salary allowed to the president. The only pretence for paying so largely in Europe was, that our ministers might live upon a scale suited to the court in which they resided; but in America our ambassador enjoyed an allowance beyond the salary of the chief magistrate of the republic. With reference to the increase in the grand total of 150,000l., it might be said, perhaps, that we had now ambassadors at certain courts where there were none in 1792. The envoy to Turin received 2,000l. a year; to the German Diet, 6,500l. a year; and to the Brazils 6,000l. a year. In 1792, however, and he mentioned it with pain and grief, Great Britain had an ambassador at Venice and in Poland, before that fine country was devoured by the detestable policy of Russia and Germany. In 1794, we had an ambassador also at Genoa at a very considerable expense. He mentioned these facts as an answer to the assertion that might be made, that we had more ambassadors now than at any former period. It was impossible to look at this ascending series of expense without supposing from thence that the situation of the kingdom must have been greatly improved—that its means of paying were increased, or that its interests were insufficiently guarded abroad in 1792. If such were not the case, ministers were in this dilemma—either our ambassadors in 1792 were inadequately rewarded, or they were paid too extravagantly in 1822.—There was another point well worthy of attention. He had alluded to the increase in the amount of pensions; and the country had been told in 1812, that it might anticipate a great diminution in this branch of the expenditure by retired ministers being sent out on active employments, and their pensions thus saved. The year 1815 had been well called the annus mirabilis of expense, and the pensions were then 49,000l. At the present moment they had risen to 51,000. As to our ambassadors at the greater courts, he was quite willing that they should be attended by all due splendor; but he did not think that this kingdom would gain much in the estimation of foreign powers, by seeing its ambassadors on a scale of the utmost extravagance, while every post brought advises of new and augmented distresses at home. There was not a single instance of an ambassador whose salary since 1792 had not been most enormously increased: some had been doubled, some trebled, and in Russia it had been even quadrupled. In addition to their salaries, there were the heavy expenses of outfit, allowances for secretaries, messengers, chaplains, private secretary, general secretary, and a vast accumulation of charge. They were paid, too, without the slightest deduction: they were studiously guarded against losses by the exchanges, which sometimes were made to amount to 30 per cent; and it was not a little curious, that though in every case of loss the country was made to pay to the uttermost farthing, there was not a single instance of any ambassador making a deduction from his emoluments because the exchange had been in our favour. He was not one who thought that, even in France, it was necessary to maintain a large establishment for the entertainment of English travellers. In this respect, perhaps, an exception might be made in favour of sir Charles Stewart, at Paris, who was visited by so many English. The country at large, however, was not deeply interested in the number of dinners he gave, or in the magnificence of his entrées, excepting as far as it was required to pay fir them. But admitting the case of sir C. Stewart to be peculiar, was it necessary to keep an ambassador at the same expense in Russia? If both must he alike, he should be disposed rather to reduce the embassy to Paris to what that of Russia ought to be, than to raise that of Russia to the extravagant scale of the French mission. In considering this subject, it was impossible not to turn the eye to the practice of the United States; and, with all regard to our rank in Europe, he could not help hoping that ere long ministers would see the necessity of imitating the wise and economical policy of that great and flourishing republic. The people of this country had long shown what the noble marquis had once termed "an ignorant impatience of taxation;"—and that impatience should compel him, under the existing distresses, to listen to and adopt plans of effectual economy. He trusted he should not be told, that it was necessary to maintain these establishments for the purpose of supporting the just influence of the Crown. Vast sources of patronage were in the hands of ministers. They had the army, the navy, the church, India, and the colonies, and here they might adequately provide for their friends and supporters. That argument had very recently been used and had failed; and if it should again be employed to-night, he trusted the House would again show its sense of its unconstitutional nature. It might be said, that a compact had been made with the Crown, and that that compact could not now be altered. Such a reply could have no application to this third class of the civil list. It hardly applied to the other classes. Such an agreement to be binding must be reciprocal; and the king on his part must take the evil with the good. Yet, had not a demand been over and over again made to parliament to pay the debts of the civil list; and had they been paid without reference to the finances of the country, or to the poverty of the people? He would not trouble the House further than by submitting his motion, trusting, that he had said enough to show that great reductions ought without delay to be made in the civil list, but especially in the third class. The charge was much heavier than the station of the country required, or than the poverty of the people could pay. He then moved, "That a committee be appointed to take into consideration the Expenses of the Third Class of the Civil List, and to report their opinion as to whether any and what savings may be made in the expenses of that class, with a view that any such savings may be carried to the account of the consolidated fund, according to the provision of the 56th Geo. III., c. 46, sec. 5."

The Marquis of Londonderry

said, that in giving, as he felt himself bound to do, a negative to the motion, he should offer as shortly as he could the explanations which made it necessary for him to give the vote. He regretted that while the hon. member had confined his motion to the third class, he had entered into a general censure of the administration of his Majesty civil list revenue, as to which, by a singular mode of arriving at a conclusion, the hon. member seemed to take it for granted, that a general conviction of want of economy existed. Now he would take directly the contrary position, and say, that there was not a department of the state managed with more regularity or greater attention to economy. The hon. member had very properly alluded to his majesty's munificent sacrifice of a portion of his revenue; which his majesty, feeling, as the hon. member had stated it, the distress of the country, had made. But the hon. member was in error if he supposed that that sacrifice was made without placing under considerable difficulties the administration of the civil list, or without rendering the strictest economy scarcely sufficient to keep the expenditure within the prescribed limits. As to the third class, the hon. member had taken a distinction; and whereas he had admitted that on the other branches of the civil list no reduction could be attempted by the House, without a message from the Crown, yet as to the third class, he maintained it was competent for the House to make any reduction they might think proper. Now, he (lord L.) admitted the distinction to a certain extent; but in order to show how far it was admissible, it was necessary that he should explain the nature of the contract between parliament and the Crown. The inconvenience which had been formerly feltas to the arrangement of the civil list was, that the civil list, with a fixed revenue, had been made to comprehend such a variety of expenditure, so uncertain and fluctuating in its amount, that the revenue was rather taken as equal to the minimum of expenditure than to the fair average: there was consequently a general disposition in the expenditure to exceed the income. But if the hon. member examined the working of the bargain in the long reign of the last king, comparing the amount of the civil list expenditure with the produce, not merely of the hereditary revenues, but of the taxes which parliament had been accustomed to grant in aid of the hereditary revenues of the sovereign, it would be found, that the country had gained many millions beyond the debts on the civil list which parliament had paid. In the late arrangement it was deemed desirable by parliament to confine the contract with the Crown to articles so far fixed in their nature, that the expenditure could, with a reasonable certainty, be calculated. On the other branches it was deemed fit that the expenditure should be annually submitted to the control of parliament, in the ordinary way of estimates and votes. The same principle of distinction was carried into the third class itself. Those heads were distinguished on which a reasonable average could be framed, and a fixed sum was voted to meet them, while the two others were to be provided for from year to year. Three out of five heads of expenditure, were deemed sufficiently fixed in their amount, to admit of a permanent provision; while the two others were deemed so fluctuating, that while an estimate was presented of their probable amount, they could not form a part of the permanent bargain with the sovereign. The salaries for foreign ministers, the salaries of consuls, and the pensions, were capable of being fixed on the average of years. The extraordinaries and the outfit, including presents, could not be fixed, though an estimate of their probable amount had been presented, viz. 50,000l. for extraordinaries, 10,000l. for outfit, and 15,000l. for presents. The salaries of foreign ministers, including house rent, had been taken at an average of 144,000l.

Now, in the motion which the hon. gentleman had made, he of course only could have intended to subject to a committee up stairs those parts of the expenditure which did not annually come under the view of parliament; for nothing could be less rational than to subject to a committee a branch of expenditure which yearly, in its minutest details, was examined by the House. No doubt, the hon. member for Aberdeen would deem it a great improvement that the expenditure, army, navy, ordnance and all, should be submitted to committees up stairs [Hear!]; but so long as this government remained a monarchy, he trusted the House would not, after the model of the Cortes, which was said to work so well, deliver over the whole executive power to committees above stairs. It was wisely provided by parliament, that the saving of the three heads which had been fixed, when any were made, should be carried to the consolidated fund. He was prepared to contend that this class of expenditure stood in the same position, as the other branches of the civil list; with this exception, that whatever savings were made under these three heads belonged to the public, and were subject to the control of parliament. But to suppose that an intention ever existed to submit to that House, or to committee of that House, the necessity of sending envoys to particular places—to imagine that it was ever meant that the House of Commons should consider of, and decide on, time propriety of despatching a mission to this state, or the policy of sending one to that, was contrary to all precedent and practice. Was it ever intended that they should declare whether a mission should be of a higher or a lower rank—whether it should he sent to a great court or a small one—whether missions were or were not admissible to minor states? Was the committee now moved for to take upon itself the functions of the executive government, and to call upon the secretary of state for his attendance to discuss and explain all sorts of questions respecting the connexion of this country with foreign powers? He would ask of the House, how it was possible for them to agree to such a motion, unless they meant to open the door to an inquiry of this nature? Could his sense of duty, or his oath of office, allow a secretary of state, without the express sanction of his majesty, to give such information? He never knew an instance in which parliament did not run before the ministers of the Crown, when asked questions of this description, to forbid the disclosure. Indeed, he never recollected an instance when such a preposterous demand was made. But he demanded where that cabinet was to be found, which would advise his majesty to send his ministers to a committee up stairs, to explain all the foreign policy, to detail all the foreign relations, of the country? If such a monstrous principle were adopted, it would be better at once to withdraw all our embassies from the continent. Nothing could be more dangerous than a disclosures of all the circumstances connected with the foreign policy of the country: nothing was more likely to disturb the peace, of governments, than to have secrets of great moment to the welfare of the state, brought forward to gratify the curiosity of any member of such a committee. If a mission were suspended for a certain time, doubtless an inquiry would be made what the reason of that suspension was, and whether it was an adequate one; and, if the suspension lasted for six weeks, ministers would be called on to state why it should not continue for six years. In short, all the questions of war and peace, would be decided by gentlemen sitting in an executive committee up stairs. And if they had an executive committee this year, they would, he, supposed, have a committee of public safety the next. [Hear!]

Much of the discussion which had taken place on subjects of this nature seemed to be introduced for the purpose of preparing their minds for the adoption of the principle on which the government of the United States of America acted, with respect to their missions. But he protested against the application of that principle, to a government which was essentially different from that of the United States. He would contend, that those who were constantly introducing those topics were endeavouring gradually to prepare the moral feeling and political sentiments of the country for the adoption of that principle to which he had alluded. Profiting by the present moment of distress, they were endeavouring to create a belief that this country was brought to such a state of Poverty, that we were obliged to abandon all those great principles of policy—all those exalted sentiments of dignity—ail those proud marks of distinction, which heretofore characterized the monarchy of England; and, instead of adhering to these, that we were compelled to show ourselves on the continent in forma pauperis, without those indications of greatness that were worthy of a commanding nation. He perfectly admitted, that whatever savings were made in this class, it was the right and duty of parliament to examine them, and to take care that they were justly appropriated. But he must at the same time contend, that there was a preclusion, which forbad their travelling into the reasons which induced the expenditure of the sums charged in the estimate for this service. If there were any one service which parliament should refrain from investigating with too minute an eye, it was this express service, on account of its peculiar character, embracing as it did circumstances that could not be divulged without manifest danger. But, above all others, this branch of the public service was the least fitted for the examination of a committee. If there were any necessity for such a discretion as parliament gave to the Crown with respect to the civil list, surely this was the portion of that list which more than any other demanded it. Feelings of personal delicacy towards the sovereign might operate against a scru- tiny of the civil list generally, as it related to the domestic concerns of the monarch, and the House had been sufficiently disgusted when the subject was formerly introduced; but, in this case, a sense of danger operated: the question was not of a private nature, it was of vital importance to the state; and he would say, that if this inquiry into the diplomacy of the country were allowed, the foreign relations of the country could not go on for a single day. He was not disposed to shrink from a fair investigation of what had been intrusted to his majesty's government, and of the spirit in which the powers placed in their hands with reference to this question had been administered; and he would add, that he would be bound by as strict and fair a system of economy as belonged to the circumstances of the times. Even if the expenditure of the civil list came under general observation, he trusted that ministers would show to parliament that nothing unfair or improvident could be laid to their charge. He believed he could prove to the House, that economy in this particular branch of the civil list had been constantly kept in view by ministers; and he could assure the House, that they would not lose sight of the reduction of expense, always, however, duly considering what the public service demanded.

The hon. member had said, there was a perpetual increase of the civil list—decrease, he asserted, there was none. In stating this, the hon. member had not displayed much research. This class might be divided under three heads—pensions, consular salaries, and salaries and extraordinaries connected with foreign ministers. The hon. member had stated, that the pension list was 52,000l. this year, which was as high as it had been for a considerable period; and he could not not discover any diminution that had taken place in this charge since the war. In the first place, the hon. member was not quite accurate in stating the amount of the pension list at the close of the war. In 1815, it amounted to 58,113l.; in 1816, to 56,673l. The last war was, sui generis—it was of a peculiar character—it had lasted above 20 years. Of course, ministers, who were advanced in life when the war broke out, could not fairly be expected to go abroad, and undertake active public service at the conclusion of peace. It was, he knew, of late, very common to quote the names of individuals, and to argue from their names as to their fitness or unfitness to hold particular situations. Now, he called on gentlemen to look at the list which lay on the table, and to say, whether it afforded any fair presumption, that an improper patronage was exercised, when the individuals there mentioned were placed on that list. With respect to consuls, he was unwilling to occupy the time of the House on that subject, because it was at present under the consideration of the board of trade. He would, therefore, come at once to that which appeared to him to be the gist of the motion; namely, the salaries of foreign ministers, the rank of the different missions, the general scale of expenditure, and how far it was justifiable. The hon. member had treated lightly the reduction of 10 per cent, which had been made in the salaries of foreign ministers; but if he were to read to the hon. member the letters he had received from individuals who were abroad in diplomatic capacities, he would see that that deduction of 10 per cent, was not so mere a trifle as he seemed to suppose. Those who wished to bring the government of this country to adopt the policy of the United States, would, he knew, find no difficulty in disposing of this question; but men who took a just view of the dignity of their country were not quite so easily satisfied. The salaries of our foreign ministers, according to their various ranks, had undergone no alteration from the reign of queen Anne down to 1804. In 1804, an estimate was laid before parliament; but the limited increase which then took place left so many charges in the nature of extraordinaries, as rendered a revision of the system necessary. An arrangement was made for paying those extraordinaries; but they had swelled to such an enormous amount, as struck every person who considered the subject with the necessity of introducing a salutary economy. It was quite clear, that if extraordinaries were not paid, many individuals, who were actively employed in the service of their country, would be ruined in their private affairs. It was, therefore, considered the best system of economy that could be adopted, to give to our ministers more liberal salaries, but to withhold any allowance for extraordinaries, except the ground of claim was of a peculiarly equitable nature. It was agreed to allow them larger salaries; but extraordinaries were not to be granted, except in five or six in- stances. Acting on this principle, the parliament of 1815 took up the subject, and recommended a certain scale of salaries. The scale then proposed was considerably larger than that which now existed. Putting the house-rent aside for the present moment, the salaries of 1815 were 151,650l., whereas the estimate of 1816 was 135,000l., making a saving of 16,650l. An event took place at that period, which certainly added to the salary. He alluded to the repeal of the property tax, in 1815. This measure gave them a nett income, and relieved them from the necessity of paying very large charges out of a narrow salary. They, however, would not now stand in the same situation, since 10 per cent would be deducted from the salaries of foreign ministers; and he could assure the hon. member, that the effect of that reduction would be most serious to those gentlemen who had no private and exclusive funds of their own. The duty of 10 per cent on the salaries of foreign ministers would, in this year, produce a saving of 14,700l., which, added to the reduction of 16,650l., on the estimate of 1815, as compared with that of 1816, would give a saving of upwards of 31,000l. in the present year over 1815. After this, he did not think it was very fair in the hon. member to say that no reduction had been made in the civil list.—But this was not the only saving which ministers had made. A very large reduction had taken place in the extraordinaries. When the three branches of the civil list were last before the House, the extraordinaries were taken at 50,000l.: by a very close attention to this branch of the expenditure it was reduced to 27,000l.: consequently a saving of 23,000l. had been made in the extraordinaries. In the arrangement of 1815, the expense of consuls was estimated at 40,000l.; in 1816, it was reduced to 30,000l., being a saving as compared with 1815, of 10,000l. In the present year, a very small saving had-been made under this head, but circumstances had rendered it unnecessary to employ a greater number of consuls than we formerly did. If they added together the preceding sums, it would give a total reduction of upwards of 61,000l. in the expense of a department which the hon. member alleged was always on the increase, and never on the decrease.

He hoped he had said enough to show that there was not such a lavish expenditure as the hon. member had stated—such an expenditure as called on them to break the solemn contract that had been entered into with the Crown. He was sure the hon. member must bring forward a better case than that which he had offered, before he could induce the House to break the faith of parliament with the monarch. He never could consent to lower, in the eyes of the world, the foreign service of the country; nor could he agree with the gentlemen opposite (or rather with some of them, for he believed they did not all approve of the measure), in the propriety of assimilating our practice to that of the United States. He could not approve of a committee which was to investigate all the foreign relations of the country. He could not advise his majesty to send his ministers for examination before such a body. If such a system were ever countenanced, he hoped his majesty would secure a set of ministers ready to act under the control of the gentlemen opposite, or to walk in the leading-strings of a committee above stairs. If such a principle were adopted, it would, he repeated, be high time for his majesty to look out for another set of ministers. [Cheers.] He would as far be was concerned, save the Crown and the House from the distress to which such a system must inevitably give rise; and he would also save the committee from the grave constitutional responsibility which they must necessarily incur. But, though he never would consent to explain any part of this subject to gentlemen above stairs, he felt no unwillingness to give every explanation, consistently with his duty, to gentlemen below stairs.

The hon. member had asked how it happened that there were so many missions, and why their appointments were so expensive? It was rather late in the day for that question. It would have been better had those points been considered when the subject of our foreign alliances was before the House—before this country had entered into bargains which could not now be got rid of. He would, however, contend, that the most economical arrangements had been made, under all the circumstances of the time and of the country. With respect to the number of missions, he denied that there was any thing that entitled the hon. member to question the policy on which the government had acted. Taking that annus mirabilis of comparison, the year 1792, the hon. member proceeded to argue, that the country at that time was satisfied with diplomatists of lower rank than were now employed, but that, instead of plenipotentiaries, envoys, and charge d'affaires, ambassadors were now sent to different courts. It did so happen, however, that with the single addition of one court, this country had not at the present day a greater number of ministers of high rank abroad than were employed in 1792. Let the House look to the missions that stood on the scale of ambassadorial allowances in 1793. These were France, Spain, Holland, and Constantinople. In 1822, there was an ambassador at the court of France, but there was not an ambassador at the court of Spain. This showed that it was not necessary to form a committee for the purpose of inducing the Crown to modify our diplomatic proceedings according to circumstances. Gentlemen opposite might say that this was done because Spain had set us the example. But they must have their committee, they must be acquainted with the facts, they must have all the necessary information before he could allow that their opinion was worth asking or hearing on this point. There were, then, ambassadors to France, Holland, Constantinople, Russia, and Austria. Surely the hon. gentleman must see the necessity of sending ambassadors to those powers who had assisted England in bringing the war to or glorious conclusion, and who with England formed the safeguard of Europe—the quintuple alliance. [Hear, hear! from the Opposition, and a laugh.] Could gentlemen see nothing in the change of circumstances which explained and enforced the necessity of sending an ambassador to Russia and to Austria? He should wish to know whether Russia had not taken a very different situation from that which she formerly maintained [Cheering from the Opposition benches.] He understood the meaning of the gentlemen opposite, but their opinion on this point must be taken, cum grano salis. It was hardly fair to argue with them on the question of Russia, as their minds were not merely tinctured, but were wholly impressed, with the idea of an anti-holy-alliance, under the influence of that power.—To return to the immediate point under consideration. There was, at present, it appeared, but one new minister, and that minister was accredited to a royal court, which accounted for it. With respect to ministers plenipotentiary, the number of that class of diplomatists varied very little from the scale of 1792. In the first place, he would mention the plenipotentiary to America; and certainly there was no country in the world with which it was more important for this country to live on terms of amity and mutual good feeling. There were also ministers plenipotentiary to Prussia, the two Sicilies, Sweden, Bavaria (which had grown up to be a power of great importance to England, and was, in size, fourfold the extent which she formerly was), Wirtemberg, and Sardinia; at all of these courts, with the exception of Wirtemberg, England had ministers plenipotentiary, in 1792, and nearly on the same scale as at the present day. Tuscany, Saxony, and Switzerland, were visited by envoys extraordinary. He had formerly urged the necessity of sending a plenipotentiary to the Hans Towns; but, as the individual, who was then a charge d' affaires, was a clever and respectable man, it was thought better to make an addition to his salary, which was originally 500l. a year, and to engage him to perform the duties which were usually executed by a plenipotentiary. It therefore appeared, that with very little exception, the number of our foreign ministers at present and in 1792 was the same. And here the hon. member had fallen into an error very natural to him upon this subject, not knowing the peculiar circumstances of many of the missions. The hon. member had stated that the expenses had been increased to 60,000l. instead of to 50,000l. A part of the expense of our mission to Constantinople had formerly been paid, not by the Crown, but by the Levant Company, and had been in fact the produce of a sale of protections. This was now paid by the Crown, and amounted to 10,000l. a year, which had formerly been levied by the public. Therefore they must reason upon the sum not as 60,000l., as the hon. member had represented it, but as 50,000l.

He would now proceed to examine and explain each class; and the House would judge whether the present establishments were such as this country ought to maintain or not. The six higher missions were in 1793, 50,360l. The corresponding missions in the year 1822 were, including the change of ranks 74,000l., making an increase of 23,640l. This increase gave one-fourth more of salary on an average to the great diplomatic officers, and added about one sixth to the whole expense Nine minor missions, including Wirtemberg, in 1793, were 6,295l., and in 1822, 29,000l.; making an increase of 22,705l. Now in Italy, on which great expenses were supposed to be thrown away by maintaining a minister at Tuscany, he could inform the House, that in 1793, the salary for that mission had been 3,600l., and was now only 3,900l.; so that in fact, after deducting 20 per cent, it was 60l. less than in 1792. But why have a minister at Tuscany, it was asked—Why have a minister at Saxony? Why have a minister at Wirtemburg? It was pretty strong proof that it was necessary to have a minister at Tuscany, that we had never been without a minister there. It was not, too, a very mean argument to prove the propriety of having a minister there, though it might not be intelligible to gentlemen on the other side, that every other power had a minister in Tuscany. Spain, Portugal, and powers who could not be imagined to have any communication with that placer were there represented, as this country had always been. It was a perfectly sufficient proof that our minister was not there merely for idle purposes, that all other powers who wished to know what was doing in the world of which they formed a part were there represented. But it was a fact, that hardly any diplomatic circle was more full than the court of the grand duke of Tuscany. He now came to a mission which the hon. gentleman had dwelt upon with particular pressure, and which was to form the subject of particular discussion. He looked forward to the debate of to-morrow evening without any alarm, and he had no doubt the hope of the hon. member would prove as illusory as many similar hopes entertained on his side; they only required the breath of a little discussion to destroy them. With respect to what the hon. gentleman had said of the unimportance of Switzerland, the whole policy of this government at all times denied his doctrine. 'We had respected Switzerland from a moral feeling, as well as from a political one for we had always admired that innocent and brave people for their conduct upon every trying occasion. They had resisted all attacks upon their country, and particularly that of France; with exemplary determination. But, independently of this moral obligation, it had always been the policy of this country to send a representative to the Swiss Can- tons. With the exception of wet stances, we always had a minister there. One of those instances was very surprising, and he was quite unable to explain it. The other was the period of the last war, when the states of Switzerland were occupied in war, and our missions were itinerant and changed with the circumstances. This, with the other very limited exception, to which he would advert, was the only time when there was not a mission from this country in Switzerland. From 1750 to 1793, there had been four ministers plenipotentiary. There had been a gentleman there what diplomatic crimes he had committed, he was not wise enough to discover—a Mr. Braun who had but 250l. a-year. Unless they were to abandon the whole stream of general policy, they must support this mission so far as our ancestors had done. Switzerland was the great intervening country between Italy, France, and Germany, and was exposed to be disturbed by any disturbance in those countries. It was the key stone which held them all together. It had, therefore, been particularly attended to by the congress at Vienna. After the confederacy of Buonaparte had been destroyed, it became a subject of anxious consideration how to estabish the relations which had been involved in it, consistently with the liberty, security, and happiness of Europe. It was agreed that Switzerland should have ministers accredited by all the great powers, and it was a distinct understanding, that they should accredit their ministers to that country, with the express desire of sustaining and completing the arrangement which had occupied so much of their time. It formed no small proof of the importance attached to the preservation of the neutrality of Switzerland, and by that means the tranquillity of Europe, that persons of the highest consideration and importance had been appointed to that mission. The secretary of state of Russia, count Cape D'Istria, was now minister in that country. Though he held the highest station in the government of Russia, yet he was now delivering his credentials for that mission. There, too, the nephew of prince Talley-rand had been minister. These facts he mentioned, because they proved that the great powers of Europe watched anxiously over the policy of the Cantons of Switzerland. Why, Spain, with all her economy, had a minister there, Portugal had a minister there. There was a feeling in every country to hold that important connexion with Switzerland, acid if that feeling should not be supported in this country, our best feelings must be dissolved, and we must be prepared to see it inquired who would go abroad with the least salary. He was astonished at the calumnies, insinuated for party purposes; he must say, and representing that the salary had been augmented for the advantage of a particular individual; or that the office was revived with the view of reconciling political differences. These insinuations were all founded on misapprehension or falsehood. They contained not a particle of truth. Mr. Stratford Canning, when he quitted that mission, had had direction from the king to give assurance, that no time would be lost in sending a person of superior rank to occupy the same place. He dared to say that the hon. gentleman would wish to hear all the anecdotes which would explain the cause of the interval in sending a successor to Mr. Canning. He (lord L.) could indulge the appetite of the hon. gentleman, if he were not afraid that this appetite would grow with indulgence. If the hon. member were to ask him twenty questions, he was prepared to answer them. A gentleman was immediately sent as secretary of legation, and was- soon succeeded by Mr. Disbrowe, who repaired at once as chargé d'affaires. Thus he had destroyed the beautiful illusion which had so much pleased the hon. member, and which had persuaded him that the mission had been revived for a politcial purpose. Another insinuation had been, that the salary had been increased for the indulgence of the person who was appointed. Now the salary stood the same as with Mr. Wynn's predecessor, with a difference of 10 per cent less against Mr. Wynn. Mr. Wynn had indeed a pension, but the arrangement could not be more advantageous for the public, than by selecting one who had a pension. Not that he (lord L.) held himself bound always to select persons having pensions; but how could a selection be more acceptable, than that of a person of family, rank, and consideration? How could the arrangement be more economical, than by selecting such a person, having previously a pension? The salary was 3,900l., from which the pension of 1,500l. as well as the 10 per cent were to be deducted, and it was thus cut down considerably; though certainly not so low as the salary of Mr. Braun.

He would now give the fair grounds of the increase of expense for missions. Although the obligation to continue that increase might be evaded by granting a commission of inquiry, yet he should ill discharge his duty to the king and to the country, if he did not consider the arrangement as a final engagement between parliament and the missions, and that there was great propriety in adhering to it as an economical and just arrangement. It had the recommendation of having entirely removed the chapter of extraordinaries from this department. The increase was about 50 per cent on the scale of the missions. How that was expended he would now state. It had on former occasions been admitted on the other side, that the scale had been infinitely too low for the various demands to which missions were exposed. We were acquainted with the growth of expenses in this country. Since the last two or three years expenses had fallen lower, but had they returned to the level of 1792? or could we have the same articles for double the expense? He put it to gentlemen who had been abroad, whether the growth of expenses on the continent had not increased more largely and more rapidly than in this country. Those expenses had very greatly increased by the increase of our own incomes. We carried with us habits of profusion, which added much to the expense four missions. The number of our countrymen abroad was so great, that we formed a great part of the population at Brussels and other places. With the true spirit of a modern stoic, the hon. member asked, why should English gentlemen be received by the ambassadors? But he (lord L.) doubted whether the hon. member, if on the continent, would not hold the obligation rather high. But instead of giving a degraded hospitality to the crowds of countrymen who might invade it, it was for the credit of the country that they should exercise their hospitality with a dignity suited to their station. Another cause of increased expense was occasioned by the mode in which business was now conducted. There was a regulation which charged ministers with certain expenses when they were absent for their private convenience. Formerly, they could enjoy all their emoluments when absent, and the officers who supplied their place were paid by the public. Now, it was not so. A secretary of embassy or of legation, according to the degree of the minister, was required to conduct the business, and receive 5l. a day from his absent principal, if a minister plenipotentiary, and 3l. if a secretary of legation. This was found a counteracting motive, and often prevented ministers from desiring leave of absence where there was not a particular reason for it. The hon. member had asked, what had this country to do with the continent, or with the holy alliance? He would answer, that we had more connexion with the existing governments of Europe than at any former period, and particularly with those through whom we looked for the preservation of peace. The scale of business had increased tenfold, too; and this increase was very much growing out of those relations which now connected the several nations. There were arrangements established, by which the views and course of each nation were communicated to others fully and without reserve. It was their pride that no secret or indirect views were cherished and prosecuted by any one power. This state of things created a mass of business which it was quite impossible to conduct in the foreign offices as formerly. Formerly, the minister or his secretary, with his own manual labour, transacted all the business: but at this moment, if he did not employ four or five persons in the office, it was quite impossible to perform the business of the department. This produced a considerable benefit, and it taught a great portion of the diplomatic experience and skill which distinguished the present class of diplomatists. He might be partial to those with whom he was so much connected—he might feel the influence of gratitude for the services of those who corresponded with him in his official duties—but he did not believe that at any former period so great a mass of talent had been employed in this service. In the offices of the various ambassadors there were, he believed, no less than twenty-one young men of rank, education, and talent, who were serving without fee or reward. They were improving themselves, and qualifying themselves, for the more eminent duties; and all that they received in return was, the privilege of living in the ambassador's house. This occasioned a great increased charge to the several ambassadors; but he trusted the House would not think that this was a waste of the public money, especially as it was to be borne n mind that the secrets of the offices were of the most important nature, and could not be safely entrusted to any but those who, from their situation in society, were likely to prove deserving of this confidence.

He now came again to statements which he made with regret, because it was painful to bring forward private transactions, which a spirit of pride, independence, and a regard to the sacredness of character, would make every gentleman in those high offices anxious to conceal; but, when so much spirit of slander was abroad, it was necessary to expose its injustice. Those whose diplomatic services had been long known, and who had recommended themselves to all parties—who had risen through many inferior offices to the eminent stations which they now held—had done services to their country of the highest benefit, and ought, therefore, to be most liberally rewarded. If they were not provided for on such a scale that persons of high ambition could be induced to engage in the same service, justice would not be done to the talent of the country, nor to the country itself. He had now to state to the House what this reward was, and how the highest merit had been paid by the country; he had this to state on the authority of the ambassador at St. Petersburgh, the ambassador at the court of the Netherlands, and the late ambassador to Spain. Our ambassador at St. Petersburg had written to him (lord L.) when the reduction lately made was communicated, that he would submit; but he added, that he did not know how, with such frightful expenses," he could keep free from embarrassment. The House in which this distinguished person lived was rented at 1,500l. a year. This was testimony above all suspicion; for this eminent person had advanced himself to this station by his success in his former appointment, and because he was acceptable to the emperor. This clearly showed that he had not been selected for any political purposes. He was of eminent character, of high birth but inconsiderable means, being a younger brother of a numerous family. Lord Clancarty supplied evidence to the scale effect. It would be considered that he (lord L.) was referring to persons of sober and staid character, of great moderation and love of order, who, though they would preserve the dignity belonging to their rank and office, vet would try every call for expenses by the test of reasonableness and propriety. Now, lord Cathcart, in the seven years during which he had been engaged in his mission at St. Petersburgh, had spent out of his own private fortune a sum, which, if it had been sunk in an annuity for his life, would have produced him 2,000l. a year. The embassy to the Netherlands was not so expensive as that to St. Petersburgh; and yet lord Clancarty, in the first year which he held it, had been obliged to spend 16,000l. a year, and had never spent less than 13,000l. a year since. These facts were sufficient to convince any unprejudiced man that embassies were not offices of that very advantageous nature which some persons described them to be; and he therefore trusted that the House would never consent to such reductions in the salaries attached to them, as would either drive those to ruin who held them, or force them to leave the service. He could also state, upon the authority of sir H. Wellesley, that he had spent 7,000l. more than the salary allowed him in the seven years during which he acted as ambassador at the court of Spain. The same had been done by sir W. A'Court, at Naples, and by his own brother (lord Stewart) at Vienna.

Having said thus much upon the European missions, he would now say a few words upon the other topics which the hon. member had pressed upon the attention of the House. The hon. member had said, that the president of the United States did not receive more than 6,000l. a year, and had therefore argued, that Mr. Stratford Canning must be making money by his mission to America. Now, there was a friend of his in the House (Mr. Antrobus), who, during the absence of Mr. Bagot, had discharged all the duties of that mission for a year and a half, and who, therefore, could explain the expenses attached to it. That gentleman, in all probability, would address them in the course of the evening, and from him they would learn that the mission to America was attended with very considerable expense. As he had forgotten to mention the fact whilst be was mom particularly engaged with that part of the subject, he would step back for a moment to observe, that Mr. Hamilton, whose salary of 6,000l. a year had been reduced 600l. by the reduction of 10 per cent, had not been able to obtain suitable lodgings at Naples for less than 850l. a year. And yet there were some individuals to be found who could wish to diminish the salaries which public functionaries of this class received! The cool, unfeeling stoicism with which those individuals advised reductions, which were certain of bringing ruin upon the country, and degradation upon the Crown, was really astonishing; but it would be still more astonishing, if the House of Commons did not, upon the present occasion, turn a deaf ear to their suggestions, as it had formerly done upon similar occasions.

The noble marquis, after recapitulating his former arguments, stated that the policy of England was of a pacific nature. The knowledge that peace was our policy, inspired the nations of Europe with amity and good will towards us, and caused us to have greater influence over them than we had ever enjoyed at any former period. That influence would be most effectually sustained by having high-minded ministers at the courts of the different sovereigns of Europe. Now, it would be impossible for those ministers to do justice to their country, if they were compelled to slink into corners at the courts at which they resided, for the sake of saving the public money. [Cheers.] To preserve the influence of their own country, they ought to show themselves often to the public of that country to which they were sent. Their houses ought to be the centre of information to all who were able to assist or to race their mission. [Hear, hear! from the Opposition.] He did not mean that they should be the resort of those perturbed and agitated spirits who were anxious to plunge the world once more into confusion, but of those honest and honourable persons who took a fair and candid view of the present state of Europe. He was certain that a vast majority of the nation would always be opposed to any scheme that would make not only the representative of England, but England herself grovel in the manlier which the hon. member recommended; and with that impression upon his mind, and also with a strong conviction that the maintenance of the dignity of the Crown was intimately connected with the maintenance of the national strength, he would never allow it to be lessened whilst he held a place in his majesty's councils. The due maintenance of that dignity was our best remedy against ulterior war; and he therefore implored the House not to deprive the country of the moral and physical resource which it thus obtained. If the House were to agree to the present motion, and were to appoint a committee to take into its hands the detailed service of those funds which were usually intrusted to the care of the secretary of state for the foreign department, he should feel himself degraded to the dust if he submitted for a moment to continue in office under such a system. [Loud cheering.] If he were to place himself in such leading-strings, he should be so ashamed of himself, that not only should he feel that he was unworthy to show his face in public, but also that be was unworthy to transact the slightest portion attic public business. [Cheers.] He trusted, however, that the House would pursue a very different course from that proposed by the hon. gentleman—he trusted they would not allow him to accomplish that object indirectly, which he seemed loath to attempt directly—he trusted that, if they had not confidence in the individual to whom the administration of foreign affairs was intrusted, they would say so at once, and deprive him of those functions which they deemed him inadequate to discharge. He would also call upon the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House not to assent to this motion. If they wanted a new secretary of state for foreign affairs, let them look out for one among their own body. [Hear, hear!]. He did not think so unfavourably of their talents as to suppose that an individual fitted for the station was not to be found amongst them; and with the ability and integrity that abounded on their benches, they would find no difficulty in discovering a person fitted to control and check that part of the public expenditure. Let them place that control and check in responsible hands; but let them not commit it to the care and vigilance of a committee of either House of Parliament. If they did commit it to the care of such a committee, from that moment they excluded the secretary of state for foreign affairs from all political influence, and placed him in a species of leading-strings which no man of spirit could tolerate for a moment. So strongly did he feel the impolicy and danger of such a course, that he should meet the motion by a direct negative; for if it was adopted, the constitution was as at an end.—The noble marquis sat down amidst loud cheers.

Sir James Mackintosh

said, he should have contented himself with giving a silent vote on this motion, if the discussion had taken the course which it was natural to expect from the clear and temperate statement of his hon. friend the member for Ipswich. His hon. friend, however, by way of reward for the discretion and temperance which he had displayed, had been accused of a wish to lay his country grovelling in the dust, of an intention to degrade her in the eyes of all Europe, and of a desire to deprive her of that influence which it was only by ministers she was supposed to possess. The noble marquis had told the House, that if it agreed to his hon. friend's motion, it would be usurping a branch of the executive government. That any man should venture to make such an assertion of a motion calling upon the House of Commons to institute an inquiry into a branch of the public expenditure, was one of those extraordinary novelties which sprung up in every debate that involved either the conduct or character of the present ministry. The motion, according to the noble, marquis, was likewise a motion subversive of all the glorious privileges ensured to us by the constitution. When such language was used to the House of Commons, it was not unworthy its consideration to reflect upon the state to which it was reduced. To what state, then, was the House of Commons, once the master both of kings and ministers, reduced at present? It was reduced to such a point, that it was obliged to regulate its votes by the pleasure of the ministers; in other words, it was reduced so low in spirit, that it dared not to come to any vote that would give so much displeasure to ministers as to cause them to resign. He wished to call the earnest attention of parliament to this shameful, this serious, this dangerous state of things. They had that night heard what had been often styled the ultima ratio of ministers: they had heard them introduce into the debate a threat, of resignation, which had been so often, made, that it now created no alarm among their warmest adherents—which, from its repetition, had become a subject of ridicule to all parties in that House—and which was now so well understood throughout the country, that it was laughed and jeered at, by the lowest politicians in the lowest clubs of the metropolis. [Cheers.] That threat, heretofore either dexterously whispered in the ears of ministerial circles, or rumoured in unofficial statements industriously circulated, or thrown out in that House in a sort of convenient ambiguity that most cautiously did nut shut out retreat, had at length assumed a more palpable form, and been threatened by the noble marquis, in a tone of pretended confidence, but of real and undeniable apprehension [Hear, hear!]. He must implore them to reflect on the situation on which they would place the House, if they timidly gave heed to such a threat from such a quarter. The House of Commons had, during the course of its existence, performed greater things than any assembly which had ever existed at any time or in any nation. The House of Commons had sometimes abused its powers—it had changed the religion of the state—it had deprived a sovereign of his Crown—it had sent a dynasty into exile—and it had hurled from his pride of place many an imperious and despotic minister. It was now, however, reduced to hear the present ministers, who overrated their own merits far beyond any of their predecessors, and who underrated the House of Commons even further than it had ever been underrated in any of the libels published against it—it was now reduced to hear the present ministers addressing it in a tone of defiance, and saying "If you vote against us, we will throw up our places; and we deem it right to tell you, that we think our places of much higher importance than any decision which you, the majority of the House of Commons, may arrive at, with all the depth and profundity of your wisdom." So distinct a declaration on the part of ministers, he was certain, would never have been made, if they had not had a firm conviction that a great portion of those who usually supported them would differ from them on the present occasion. It was a deep game that they were now playing—it was a great stake for which they were now throwing. He could not, however, bring himself to think that the House of Commons would endure a repetition of the threat that had been used that evening. It was a card that could not be often played, and he was certain that it would not have been played that evening had the minister been able to lay down any other. He would therefore, in the name of the ancient fame of that House—in die recollection of its many great and illustrious services to the country and to the world—in the hope of cementing the body of the nation to it in that confidence which at present it did not enjoy—he would, by all these associations, conjure hon. gentlemen to re- collect the disgrace which they would entail upon themselves, if, by their vote of that night, they preferred the pleasure of ministers to the gratifications of conscience, and thought it better to bear their yoke than alleviate in the slightest degree the burthens of their fellow countrymen. Could they be regardless of the character with which they would return to their constituents, in case they voted that evening with ministers? Would they allow it to be publicly said of them, that they had listened patiently to language from a minister, which, if uttered in better days by the monarch, would have hurled him speedily from his throne? The noble marquis, however, not contented with menacing his audience, proceeded to address them in language of the most outrageous and contumelious nature that had ever been uttered in parliament. He has told you, that he, the pacificator of Europe; he, the presiding genius of congress, the associate of kings, and emperors, and autocrats, disdained to be placed in the leading-strings of a committee of the House of Commons. And yet, what were the measures which must be taken to place him in those leading-strings? Must there not be a majority of the votes of that House? By no other means could the measure be effected. So that the leading strings, which the noble marquis, full of Prussian and Russian notions, took upon him so heartily to despise, were the votes of the knights, citizens, and burgesses of the House of Commons—those votes, winch, in former times, had kept in awe the most daring and profligate ministers. He called upon hon, gentlemen to look closely to this declaration, of the noble marquis, — nec enim levia aut ludicra petuntur Præmia, sed Turni de vita ac sanguine certant., The very being of the House of Commons, as an independent body, appeared in jeopardy—its existence, to all useful purposes, was in danger, from the threats of the noble marquis; which, though they had excited no fear formerly, could not be heard at present without exciting the warmest indignation in the breast of every man who loved the freedom and cherished the institutions of England and Englishmen. Let them mark, however, the inconsistency into which the noble marquis, in the warmth of his argument, and the pride of his nature, had shortly afterwards unconsciously involved himself. The noble marquis, after telling them, that nothing could be so absurd and so unconstitutional as to refer the expenditure of our different missions to a committee, and after declaring that if such reference were made, nothing would ever induce him to continue in the department which he then had the honour of filling—the noble marquis, after much idle declaration on that point, founded all the arguments which he had used upon the report of a committee which had usurped the duties of the executive government, and had determined the nature, extent, and salary of every mission that had been sent from the country since 1815. Now, he would ask the noble marquis to explain to him by what process of logic it happened, that our missions could be referred to a committee constitutionally in 1815, and that they could not be referred to it in 1822, without introducing changes into the state utterly subversive of its laws and constitution?—There was another part of the noble lord's harangue which struck him with great astonishment. He alluded to that part of it in which the noble marquis, after indulging for some time in his stale and hacknied sneers against those whom he denominated the disturbers and agitators of mankind, asserted, that at no former period of our history had the influence of England over foreign countries been so predominating. The noble marquis had then talked much of the glories achieved by the quintuple alliance—a subject so very wide of that which the House was called upon to discuss, that he was at a loss to conceive why it had been introduced. If they had any thing to do at present with the glories of that alliance, it was, not with the brave and gallant deeds of those heroes who struck down the colossal power of France in 1814 and 1815, but with the feats which they had recently achieved, the victories which they had lately gained, to the ruin of the expanding liberties of an injured nation. The noble marquis, in wandering from one subject of complaint to another, had thought fit to charge it as a crime upon gentlemen on his (sir J. M.'s) side of the House, that they were opponents of the holy alliance. The charge came with exquisite grace from the noble marquis—from the man who, in January, 1821, published, in the name of his sovereign, to all Europe, a strong and indignant reprobation of the principles avowed by the holy alliance. The noble marquis paid hon. gentlemen on his (sir J. M.'s) side of the House, a compliment which they did not deserve, when he charged them with being the earliest detractors from the merits of the holy alliance. They were not so: they had no claim to originality: they were mere plagiarists, feeble and humble imitators of the spirited eloquence of the noble marquis on the same subject. They had never said, that the governments of Austria, Prussia, and Russia were engaged in an unholy conspiracy against the laws of nations and the rights of man. They had never said, that their conduct was subversive of every thing like honour and principle between nation and nation. They had not charged those governments (at least not more than the noble marquis had), with being enemies to the interests of all sovereigns. The noble marquis, however, had charged the Austrian, Prussian, and Russian governments, with all the crimes which nations can commit: he had accused them of sinning against humanity, of sinning against justice, of sinning against honour, of sinning against every thing that was dear and valuable in the law of nations and the rights of mankind. [Cheers.] He defied the noble marquis, or any of his friends, to point out any language used on his (sir J. M.'s) side of the House that was—he would not say stronger, but—so strong as that in which the charges against them were couched, and which the noble marquis had dispatched in the form of a circular to every court of Europe with which we had any connexion. If such were the case, he would ask hon. gentlemen what they ought to think of the influence which it was pretended that we were at this moment exercising all over Europe? Either the noble marquis was or was not sincere in the paper to which he had subscribed his name; and upon either supposition, he would argue the point of our influence in Europe. If the noble marquis was sincere in the protest which he made in January, 1821, it was quite evident that we had protested in vain against as gross an act of rapine, injustice, and oppression as ever disgraced the annals of history. Now, how was the little attention that that state paper met with from foreign powers to be reconciled with any idea of our great influence over them? When was it before that Italy could be transformed into an Austrian province without the interference of England? When was it before, that the German stalked as a conqueror through Italy in spite of the efforts of Great Britain and France—the one the greatest power by sea, and the other by land? Was it by instances like that he had just quoted, that the noble marquis intended to convince the country of its increased influence among foreign nations? If considerations of general interest, and a wish not to injure pending negotiations, did not prevent him from touching on certain recent events, he could make out even a still stronger case of our want of influence, or, in case of our possessing it, of a most wanton abuse of it. The noble marquis had told them that Switzerland was an important power. He scarcely knew what the noble marquis meant by stating that there was a strong moral reason for our having an ambassador in that country. He should not have been surprised at hearing that there was a political reason for such a mission; but he had always been given to understand that a political reason was as distinct from morality as one thing possibly could be from another. What, then, was the moral reason of which the noble marquis talked so greatly? It was this—that it was greatly for the interest of Europe that the neutrality of Switzerland should be observed, and that we were called upon most particularly to protect it. He would here confess that there were three good acts of the holy alliance, on which too much praise could not be bestowed: the first was the neutrality of Switzerland, the next the abolition of the Slave trade, and the last their declaration in favour of civil and religious liberty. Now, allowing it to be so material that the neutrality of Switzerland should be religiously protected, in what, he wished to know, did that neutrality consist more than in the inviolability of the asylum it afforded to the refugees from the political and religious discords of their own countries? Switzerland had formerly been celebrated as the secure retreat of every martyr to the cause of liberty—of every man whose only crime was to be found in his defeat. Was it not essential to its neutrality that the character which it had held through so many years should still be maintained free from suspicion? Was it not essential that as a place of refuge it should retain its pristine inviolability? Was it not destructive of all those good consequences arising from it, on which the noble marquis had descanted so largely—was it not destructive of those good consequences, that the ministers of the holy alliance should have assumed the right of entering its territories, and delivering up into the hands of their persecutors those whom they thought proper to call criminals, merely because they loved liberty, and hated oppression? The ministers of the unholy alliance had committed this nefarious deed—had perpetrated this violation of every principle deemed most holy by all the writers on the law of nations—had turned the hospitality of Switzerland to its disgrace in every canton of that hospitable country. The refugees from Piedmont—and here he must stop to congratulate the noble lord on his geographical discovery that Turin was not in Italy. [Hear and a laugh.] Other geographers generally reckoned Piedmont in Italy, and he thought that the noble marquis, when he again looked at the map, might perhaps become a convert to their opinions; especially as the Austrians had now divided Italy into three distinct provinces for their own convenience. The first was Piedmont, over which the descendant of the ancient dukes of Savoy, or the Tetrarch of Sardinia, as Mr. Burke had called him, reigned, subject, however, to the paternal control of the House of Austria; the next was Tuscany, over which a member of the reigning family of Austria presided; and last of all came Naples, once an independent kingdom, now a mere province of Austria,—held, indeed under a king who had once sworn to a constitution, but who had preferred to be the viceroy of a foreign power to being the head of a free though limited monarchy. Refugees from all these three different provinces found their way into Switzerland; but there, in spite of its neutrality—there, in spite of the inviolability that ought to have belonged to it as an asylum—there, in spite of the sacred rights, which, from the most barbarous ages downwards, have been considered to belong to the miserable and suppliant refugees—even there it was attempted to make captives of those whose only crime was, their abomination of oppression. Why were those individuals to be seized? For offences they had committed in Switzerland No; but for their desire to obtain liberty for their fellowmen—for their anxiety to bestow the blessings of a constitution upon those who knew them only by name—for a wish to open to all the road to knowledge, to which he alone among our civilized princes was a fierce and inveterate enemy. Information, however, by some means or other, was given to the Italian refugees before the warrant for their arrest was issued, and they contrived, one and all, to make their escape. Probably the ministers of Switzerland, actuated by a spark of the ancient virtue which had so often crowned their barren hills with all the verdure of plenty, had been ashamed of betraying their guests into the hands of those who had no other right to demand them but the right of the sword. Within the last three or four weeks the city of Geneva, which was now reckoned one of the cantons of Switzerland, had entertained under its protection several Italian refugees of property, who were in possession of distinction of every sort, no matter whether it arose from wealth, talent, character, or accomplishment. The protection they received at Geneva, they were not allowed to enjoy long. The ministers of the three powers repaired to Geneva, and required that they should be given up to their incensed masters. The magistracy of the town gave them warning, and they also escaped. But at present they had no asylum. In the Netherlands, where they now were, they had no chance of security. In England, formerly the asylum where every friend of freedom, every man who had suffered in her cause, found himself immediately naturalized, the case was now decidedly altered. Foreigners saw on our cliffs—not the genius of liberty beckoning them to approach to our shores, but—a minister with a threatened alien bill in his hand driving them away, or consigning them, if they approached, to the cells and dungeons of a foreign land. [Loud Cheers.] He would ask the hon. and learned member for Guildford, who smiled with so much complacency at the fate of so many good and virtuous men—who by his silent smiles more than by his honied words, showed that he had studied all the expenses of our diplomacy, which his high rank and constant occupation at the bar almost rendered it impossible for him to do;—he would ask that how and learned member what inference he drew from these facts? England had greater influence with foreign nations now than she ever had, and did not use it to prevent the nefarious transactions he had described, she was a party to them. If, on the contrary, she had attempted to prevent it and failed, then it must be confessed that her influence had altogether failed. Either the noble lord had approved of all these transactions and was in that case fairly subjected to the reproach and the disgrace which they had brought upon their authors, or he had disapproved of them in vain, and the British government had no longer its boasted influence with the courts of Europe. He would not waste the time of the House in facther illustrating a truth that was self-evident. He should not have been induced at all to address it, but for the extraordinary doctrines of the noble lord. A most singular moment, too, had been chosen for the avowal of such doctrines. A moment when the people were besieging their doors, and when their table was loaded with petitions, imploring that House to relieve their present distresses, and to save them from impending ruin, was the time selected by the noble lord to make his appeal with stoical sternness, an appeal in which he charged those members who, in the discharge of their duty, wished to inquire whether some diminution was not practicable in this branch of our expenditure. No improvement could be suggested, without exposing the individual who pointed it out, to insinuations and taunts from the other side; and it was his indignation at discovering this to be the case, that had excited him to take a part in the present discussion. Far was it from his intention to deny the propriety of adequate salaries for our foreign ambassadors, of emoluments suited to the dignity of their functions, and to the character of a body of gentlemen living in honourable exile, and engaged in performing useful services to their country. But he did not see the necessity of imposing on them the obligation of extending their hospitality to the crowds of idle Englishmen who now resorted to foreign courts. He did not think the House would be disposed to countenance a scale of expenditure enlarged to an unnecessary degree by circumstances like these. The noble lord had dexterously avoided entering into particulars except with regard to the few missions which had involved those who filled them, in embarrassment and difficulty in their private affairs. Now, if such was the result at some of the greater courts, and if 10 per cent was, notwithstanding, to be deducted from those appointments, it wits more important still that the House should look with jealousy to our diplomatic missions at the minor courts of Europe. In many of them a secretary of legation, or a charge d'affaires, was a minister of rank and competency enough to discharge every duty that could he incumbent on the representative of a foreign state. In times when economy had become indispensable from the throne to the cottage, we ought, by restraining our disbursements in capitals where no business of general or extensive interest was usually transacted, to enable ourselves to support, without exposing individuals to loss, the great and effective missions through which the political system of Europe was maintained. No doubt the embassy at St. Petersburgh had risen very highly in importance, and it was filled by a person of rank. The noble lord had adverted to others which were held by noblemen or gentlemen whose private fortunes sometimes made up the deficiencies of their official salaries. He did not know why more persons of this character were not chosen to fill such employments; but how was it possible for that House to judge of the scale on which their expenses were regulated, without possessing a shadow of evidence on the subject? Many there were who were perfectly ready to exert their talents, and obtain the means of rendering future advantage to their country, whose rate of expense might be governed more by reference to their own property, than to the allowances granted by the public. It was said, that other powers had ministers of a certain rank at the minor courts; and whilst there was a pretender to his majesty's crown, which continued to be the case so lately as the year 1792, it was one of the principal objects of our foreign policy to watch minutely all that passed in the courts of Italy, and at Florence in particular. Even during the life of the cardinal York, it was necessary that a scrutiny should be maintained, as to all that related to the concerns or relations of that family. But that necessity no longer existed. The only plea that could once be urged in defence of large or numerous, or expensive appointments, was no more; and he should now request their attention for a few moments to the expenditure of the United States under this head. The House could not have failed indeed to remark the tone of monarchical contempt in which the noble lord had spoken of that power and of its expenses. It could not, however, but sound a little strangely in the ears of a House of Commons, if their character was not entirely altered—if they still were in reality the guardians of the public purse. Were they not themselves understood, and bound to represent the republican part of our constitution; and was it thus the noble lord was inclined to treat America, because her government was a republic? He would maintain that it was a duty of the House of Commons to act in a republican spirit; and he was not afraid either to set his constitutional doctrine against that of the noble marquis, or to compare his zeal and respect for monarchy, with that so anxiously professed on the other side. On behalf of the people, and he spoke of them plainly and without nice or subtile distinctions, be asserted that they usurped no part of the executive government, by instituting an inquiry into the expenses of this branch of public service. They were bound to act with republican jealousy, not with unguarded confidence, at a time when distress was general, and when complaints were loud and universal. Fifty years ago Mr. Burke had observed on the monstrous contrast afforded by a petitioning people, and an addressing House of Commons—by a parliament which, when the country expected from them votes of censure, thought only of thanks and congratulations. But, lamentable as was the fact, such was now the state of things it this country; and beyond all doubt the noble lord would find nothing analogous under that government of which he had spoken with so much real or affected disdain. In spite of the regal contempt evinced by the noble marquis for the United States of America, she was, day by day, spreading her pacific conquests and blessing with her rule a wider extent of territory than absolute monarchy ever cursed. [Hear, hear.] When he ascribed a feeling of contempt to the noble lord in referring to the American government, he founded his observation as mud on tones and gestures as on articulate expressions. The former were frequently not less intelligible; but, in looking generally at diplomatic service, he could assure the House that he did not undervalue the importance of finding so many young men engaged abroad in qualifying themselves, without influence or reward; to undertake missions hereafter. He saw with equal pleasure persons of the same age and character, of rank and distinction in that House, who, though endowed with ample private fortunes, were assiduous in Official business, and as eager to distin- guish themselves by talent and industry, as professional men engaged in seeking their daily bread. This did not, however, make it less the duty of parliament to be as frugal, under our present circum stances, as was possible, or as the example of America could induce us to be; and he might add, that it would be well if this country were always represented abroad with the same ability, that had always marked the foreign missions of the United States. The allowances and emoluments attached to those missions were, he believed, too small; but this circumstance had never affected the zeal or address with which the duties of them were performed. The noble lord had said, that he did not wish to have the office of ambassador bid for; but he would suggest to the noble lord, that to increase the salary, was not exactly the way to prevent the consequence of which he had expressed his disapprobation; for, whenever the value of a commodity was increased, the number and importunity of its bidders were likely to be increased; and, though it did not become him to make any allusions to the private sacrifices which were often made to procure the appointments to which he was referring, yet it was well known that such sacrifices were made, and that appointments abroad were often repaid—gratefully repaid—by services at home. He feared that he had trespassed too long upon the House, and should conclude by expressing his concurrence in the motion. [Hear, bear!]

Mr. Robinson

said, that after listening with unfeigned respect to the hon. and learned gentleman, it was with some surprise that he found, at the conclusion of his speech, that no part of his argument applied to the question before the House; or if it did in a single point, that it was in opposition and not in support of the motion before the House. With regard to the embassy at the court of St. Petersburgh, the hon. and learned gentleman was satisfied that it ought to be of the highest rank; and yet this was the very appointment of which the hon. mover had most bitterly complained. With regard to the motion, the House ought not to vote for it, unless they were also prepared for the result. So signal a proof of their utter want of confidence would undoubtedly convince ministers that they were no longer considered fit to discharge the duties of their respective offices, and that they ought to be succeeded by those in whom the House could repose its trust. The hon. and learned gentleman had travelled out of the question, in order to arraign the whole system of that foreign policy, which had been pursued for years, and had been sanctioned by successive votes of parliament, for the express purpose of calling on the House to support a motion, which they were told unequivocally, must, if carried, lead to the downfal of the present administration. If the House did not think the present ministers fit to be trusted, was it any insult to them to announce, that those ministers would bow to their decision? When a ministry was told, day after day that they had lost the Public confidence, it seemed, to him most extraordinary that it should be deemed unconstitutional in them to signify that, if it were so, they were ready At withdraw their services. This was the substance of his noble friend's intimation; and he thought it far more constitutional than the doctrine by which it had been condemned. So extraneous were the topics introduced in the speech just delivered, that he knew not how, after the argumentative statement of his noble friend, to enter into any reasoning that would not appear unnecessary. Those who had heard all the details embraced by his noble friend's explanation, and marked how dexterously they had been avoided by the hon. and learned gentleman, must have felt that a more clear or satisfactory defence never was made to a meager, unsatisfactory, inconclusive and incomplete statement.

Mr. Creevey

wished the Muse to consider, what was the actual state of the case. A motion was made for appointing a committee the inquire into certain heads of the expenditure, and this committee, if appointed, the noble lord informed them of his determination not to attend. He conceived this to be a most daring declaration, only to be surpassed by the statement of another secretary of state, that whatever parliament might resolve, he would not advise the Crown to act in conformity with its resolution; or by the conduct of that minister who had affirmed the impossibility of governing the House of Commons without corruption. These, indeed, were novelties. It was reserved for the present time to see parliament thus degraded and insulted by the ministers of the Crown. Either the House ought to vindicate its character by an assertion of its rights, or to adjourn at once, and no longer pretend to exercise functions that were the subject of ridicule and contempt. It had been contended, that the committee moved for would be a usurpation of the powers of government, and a disfigurement of the monarchy. Yet the whole subject, as now arranged, had grown out of the report of a committee in 1815, appointed on the recommendation of the noble lord himself. It was said, that no case was made out to justify motion of this nature, although, whilst distress prevailed all over England, and a famine was raging in Ireland, lord Stewart and lord Burghersh were residing in London, with the salaries and appointments of foreign ministers. He could not, for his own part, conceive a stronger case, nor a grosser insult on that House, than to call such a committee as was contemplated by the present motion, a disfigurement of the monarchy of England. If the House did not think proper to inquire into these subjects, and did think proper to submit to such language, it had better make a new declaration of its rights. It would deserve the contempt of the country, if it submitted to the language which had been addressed to it that night.

Mr. Tierney

said, that so extraordinary a speech as that of the noble lord would not permit him to give on this occasion, a silent vote. All, however, that he proposed to say, would relate strictly to the question; which was, simply, whether any saving, and how much, could be effected in a particular department of the public service? It was matter of alarm, to witness after so temperate a speech as that of the hon. mover, the sort of attack which it had provoked from the noble lord. The smallness of the reduction which was contemplated could not render it an object of indifference; for they had lately seen the House, much to its honour, eager to abolish an office of 2,500l.—a sum much less than might obviously be saved by complying with the present motion. But the fact was, that so sore were ministers from the repeated instances of want of confidence, that at length they had resolved to make what they called their stand. Now, though it might be constitutional to declare an intention of throwing up office if a certain proceeding were adopted, it was still unwarrantable to circulate a threat of this kind previous to the discussion of it in parliament. He would remind country gentlemen that they would have a strict account one day to settle with their constituents. With respect to the committee of 1815, he knew that its estimate was founded upon no evidence, except a letter from Mr. Hamilton to Mr. Antrobus, and that it was flamed by the noble lord himself. They were informed that retrenchment to the extent of 30,000l. was to be carried into that branch of the civil list which was provided to meet tradesmen's bills; and, though the noble lord hinted that his majesty's comforts might be abridged by it, he apprehended that every gentleman who was not too great a statesman to attend to his private affairs, must be sensible that a diminution of from 15 to 20 per cent had taken place since 1818 in this branch of expense. The noble lord thought that when he hail introduced estimates lower than those to which a committee had agreed, he had done every thing that was necessary for economy; and that as the committee had fixed upon a certain sum, he was fully justified in paying it. There he agreed with the noble lord; for if the House consented to vote such sums, no doubt they must be paid. But that was not the exact question which they were now considering. The question was, whether he would be considered inimical to the Crown, who, feeling for the distresses which had come upon the country since the period he was speaking of, recollecting also that the House in the last session did consent to an address to the Crown, calling for economy and retrenchment, should now require a committee to inquire into one of the most extravagant branches of our expenditure, and to see whether an address founded on their report, and carried to the foot of the throne, might not be productive of great and necessary reduction? Now, that some reductions might be expected from the examinations of a committee, he was prepared to show. And here he could not but remark, that the noble lord forgot what had occurred since the committee of 1815. In that committee an estimate was proposed and adopted; but the next year the noble lord himself came down with estimates less by 26,000l. than those fixed by the committee. In another instance, the House knew there was a minister at Hamburgh, with 4,000l. a year, but it was found that a consul with 500l. would do all the business there just as well, and one was sent accordingly. If that had been the result of a committee, should it have been any thing the worse? No; but a committee they dreaded above, all things, as something unconstitutional. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn), might smile, but he would defy him to select any committee, pick and choose them as he might, which would not find that considerable savings might be make, or which would uphold the necessity of all our present embassies, with all their enormous expense. He would, for instance, take that embassy to the Swiss Cantons. It was said, he knew, that there were at all times embassies to those Cantons from other powers. That Capo D'Istra was there, and that a nephew of Talleyrand had been there, as if sending the relative of one minister was a justification for employing the relative of, another; but he would say, that Talleyrand's nephew was sent to the Swiss Cantons under circumstances similar to those under which a relative of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn), was recently appointed to the same place, it was as rank a job as had ever been heard of; and that a committee, if appointed to inquire into the subject, would tell the right hon. gentleman the same thing. He said this in the utmost good temper his right hon. friend (Mr. Wynn); and if he had not used that term before, it was not from any want of friendly feeling, but sitting at different sides of the House as they now did, the term he had used was much more convenient. He did not quarrel with the appointment of Mr. Wynn to this embassy, for if any person was necessary for the office, he thought the would be as likely to fill it well as any other; but he did object to the appointment, because he was convinced that it was not only unnecessary, but extravagant to keep up such as embassy at such an exorbitant expense: and, as he had said, a committee would so pronounce it. Formerly we had a minister at Bavaria, and he also acted as our representative at Frankfort. Now we had one to each. He did not object to our having a minister at Bavaria, but in a committee he would be able to show, that it was not necessary for us to keep one at Frankfort at such an expense as we were now incurring. He trusted he should get credit for being at all times well disposed liberally to remunerate the services of public men; but there were two matters to be considered here—whether we had more than were necessary; and, if not, what was it which could be called liberal remuneration. First with respect to the Swiss Cantons. The House heard of one person having performed the duties of that office for 250l. a year. To be sure, the noble lord had described that individual, as a man transported for his time, and he had added, that the sum given him was less than half of what be ought to have received. Now it might be true, that 500l. would not be, too much, but, was there no difference between that and an income, of twelve times the amount? He would not examine the noble lord in the committee to prove this; but he was sure he could easily satisfy a committee of its extravagance. The noble lord had sheltered himself under his official responsibility and the necessity of preserving the secrets of government, and protested against having those secrets submitted to the scrutiny of a committee. Now, the question before the House was, whether there were more public officers employed by this country at foreign courts than were necessary; and, if not, had those persons larger incomes than they ought to draw from the pockets of the people? What had this do with the safety of the state? Where was there any necessity for breaking cabinet secrecy in inquiring, into such a subject? But, without putting the noble lord in any situation in which he might risk the violation of his oath, he (Mr. T.) would, if a committee were appointed, prove from the evidence of others, whose lips were not sealed up with the same cabinet secrecy, that we had more consuls abroad than were necessary, and that for the most part they were too highly paid. It was said, that many of the consuls complained that they were underpaid. Not a doubt of it. And at all times there were the most pathetic complaints from several of our commercial and diplomatic agents abroad, that their services were not adequately rewarded. Still, however, we did not hear of any of them giving up their appointments in consequence. Many of them argued thus with themselves: "My official income is less than my expenses, and I am obliged to make up the deficiency out of my private property, but then I shall get a pension when I retire." And, in fact, it became a question of calculation, how much money they were to expend to acquire that pension. There was, however, this difference between former consuls and those of the present day—they had now a larger salary and also a larger pension on their return. Now, what was there to prevent this being made the subject of examination by a committee, in order to ascertain whether the pay and the pension were not more than circumstances required; and, of course, than the country ought to pay? That all the money taken out of the public purse by those gentlemen was absolutely spent by them abroad, was not the question; but, whether it was necessary that so much should spent. In Paris, he knew, the sum paid, to our ambassador was spent, for he had experienced a proof of it; and there was no one who shared the hospitality or enjoyed the conversation of sir C. Stewart, our ambassador there who would not be satisfied that his official income was even exceeded. But, then what moral effect did it produce to the nation, that sir C. Stewart should entertain every Englishman who visited Paris? What possible increase of influence or importance could it procure for this country, that Englishmen were daily eating their way through its ambassador's income abroad? A gentleman paid two guineas at the secretary of state's office for a passport, which had the effect of a letter of introduction to the ambassador, and then he ate it out in dinners at his table. Where was the moral effect of this to the nation? Now, in Paris, where there was such an influx of his countrymen, sir C. Stewart might give 10l. a head to get them back; while Mr. Begot, at St. Petersburgh, where English society was scarce, might be willing to give 10l. to see one. So that, if the necessary entertainment of our countrymen abroad was a ground of keeping up such expensive establishments, it ought to be proportioned to the circumstances of the situation. In the cases he had mentioned, however, there was no such difference observed. He fully concurred with the noble lord in thinking that we should appear respectable in the eyes of foreign nations: but, was this expense necessary to maintain our respectability? He said, no. The character of the English nation was to be kept up abroad by the respectability in which its ministers were held at home, and if they failed in securing that, not an income of 50,000l. a year to each of our ambassadors, to be laid out in the most sumptuous entertainments, could procure it. With those gentlemen who looked upon the present motion as tending to overturn the constitution he would not argue; but if there were those who thought that a saving ought to be made in every department where it could be effected without injury to the public service, he would say, why not go to the committee and inquire in what manner this could he done? His own firm opinion was, that without any very close pruning of salaries or fees, 50,000l. a year might be saved to the country by the inquiries of a committee. As to the assertion, that economy in our embassies would lessen our respectability with other nations, it was idle and groundless. He believed other nations would be very glad to follow such an economical example. But then, in came the noble lord's argument—the moral effect of rich embassies. The moral effect was the word he still harped on; and as prince Metternich and prince Talleyrand, and count this, and count somebody else, kept up large establishments, for the moral effect, no doubt, we also were to keep up similar extravagance for a similar moral effect.—Another reason why he was anxious for the appointment of this committee was, a consideration of the good effect it would produce out of doors. The people would hence learn, that the declarations about economy and retrenchment were not mere empty sounds, but that a saving would be made wherever it could be effected. They would learn, that the fears of the noble lord about the loss of his place, and the tone he assumed, perhaps from being well informed as to the disposition of his supporters, should be no farther bars to just economy. The question, the noble lord said, was now, whether he should keep his place or not? and this was declared with the view of catching any wavering votes. Now he (Mr. T.) did not care whether that threat was really sincere, or whether it would be possible to find on his (Mr. T's.) side of the House, any man who would venture into office, after the noble lord should have quitted it; but he hoped the country gentlemen, to whom this was held out, would not be frightened by the hacknied threat. The noble lord had talked of a peddling system on his (Mr. T's) side; but, was it not a peddling system of the worst kind to be thus constantly talking of what was never intended? He had no fears at all about the resignation of ministers, and the country gentlemen need by no means to be alarmed on that account. It would, indeed, he a surprise to hear that my lord Londonderry had resigned—that lord Liverpool had retired from office—and he could not imagine any thing more indescribably comical, than the chancellor of the exchequer's face after a resignation. [Hear, and a laugh.] There was however, no danger of any such disastrous event occurring—no danger of the noble lord and his colleagues being turned tine of office; but he would tell the country gentlemen what there was a danger of. There was a danger of their being turned out of their counties—a danger that some gentlemen who made fine speeches out of doors about economy and reduction, which they contradicted by their votes whenever these questions came to be discussed within, might be turned out. He trusted, however, that this would not be caused by their votes on the present occasion. When he considered the peculiar character of the present motion, the obvious mode which it presented of making an efficient saving to the country, the necessities of the people calling so loudly for reduction, he trusted he should be in a majority on the present, as well as on the occasions of the two lords of the Admiralty and one of the postmasters-general. If not, then he would say that the marquis Salisbury was an injured man. It was dealing very hardly with that venerable nobleman, who had so long served his country, and who was willing to serve it to the end of his life. It would seem as if ministers said, "send off the noble lord, if you please; turn him loose in his native woods, if you will; but touch the Swiss embassy, disturb Mr. Wynn in his new appointment, and then, out we must go; as he is one of our very particular friends, and we cannot stay after him." He trusted, however, that such a threat would be of no avail in the present case. He would not press the subject farther, but would conclude by voting for the motion. [Cheers.]

Mr. Wynn

said, he was surprised to hear it maintained, that if ministers could no longer keep the confidence of the House, they would be wrong in announcing their intention to resign. He had always understood it to be constitutional doctrine that the loss of the confidence of parliament ought necessarily to be followed by a resignation of their places by any set of ministers. With respect to the motion-he should oppose it, because he thought it would be establishing the dangerous precedent of placing a committee of that House, like a committee of public safety, over the ministry for foreign affairs; for how was it possible to come at the points sought for, if, the motion were carried, without an examination of the ministry? His hon. and learned friend had asked, what the House of Commons was for, if not for inquiries of the present description Now he would defy his hon. and learned friend to prove in any one instance, that a committee had ever exercised such a control over a ministry, as this examination would necessarily imply. It was said, that a committee on the same subject was appointed in 1815, but it should be remembered, that that committee was one appointed on the responsibility of ministers, and that it never had, and never was intended to have, the power of inquiring which it was proposed to give to the one now moved for. The constant practice of the constitution was, to place these matters in the discretion of the ministers and if that confidence were abused, the ministers were removed by address to the throne. The right hon. gentleman then went on to contend against the possibility of attempting, with any hope of success, an inquiry which would embrace a detail of the expenses incurred in the several courts of Europe. It would be rather inconvenient, he thought, to bring witnesses from Naples and from Constantinople, to state what were the usual charges of living in those places. It was also necessary to shew a decent splendor at foreign courts; for however unnecessary this might appear in the eye of the philosopher, it made a great impression on the mass of mankind. He recollected that the late Mr. Sheridan once drew a picture of the Speaker going up with an address to the throne, and having no other attendance than the sergeant carrying an umbrella over him, and said he would receive the same respect as if conveyed in a state coach. But he (Mr. W.) was of a different opinion. It was necessary that public functionaries should have those external marks of honour which did not indeed change the man, but enabled him to make a greater impression on the people at large. He then went on to remark upon America, and the affinity of interest between that country and England, and observed, that if the functionaries of America were not even underpaid, their rate of salary ought to be no rule to us, who were in such different internal circumstances. He was convinced that the interests in question could not be properly submitted to a commit, and that if the House agreed to the motion, it would act in a most unprecedented manner.

After a short reply, the House divided: Ayes 147. Noes 274. Majority against the motion 127.

List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord	Grant, J. P.
Aubrey, sir John	Griffith, J. W.
Anson, hon. G.	Grattan, J.
Astel, W.	Gaskell, B.
Abercromby, hon. J.	Hume, J.
Burdett, sir F.	Howard, hon. W.
Boughton, sir R.	Haldimand, W.
Boughey, sir J. F.	Hill, lord A.
Brougham, H	Heathcote, G.
Bright, H.	Hornby, E.
Barnard, lord	Hutchinson, hon. C.H.
Birch, Jos.	Honeywood, W. P.
Bennet, hon. H. G.	Hurst, R.
Benett, John	Hughes, col.
Barrett, S. M.	Heron, sir R.
Bury, visc.	Hobhouse, J. C.
Belgrave, visct.	James, W.
Browne, Dom.	Jervoise, G. P.
Bernal, R.	Kennedy, T. F.
Becher, W. W.	Lethbridge, sir T.
Butterworth, J.	Lockhart, J. I.
Byng, G.	Lamb, hon. G.
Baring, sir T.	Leycester, R.
Baring, H.	Lester, B. L.
Crompton, S.	Lemon, sir W.
Crespigny, sir W. De	Langston, J. H.
Calcraft, John	Lloyd, sir E.
Calcraft, J. H.	Lushington, Dr.
Cockburn, R.	Latouche, R.
Coke, T. W.	Monck, J. B.
Campbell, hon. G P.	Macdonald, J.
Campbell, A.	Maberly, J.
Carter, J.	Mackintosh, sir J.
Cavendish, lord G.	Martin, J.
Cavendish, lord C.	Marjoribanks, S.
Cavendish, lord H.	Mostyn, sir T.
Clifton, viscount	Marryat, J.
Carew, R. S.	Mahon, hon. S.
Concannon, L.	Moore, Peter
Calvert, C.	Newport, sir J.
Caulfield, hon. H.	Normanby, visct.
Coffin, sir Isaac	Neville, hon. R.
Davies, col.	Nugent, lord
Denison, W. J.	Newman, R. W.
Denman, T.	O'Callaghan, col.
Dickinson, W.	Osborne, lord F.
Dundas, Charles	Ord, W.
Ebrington, viscount	Price, R.
Ellice, E.	Pym, F.
Ellis, hon. A.	Palmer col. C
Fergusson, sir R.	Palmer, C. F.
Fitzgerald, lord W.	Pares, T.
Foley, T.	Peirse, Henry
Fitzroy, lord C.	Power, R.
Fetherston, sir G. R.	Powlett, hon. W. I. F.
Grosvenor, R.	Ricardo, D.
Gurney, R.	Robarts, A. W.
Guise, sir W.	Robarts, col.
Grenfell, P.	Rice, S.

Robinson, sir C.	Tynte, C. K.
Rickford, W.	Western, C.
Rumbold, C. E.	Wood, alderman
Ridley, sir M. W.	Wilson, sir R.
Smith, hon. R.	Webbe, col.
Scarlett, J.	Williams, J.
Stanley, lord	Williams, sir R.
Sefton, earl of	Whitmore, W. W.
Smith, W.	Warre, J. A.
Sykes, D.	Whitbread, W. H.
Sebright, sir J.	Whitbread, S. C.
Smith, Sam.	TELLERS.
Stuart, lord J.	Leonard, T. B.
Scott, J.	Creevey, T.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.	PAIRED OFF.
Titchfield, marquis of	Russell, lord J.
Townshend, lord C.	Phillips, G.
Tavistock, marquis of