ference to the duties to be performed. It would be impossible otherwise to obtain men of rank and consideration to fill these situations. The right hon. gentleman had employed many arguments ad captandum; but he would remind the House, that when his friends were in power they gave no practical instances of their doctrine, which was only enforced when their minds were enlightened by the climate of opposition. That the present appointment was framed upon a view of a just balance of influence and not on the principle of invading the independence of parliament or the liberties of the country, was sufficiently manifested by the fact, that the operation of this bill would be to abolish eight parliamentary offices, and to create only three. It was, however, an unwise principle of economy which would always measure the salary precisely by the duties of each particular office. It had been at all times deemed more advisable, that while some situations were underpaid with respect to the labour attached to them, others should be overpaid, and constitute ulterior rewards for a long period of able services. It was more necessary that some appointments of station and dignity should be maintained in Ireland than in Scotland, because there was an executive in Ireland, and because the existence of a privy council in that country necessarily created a diversity of public business requiring the attention and assistance of eminent individuals. Without this office the Irish government must be left with no other sup port than that of his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel.) The present office was not new: the financial business of Ireland had been formerly conducted by three vicetreasurers, each with a salary of 3,500l.

one who had to support no rank, who had to maintain no state, who had to exhibit no representation, and consequently required no consideration for splendour or expense. He might live in an ordinary lodging in Dublin, and perform all his duties as efficiently as if he enjoyed a palace. He was merely to perform duties that any man of common education was perfectly able to execute. But then ministers were not contented with giving him a great salary, and supposing him a person of abilities, but they were also to give him a deputy. His business lay in Ireland; but when he came over to enlighten the British parliament, he was to intrust his office to a deputy; who was likewise to have a salary of 1,000l. a year. This deputy would represent, after a year or two, that his duties were very heavy, that his principal stayed away long from Ireland, and might work upon the gentle and yielding disposition of the chancellor of the exchequer till he obtained the desired increase. Ministers had now got nearly to the salary of the treasurer of the navy and his deputy. Can they believe that the country will view this without disgust? How many poor clerks must be dismissed to make up the salary of this officer, to compensate for the expenses of this vile, rank, coarse, vulgar job. He could bestow upon it no other epithets. Some of the lords of the former treasury, who had 1,2007., might have been prevailed upon to accept of this office for the same amount of emolument. If ministers wished to proportion the salary to that of other offices, why go to sinecures? Could they not find other offices worthy of furnishing a rule for the salary? The privy seal had 3,000l. a year, the master of the mint 3,000l. a year, the chancellor of the exchequer 2,500l. Why was government to import a vice-chancellor from Ireland for 3,500l.? Let the House consult its character and its dignity, and resist this infamous job.

Mr. Gipps thought 2,000l., a year was quite a sufficient salary for this office.

Lord Castlereagh said, that he could not entertain propositions like those of the right hon. gentleman, that the responsible offices of the country were to be set up as if by auction, and that those who were disposed to take the least for their services, were to be preferred. It had always been considered in Mr. Burke's plans of reform, that the salaries of high public offices should be estimated by a regard to the due influence of the Crown, as well as by a re

Sir J. Newport observed, that by the act of 1807, the administration of that day abolished no less than 38 sinecure offices in the customs of Ireland.

Lord Castlereagh said, the offices in question were not abolished at once, but were only to expire with those who held them. However this might affect the patronage of subsequent administrations, it had not at all reduced that of the then existing ministry, who also took care to create some new offices of rather an extraordinary nature.

Sir J. Newport observed, that the predecessors of that ministry had granted all these offices in reversion.

Colonel Gore Langton protested against the measure as a scandalous job, by which

Mr. Ponsonby moved, that the clause rendering the vice-treasurer eligible to sit in parliament be left out.

Lord Castlereagh opposed the amendment, on the general ground that several offices which might be held by members were abolished by the bill.

Mr. Tierney said, that the clause was nothing more nor less than recognising this new office to be a mere sinecure.

Mr. Wortley, though against the salary, was in favour of this clause. As so large a salary was given, it was to be presumed that a man of talents would be appointed to the office, and it was advisable that parliament should have the benefit of them.

Mr. Ponsonby was surprised at the inconsistent conduct of the hon. gentleman, in first voting for a small salary to the vice-treasurer, and then voting for his being a member of the House, on the ground of his having got a large one. What was this but an invitation to ministers to be extravagant?

Sir M.W.Ridley expressed his surprise that gentlemen whose efforts had abolished (VOL. XXXIV.)

the income tax should now vote in support of every scheme of extravagance. If it was necessary to have a man of talents to fill the office, it was not in that House that his talents should be employed. He pronounced the whole a rank and unconstitutional job.

Mr. E. Littleton said, that though he had voted for the salary, he should vote against this clause.

Mr. W. H. Lyttelton was surprised at the inconsistency of his hon. friend, and hoped he would compensate for his vote that night by another on some future occasion.

Sir John Newport besought the committee to think what they were now doing, as, by granting the vice-treasurer a seat in the House, they were burthening the country with an additional expense of 1,000l. a year for a deputy. They were also abstracting him from his duties on the other side of the water, and bringing him here for no other purpose than to support the treasury bench.

The committee divided: For the amendment, 57: Against it, 107, The House being resumed, the report was ordered to be received on Monday.

HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 17.

STATE OF THE COINAGE.] The Earl of Lauderdale rose to move for a committee on the state of the currency. His lordship contended that the proposed silver coinage was founded in erroneous principles, and that it would burthen the country with an enormous expense without any bene it resulting from the measure, which would ultimately be found unavailing, as the coin would be soon withdrawn from circulation. The proposition for making gold the legal standard of the country was, he maintained, unsupported by any writer of authority upon the subject, with the single exception of the late earl of Liverpool, and was not founded in sound principles. Gold, it had been said, ought to be the standard because it was less liable to fluctuate in value, compared with silver. This, however, he denied as inconsistent with experience, and contended, with reference to another point, that silver was greatly preferable, as a standard, to gold, because the silver coins were less liable to be diminished, there being only one-fifteenth part of the temptation to diminish the silver coins that (4 C)

there was to diminish the gold coins, from which circumstance a much less number of offences would arise with regard to the coin, a consideration that ought always to have great weight. Silver maintained a steady value in France, because it was made a legal tender, whilst gold fluctuated, and the gold coins were transferred according to the price of the day -a proof that a silver coinage might be rendered a proper and effectual standard. Another important consideration was, that in all countries, with which chiefly we had mercantile dealings, silver was the standard, and it was impossible, if we had a gold standard, that we could ever have a par of exchange with them. It was impossible also that we could have a proper silver coinage, whilst gold was the standard, because silver would be taken without regard to its value. His lordship adduced the authorities of Mr. Locke, sir Isaac Newton, and Mr. Harris, in support of his principal propositions. He observed, that the enormous burthen which would be thrown upon the public by this measure, was what ought not to be suffered, particularly in the present period of distress, and for a measure which was contrary to all authority and experience. The sum voted for the expense of the new coinage, that is to say, for the difference between the real value of the silver now remaining in the mint, shillings and sixpences, and the nominal rate at which they were exchanged, was 500,000l. But as not more than one in twenty of the shillings and sixpences now in circulation had ever seen the mint, it followed that the loss upon the public must be nineteen fold, or 9,500,000l. Was this a loss that ought to fall upon the public, under present circumstances? To suppose, likewise, that the mint coins circulated at the rate of 5s. 6d. per oz. could continue in circulation, along with bank tokens issued at the rate of 6s. 8d. per oz. and with Irish bank tokens issued at the rate of 7s. 3d. per oz. was a mere theory, at variance with all experience, and yet for this unsupported theory they were called upon to incur all the expense and risk of this coinage. There was still, however, a more important objection arising out of the paper circulation. His lordship quoted from the book of the late earl of Liverpool, an opinion given in 1805, that the then extent of the paper circulation rendered it impossible to take proper measures for a new coinage, Yet since that

period the amount of bank of England notes in circulation, then 15,000,000/., had increased to 25,000,000l., and the number of country banks issuing notes, then 517, had increased to 640. By the measures likewise of the government this session the bank of England were compelled to make an additional issue of notes. How then, was it possible that this great mass of paper, over the issue of which there was no check or control, should not interfere with every measure of coinage? It was well known that a very small rise in the price of metal above the denominations of the coins composed of it, caused them to disappear from circulation, and he did not see how this result was to be avoided, with regard to the present coinage, there being no security against a rise in silver, in consequence of the facility of issuing paper. The arguments he adduced upon this subject were only brought forward with a view of urging inquiry, and when, as it recently appeared, the government themselves had so little made up their minds upon a subject which required mature deliberation, that the guinea, which it was at first said should be 21s. should be now 20s. a change to which he (lord L.) did not object, though, perhaps, it might not altogether suit certain professional men, it must be surely evident that inquiry was necessary, before they resorted to any measure of coinage. If the government chose to resort to such a measure, in contradiction to all received authority upon the subject, and to all experience, merely upon their own theory, the responsibility must be upon them, and a heavy responsibility it must be. The noble earl concluded by moving, "That & committee be appointed to inquire whether or not there was any probability that the intended silver coinage would remain in circulation, whether or not it was expedient to make gold the standard measure of value, and whether or not it would be advisable to constitute silver a legal tender to any amount."

The Earl of Liverpool said, that the opinions which he had formerly expressed to their lordships had been fully confirmed since that period. He contended that gold ought to be the standard of value. The great advantage which gold had over silver was, that it was less variable in value. It was easy to keep the_gold standard perfect, but not the silver. What was proposed was not an innovation; it

was a recurrence to the former system, from which no inconvenience had been felt. As to the change in the denomination of the gold coin, which had been agreed to since the measure was first mentioned in parliament, that made no alteration in the principle of the measure. For himself, he should prefer an adherence to the old coin of guineas; but as practical men seemed to think that pounds would be more convenient, he had no objection to the change. He did not think the evils attendant on the calling in of the silver currency would be so great, as it was by some supposed they would be. He did not conceive there was any danger that the new currency would be melted in order to forge bank tokens before the latter were called in, which would be done as speedily as possible after the issue of crowns and half crowns. Adverting to the great fluctuations in the exchange between great Britain and other nations, he observed that he had always attributed those fluctuations to the great foreign expenditure. As soon as the peace was signed, the exchange had improved in our favour, and only the renewal of a great foreign expenditure could, in his opinion, occasion a renewal of its depreciation. Satisfied, as he was, that the noble earl's motion, if agreed to, could throw no new light on the subject, he must be under the necessity of opposing it.

After a short reply from the earl of Lauderdale, the motion was negatived.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, June 17.

MAD-HOUSES BILL.] Mr. Rose having moved that the report of this bill be taken into further consideration,

Lord R. Seymour observed, that the right hon. gentleman had great merit in having taken up the cause of the unfortunate lunatics. No class of society so strongly required the protection of parliament as these numerous and helpless sufferers. When parliament in 1774 passed the bill for the regulation of all licenced madhouses, it must have meant, by the visitation and inspection to which it subjected those houses, to do three things: in the first place, to secure all persons against unnecessary confinement; in the second, to better the chance of recovery to all such persons confined, as being insane, as well by moral treatment as by the

use of medicine; and, thirdly, to insure the restoration of all such of the last persons as might become again of sound minds to society, to their friends, and to their employments. But the madhouse act does none of these three things, for it does not empower the commissioners to discharge a patient, however sound in mind, nor does it furnish them with the means of enforcing the observance of any improvement they may recommend to the adoption of the madhouses. The commissioners indeed may withdraw the licence of any madhouse when they see fit to do so, but the keeper of such house must again have a licence on the next licensing day, if he wishes it, for the act imperatively directs, that every person who shall require a licence shall have it, upon giving the requisite securities. It was not surprising that with those limited powers of the commissioners the greatest abuses should have been found to prevail in some of these houses, and that medicine should have been seldom, if ever, applied to the correction and cure of mental disease. In one public hospital indeed, that of Bethlem, the patients are periodically physicked, bled and vomited, and this too, he feared, without much reference to any difference of circumstances which may exist between case and case. The madhouse act directs that five commissioners shall yearly be elected by, and from the collage of physicians, three of whom, attended by a secretary, shall at least once every year visit every licenced house within the cities of London and Westminster, and also all such as are within seven miles of either of them, and likewise all those which are within the county of Middlesex. It further directs that they inspect and take minutes of the state and accommodation of all these houses, as likewise of the treatment of their patients, a fair copy of which minutes was to be laid before the college of physicians. But from the great number of these houses (thirty-six), and their being spread over a vast area of ground, the duty imposed on the commissioners was prodigious, and the remuneration allowed them so pitifully small, that it would scarcely satisfy the coachman who drove them from house to house, each commissioner receiving only one guinea for every house he inspects. Under these circumstances it was natural that the visits of the commissioners should become short and hurried. In one instance, 406 patients