Houfe, he perceived that that Honourable Gentleman had received goal. in the courfe of three years. If this additional fum was confidered as a compenfation, he faw no reason why fuch Gentlemen fhould alfo avail themfelves of the profits derived from the prefent rate of exchange. Mr. Ormsby faid he was always unwilling to trouble the Houfe, and particularly fo at this prefent moment. He had the honour of filling the office juft adverted to, and the fact was as ftated that the falary was but rool. a year. The fees of his office arofe from the various bufinefs and cafes laid before him, for opinions on bills to be drawn. For this he had been paid at par, and this was all that he had received fince he came to England. He believed that if the fact could be inveftigated, it would appear that the officers who came over to this country, expended more than the amount of their falaries, and all the money they drew upon their private accounts, they drew fubject to all the lofs upon exchange. It was unneceffary for him to repeat the arguments upon the general queftion. The officers paid at par gained nothing, the fact only was that the Treafury forbore to make a gain by them. It had been faid, that at the time of the union, there was a compenfation given to the counsel to the Treafury; that compenfation was not granted to him, but to his predeceffor in the office, Mr. Johnson, and that compenfation was difcontinued when Mr. Johnfon was promoted to the bench in the Common Pleas. With regard to the legality of the Lords of the Treafury making ufe of public money before it actually came into the Exchequer of Ireland, he wifhed to fay one word: if this right was difputed it would be now difputed for the fift time; it was a right that they had been in the conftant practice of exercising; it was perfectly well known that almost the whole of the army of Ireland was paid in the different parts of the country by the collectors of the revenue, who received acquittances for the money fo advanced, fo that in point of fat the money never did reach the Exchequer. The intereft of the debt of Ireland due in England was paid in England, out of the money raifed by loan, without the money having been previously fent over to the Treafury of Ireland. It is true there was no written law upon this fubject, but the practice had been conftant and uniform as he had flated it. There were many cafes where, collectors were compelled, by different acts of Parliament, to pay away the public money before it came into the Treafury; for inftance, the marching guineas to foldiers. He could not therefore think the Lords of the Irith Treafury had acted ille gally. Much had been faid, with regard to the nature and defcription of the officers, and the duty they had to perform: if Gentlemen fuppofed that a greater number of officers were brought over here than was neceffary for the public fervice, they were very much mistaken; the number and complicated nature of the questions that had arifen fince the union, upon legiflative, commercial, and other points, were fuch that he could affure the Houfe, that the number of officers was very inadequate indeed to the duties they had to perform. The feveral revenue officers whofe names had been mentioned, had not been brought ever without indifpenfable neceflity. The Houfe knew that the fchedule of Irish duties had been prepared, which had met with the moft unqualified approbation from the perfons in this country the best enabled to appreciate the merit of fuch a performance. It could not be fuppofed that fuch a schedule could have been prepared if the Irifh officers in queftion had not been on the spot, becaufepoints daily and hourly arofe, on which it was neceffary to refer to them. Gentlemen were very much mistaken if they fuppofed that the Irish bufinefs was fo eafily performed; it was of a nature, recurrence, and difficulty, for which he was fure Gentlemen would make great allowances if tl ey knew it. It had been faid by an hon. Gentleman that he did not fee the neceffity of the attendance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this country; but furely this was a point which it was unneceffary to argue; a few words would be fufficient on the fubject. When it was confidered that this officer had perpetual queftions put to him upon every fubject, and every department, upon which it was expected that he fhould give full information, both in and out of that Houfe, the neceffity of his prefence was obvious. It might be neceffary to add that the affiftance which he received in London, in performance of his duties, was fmall indeed; the time neceifaily employed in the various dutics of his office was fuch, that his right hon. Friend had found it impoflible to spend more than two months in Ireland, during the whole of laft year. Though the expences of the two countries were united, the Exchequers were ftill feparate; and if ever the difcharge of the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of Ireland called for diligence, or was attended with difficulty, it was fince the union. With regard to the queftion before the House, he hoped it was clearly underftood that the Irish officcis in this country received no more than they would have received in Ireland: furely then the Houfe could not agree to refolu tions, which went to throw a blame upon perfons who had only acted from motives of juftice in new fituations, and under novel circumftances. He was quite afhamed for having taken up the time of the Houfe, and thanked them for their indulgence. Sir Laurence Parfs oppofed the original motion: it appeared to him that the Lords of the Irish Treafury had acted confiftently with juftice and equity, and therefore he hould vote for the order of the day. Mr. T. Grenville referred to feveral obfervations, which had been made by different hon. Members on the other fide of the House, and faid, that the arguments which the noble Lord on the fame fide of the Houfe with himfelf had advanced with fo much ability, were fo completely unan-. fwered, that he thould not prefume to do away the impreffion they had made upon the Houfe by any attempt on his part to repeat them. One hon. Gentleman indeed had appealed to the prudence and difcretion of the Houfe, and then asked if it was neceffary for the Houfe to enter into the merits of the cafe? He had concluded with inviting the Houle rather to blink the question. What, when the House is told that there has been an illegal iffue of the public money, should Parlian.ent be told, that instead of looking into the cafe, they fhould not exercife that right which the people have committed to their charge, but rather be inclined to blink the queftion? An affertion had been made in the courfe of debate, that the Lords of the Treafury had a legal authority for the iffuing of public money. No doubt they had. But could that be fuppofed to be any argument against the refolutions which had been fubmitted to the Houfe? Neither his noble Friend, nor any other perfon who fpoke in the courfe of the debate, had denied the exiftence of fuch an authority. They only objected to what appeared to them to be an illegal excrcife of that authority. in the paying away the money of the public in a manner for which they had no vote or authority from that Houfc. For that principal reafon he moft heartily fupported the motion, and refifted the order of the day. The Attorney General expreffed his opinion, that if the Dith Treafury had adopted any other line of conduct than that which was now in queftion, it would have appeared moft extraordinary. The cafe was fimply this, that the Irish Treatury had funds in England; they owed to a public officer who had been ordered here on public bufinefs, 1001. Irith, being 921. British: ought they then to pay the money here, here, or fend it over to Ireland that it might be remitted back to the officer, who then inftead of 921. would receive only 821. This was literally the whole queftion, and it was one upon which it appeared to him impoflible to entertain a doubt. Sir John Newport did not mean to contend that thofe officers of the Irish Government, whofe attendance here he confidered to be eflentially neceffary, ought to experience any lofs in the receipt of their emoluments. But admitting the principle, he complained that they were not to be allowed to difcufs whether the payments made had been regular and fair. He thought there were confiderable objec tions to the manner in which the money had been iffued, nor was it fit to iffue public money without the purview of Parliament. If this was not the period, when was the proper time for difcuting the fubject? Objecting, therefore, as he did, that no opportunity was afforded for difcuffion, he should vote against the previous queftion. Lord A. Hamilton faid, the expreflions of fome hon. Members had been objected to : but the Houfe would recollect, that he had alerted that the act in itself was not legal; no perfon had controverted that. An obfervation had been made, that a fervant fhould be paid his travelling expences; but there was no argument in that, as no perfon gave in fuch an eftimate as travelling expences to Parliament, and, if that was to be urged againft inquiry, no one could fay but that travelling expences had been paid befide. As to the fuppofition of fending money to Ireland for the purpose of reducing the amount, there was a fallacy in it as an argument. It indeed would be a work of fupererogation to do fo; but why not pay the officers of the public to the fame amount here, as their Irish money would come to if it was paid in Ireland where it was due? As an hon. Baronet (Sir J. Newport) had obferved, it was an unwarrantable diftribution of the public money to pay it otherwife and it was unworthy the dignity of Parliament to refufe entering into an inquiry. The queftion was then called for, and there appeared, Majority 44 - 38 The order of the day was then read for the House receiving the report of the Irish militia offers bill, which was was received, and the third reading was fixed for the next day. The report of the Irish militia augmentation bill was also received, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day. Mr. Calcraft faid, that at that late hour he would not delay the Houfe by making any obfervations on either of the bills, but should referve himfelf until the third reading. Adjourned. HOUSE OF LORDS. FRIDAY, APRIL. 13. Counfel were heard in continuation relative to the appeal, Abercromby v. Fleming. To proceed again on Monday. The bills upon the table were forwarded in their feveral ftages. The order of the day being read for going into a Committee on the priests' and deacons' bill, Lord Walfingham took the chair. The Bishop of St. Afaph, pursuant to his intimation on a former evening, made a variety of obfervations on the subject. After referring to the leading provifion of the bill, he proceeded to obferve, that the facerdotal character in itfelf could not be done away by the fecular power; the Sacerdotum Catholicum was that which no fecular power could either give or take away; it was derived from a higher fource. He agreed that it was neceflary and proper, that fome exact and defined limits fhould be put to the age at which perfons fhould be admiffible into the facred orders of deacon and priest. In defcribing to the Committee the hiftory of the fubje&t, the learned Prelate referred to various ecclefiaftical authorities, whereby it appeared, that fome variations had obtained with respect to the age at which perfons were admiffible into the orders in queftion. In the earlier ages of the church, deacons were required to be of the age of 25 years, and prieits of that of 30: this was about the fourth century. In fome time after, by a decree of the council of Trent, perfons of the age of 25 were admiffible into prieft's orders. After contending for the indelibility of the facred character, the rev. Prelate obferved, that in cafes where a radical or original defect in the ordination exifted, as in the cafe of marriages improperly folem |