The Sun. — London, England, 1830-05-15 00:00:00

. . . . . . tives of the people, the guardians of the public parr, are, as - of fighf, to call for statements of what sums of money have been received by any particular individual, or number of individuals:\ or class of individuals, and it is for the 'Ministers to slibw some special reason for the exception to t're general rnie,—(Hear, hear.)—lf I am right as to the general rule, it f is incumbent upon Ministers to produce the returns, and in the shape in which I now ask these returns, as similar returns hare been asked for before and have been granted. It was a return of the places held h. ,Members of either House, at the pleasure of the Crown ; or, if not so held, stating the income, salaries, and emoluments, enjoyed by each officer, and specifying wheal , r they were held for life, or liable to removal on the demise of the Crown. There was another re turn for the number of pensions and sinecures enjoyed for (Slices chiefly executed by deputy. The House will observe, that in these returns it is specially asked what illembem of either time are in the receipt of any income, salary, or emolument under the Crown. It therefore rests with the Right lion. Gentleman to show the distinction and difference between the two classes—between the Mem bers of either House of Parliament, and the Members of the Privy Couneil. I allow that it is with the people of England a matter of constitutional jealousy, narrowly to observe what part is pursued by the persons whom they return to represent them'in Parliament, and what influence is likely to be exercised over their votes by the Crown. I admit also that the power of electing Privy Councillors kes some difference; it is competent for his Majesty to choose from either House such Members as he may choose for his Privy Council, and there are in it at this moment many Members from both Houses. But, Sir, I ask upon what principle is it that there should be less jealousy ob served respecting the Privy Council than has been evinced towards this House? It cannot he contended that the Privy Council is not a body recognised by the Statutes, and known to the House. Were it necessary, I could cite many authctities in proof of the fact. I find that by the Statute of Henry VII. it is made death, without benefit of clergy. to attempt or compass the life of a Privy Councillor. Secondly, there was another Statute, in accordance with which it is commanded that no man but a Member of the Privy Council be sent up with Addresses from either House to his Majesty. The last is germane to the matter, intro duced by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen the other night—it is an Act of Anne, and provides that the Privy Councillor shall remain in office for six months after the demise of the Crown. The Privy Council, therefore, is a body known to the law, and it is known to this House ; for I think I have heard it stated by you, Sir, from that Chair, that an Address to his Majesty should be pre sented by Members of the Privy Council. If, then, we are right, upon the general principle that Members of this body are liable to public scrutiny, as well as Members of this House, being fully recognized, the onus of the proof why, in this instance, there should be any excep tion to the general rule, lies on the Right Hon. Gentle man. And, if he fail in this proof, I consider, Sir, that I have a right to demand the returns for which I move. But, then, the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer objects to my motion, saying that the return I ask for is superfluous, since the return moved for by the Hon. - Member for Lincoln will fully answer the purposes I have in view. Now, with the permissson of the House, I will read the motion of the lion. Member for Lincoln. It is conceived in these terms—(The Hon. Baronet then read the motion for a return of the persons in our civil or mili tary establishments, holding two or more commissions, offices, or,, pensions, pay, or allowances ; specifying the date of the office, and the amount received by each person, tier the year 1829.) Now, Sir, this is the return moved for by the Hon. Member for Lincoln ; and I think I Isbell be able to show the Right Hon. Gentleman him self—and I am sure he will have the candour to ac knowledge it—that this return would not answer my purpose. The return, be it observed, is for those per sons holding two or more commissions, offices, pensions, pay, or allowances, in our civil or military establishments. Now it will be my duty to analyse the Privy Council ; and I have to state that there are only thirty of its Members who hold two offices, while there are 113 who hold offices under the Crown.—(Hear, hear, hear.) If, therefore, I contented myself with the return of the Hon. Member for Lincoln, I should only have had there thirty pluralists, while the remaining eighty-three would escape unnoticed.—(Cheers.)---This, then, I submit, the Right Hon. Gentleman must admit is a reason perfectly conclu sive in favour of my persevering in the course I deemed it proper to pursue.—(Cheers.)—Sir, in now bringing for ward this question, I may be exposed to something like taunts when I allude to the document on which I pro pose to make it rest. It is one which I have endeavoured, at the expence of much time and labour, to form with all possible accuracy from returns laid before the House ; but as they are scattered over an immense space, and appear in the intervals of a long period, I may not always have succeeded in avoiding error, Besides, for some offices and places there are no returns at all. In these cases, how ever, I have obtained the best information that could be procured with the exception of a Parliamentary Report. But before proceeding farther, I think it well to state that it is not my wish to say any thing that may appear un kind or invidious towards any gentleman. My motion is of a peculiarly delicate and painful nature ; and notwith standing the allusions of the Right Hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, I hope I shall forget nothing that is due to the feeling of individuals. The course I will pursue is that of analyzing this document in my possession. I will divide the Privy Council into classes ; and doing so, I shall, in the first place, except the Royal Family; they derive their incomes from the vote of this House, and by Act of Parliament ; there is nothing mysterious about them ; they have frequently been considered and dis cussed in the Commons House. There are 169 Privy Councillors, exclusive of the members of the Royal Family ; of these, 118 are in the receipt of pay, pen_ Krona, or allowances, to the annual amount of 650,1641. The average amount distributed to each individual would be 5,750/. Of these emoluments, 66,103/. is paid for sinecures ; 442,0001. for active service ; and 12,6501. for pensions. Of these 113 Privy Council lore, 30 are pluralists—that is to say, they either en joy sinecures in conjunction with some post of active ser vice, or they at the same time fill civil and military-situa tions. The total amount received by them is 221,1301. The average amount distributed to each would be 7,3711. (Cheers.) --The number of Privy Councillors receiving diplomatic pay is 29. The gross amount received by them annually is 126,1761. The average amount distri bated to each would be 4,347/. Of the 113 Privy Coun cillors, 69 are Members of either House of Parliament.— (Cheers.) --Of these 69, 47 are Peers—(Hear, hear) — and they receive 378,840/. The average amount distri buted to each would be B,o69l.—Cheers.—Twenty-two Members of the House of Commons are also Members of , the Privy Council, and they receive 90,8491. The ave rage amount distributed to each would be 4,130/. The lI ,use will remember that of the 113 Privy Councillors who are in the receipt of the public money, 69 are Mem, bera of either House of Parliament; anti I can state that 29 hold offices, or receive money by holding seats in the House of Commons. The number of Members of the House of Commons, who are also Privy Councillors, is 31 ; of those 22 are in the receipt 4f the public money.— (Hear, hear.)—Now, I have given to the House a com plete and entire statement, to the best of my ability and belief, of the question respecting these offices and emolu ments as it fairly stands. I cannot positively take upon me to assert that there are no mistakes's—a few errors may have unavoidably crept in ; but I am quite sure the state-• ment is as near the truth as a person not official could possibly bring forward. If the Right Hon. Gentleman objects to it, and says it is not accurate, my answer is simply this—grant me my motion....4Loud cheers.) — Grant tile my motion. I call upon the Ministers to join issue with me, so that the people of England may be satisfied.--(Lour l cheers. )—And now, Sir, I think it coy duty to state another fact, which I can bring forward with more certainty, because it is founded on a return from the Treasury, for which I ruy self moyed. It is a return of the number of per sons employed in the public offices in the year 1797, and also in the years 1805, 1810, 1816 ; also specifying the number of persona employed in 1827, and the reduc tion made since 1819. Now here I may observe, that it is a singular feet, while comparing the number of persons employed in 1797 and 1829, that the price of wheat, which, after all, is the true standard, was oceely the same. There was only a couple of shillings difference, Now, comparing the amount of money paid to persons employe4 in the public offices in 1797 and in 187—in 1797, thet amount paid was 1,374,0004 in 1821, it wa52,788,0001. This isa comparison between the two years, as nee* upon a former evening. The average amount, too, paid to each person then was 84/., the other year it was 1211., making , a difference of nearly 30 per cent. ; and as to the numbers, it is a thing extracted from this return to Which I have alluded. It may be important, also, to remark, that ire 1810 wheat was 1051 s. a inartzr, at present it is 565. N o w, a point that has been argued is, that fees were phi to certain officers before 1812 which were subsequently abolished ; and thus it came to pass that the appointments before this period appeared smaller, while subsequently they appeared larger than they really were. This is puhlished in a book, by Mr. Dean, the Chairman of the Board of Customs, in answer to the book of my Right Hon. Friend the Chairman of the late Finance Committee, whose ,vork I look upon as one of the highest value, and always consult as my manual upon inestions like the present, But even from this statement, the saving effected appears to be a matter altogether irpignificant. The whole amount of fees abolished sv,:s 160,000/. ; and now taking into ronsideration that wheat is, and was then abou. 565. a quarter, let us see what is the difference between the years 1810 and 1527, considering the number of persons em ployed,. and the salaries paid to them. In 1810 the number of persons employed was 22,931, and the sum paid to them 2,822,000/. In 1827 there were 22,912 persons employed, and the amount paid to them was 2,788,000/. Thus it appears there were only 21 persons fewer employed in 1827 than 1810 ; while the differeneein the expellee was less than 100,0001. In what state, then, are we, unfortunate country gentlemen, piaced ? The price of wheat, as I have stated, differs nearly by one-half. Thus we are called upon to receive half pric2s, and to pay double annuities ; while the persons employed receive double annuities, and pay but half the pree.—(Cheers.) —This presses heavily upon the gentry ; but I regard cot that for a moment. It is a great matter to the Commons of England, and it is one upon which they may well look with jealousy, and not hesitate to pronounce a strong opi nion.--(Cheers.)--Sir, I shall not detain the House long, but there are a few points on which I wish to speak. On a former evening I happened, in terms which were very displeasing to the other side of the House, though they were uttered with entire sincerity and singleness of pur pose on my part—to state that I for one could never con sent to begin reduction with humble and powerless indivi duals, while those possessing influence, and power, and property, were suffered to pass scathless.—(Cheels.)— Sir, I cannot suffer those persons to go scot free. This does not fall in with my notion of justice ; and I for one will never cease to urge his Majesty's Ministers to turn their attention to this most important question without loss of time.—(Cheers.)—l might bring forward many illustrations in proof of the facts I have stated. There is one, for instance, Mr. Penn, who is superannuated on an allowance of 750/. per annum, and who, being unfit for active service, has been made agent for Ceylon, with a sa lary of 1,200/. a-year ;:but why should I stoop to complain of this, when there is my Lord Cathcart, who, with emoluments to the amount of 2,000/. a-year in this corm try, enjoys the post of Vice-Admiral in Scotland, with a salary of 2,0131., and with all his military allowances be sides ! Again, there is Mr. Browne, enjoying a salary of 1,2001. for a situation in the civil department of the army, while he at the same time receives half-pay as a Commis sary. Nothing, it is true, can be more improper, or more opposite to all principle and justice than this; but when I look to the Gallant Admiral opposite—and I am sure he will excuse my frankness, and I might almost say boldness, in thus alluding to him, for these attributes are supposed to belong almost ex clusively to his own profession—l say when I look at hisre I could not be dastardly enough to complain of Mr. Browne, and pass over the far greater emoluments enjoyed by one much higher in rank and official station.— (Cheets.)—The Gallant Admiral, in addition to his salary of 1,0001. as a Lord of the Admiralty, receives the full pay of a Major-General of Marines, and if I am nut con siderably misinformed, he has lately been paid 3,000/. as arrears of half-pay.—(Cheers.)—And now, if the House will let me, I will read the form of oath administered to all Lieutenants in the Navy, and the other subordinate officers.—( Here the Hon. Baronet read the oath, which was to the effect that the deponent was not in holy orders, nor did not hold any other place, or derive any other emo lument for his services under this Government or any other.)—The only exception to the sanctions of this oath is, I believe, the Gallant Vice-Admiral opposite—(Hear, hear)—who is in the enjoyment of his civil emoluments, and of his full pay as a Major-General of Marines. I might now mention another case—that of the Vice-Presi dent of the Board of Trade, who, we were informed the other night, was oppressed with such a redundancy of bu- siness, that he had not a single moment to himself.—(Hear, and bughter.)—Then there is the First Lord of the Ad miralty, who enjoys his salary of 5,0001. a year, which, be it remarked, was considerably augmented during the war— at the period of high prices—and who, in addition, has a large sinecure in Scotland (3,150/. per annum), under the title of some office in the Chancery.—(Loud cheers.)—ln like manner, I might complain of the Commissioners of Customs and of Excise having received large augmentations in 1816 to salaries as they stood in 1801, on the alleged ground, as stated by a Minister in this House, of the dimi nished value of money and the increased rate of provisions; but, Sir, there would be no justice, no principle, no ho nour in this, while my Lord Melville and my Lord Rosslyn, the Privy Seal of England, a sinecurist in Scotland, and the receiver of large military emoluments, can be pre sented to our notice. I confess that all this might not be sufficient to entitle use to my motion. I accordingly- feel bound to state the Parliamentary objects I have in view. My first and great object is to see if the service rendered be equivalent to the sum of money which is paid for it.— (Loud cheers.) My second object is to inquire, if the rule that half-pay should abate on taking civil office, should not also apply to full pay—(Cheers)—and my third is to ascertain, wilt titer retired pensions and allowances of Mi nisters should not abate when they return to office.—(Loud cheers.) These are the three substantial grounds on which I move for my return ; and if it be granted to Ine, I pledge myself that I will bring the questions fairly Terme the House. I hope the House will consider them not un worthy its attention ; and if it does so, I must declare that this return is necessary, to enable me to bring them forward. The Hon. Member for Newcastle has introduced a motion respecting superanauations ; it is a question blended with all relating to our Civil Establishments; but from the mode in which it is treated, one would suppose it was now introduced for the first time—that it had never been mooted—that it had never been discussed; but what is the fact? That it was most amply and ably discussed by the Finance Committee—that Committee upon which the Right Hon. Secretary for the Home Department once la vished such high praise, saying it was formed of the most talented and experienced men in this House, at least as far as financial matters were concerned. And what did the Finance Report state? First, the alarming fact, that 484,000/. was paid for persons in a non-effective state, while 437,0001. or one-ninth of the whole sum applied to this purpose, was paid to those in an effective state; and the report went on to say— " That no half-pay should be payable to any officer holding any other office or employment, civil or military, under the Crown (except in certain staff situations), or in the service of a Foreign State."_ _ _ And, Sir, Ibis regulation was acted on with rigour, as far as it affected the humble and defenceless classes; and certainly the principle is a sound one; but it should be universally applied. The Report then adds— ., They are far from being disposed to discourage the appoint ment of individuals who have served their country in the Mili. tary and Naval professions to Civil employments ; but when those individuals adopt the Civil Service, the Committee conceive they should receive the same remuneration for it as civil servants would receive, and no more. _ _ _ ,‘ Upon a careful consideration, therefore, of all the principles and circumstances affecting this part of the case, the Committee recommend, in the strongest manner, that the payment of all half-pay be forthwith replaced upon the footing on which it stood previously to the year 1820, with respect to all Military or Naval officers hereafter to be appointed to any civil employment or office under the Crown, or under any foreign Government." Now, here a positive recommendation is distinctly given (I may say distinctly, since it was, in chief part, the work of the Master of the Mint, who earned such high praise by the assiduity, precision, and financial talent be displayed in that Committee); and why did not the Go vernment, after all their professions, accede to it. The defence of the Government is, that they are not to blame —that they did all they could to reduce their superaanua tions to thy etandard of 1820 ; that is to say, to reduce them one-tenth, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer ' plumes himself on having introduced a Bill upon the sub- ' ject. This he did on the 26th of July; but as he stated the opposition was so strenuous—so insurmountable, that he was compelled to yield.—(Hear, and laughter.) The persons who so irresistibly opposed this Bill were, the Hon. Mem bers for Lincoln, for Dover, for Bristol, my Gallant Friend the Member for Southwark—the Hon. Member for Inver ness who had only left office about five weeks before ; the Hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, who was in a similar situation ; and the Vice-President of the Board of Trade. These were the Hon. Gentlemen who so triumphantly opposed the second reading of the Bill.—(Hear, hear.) — But I beg the House to attend to the very wards of the Chancellor of the E xc he q uer, who so zealously, and faith fully, and enthusiastically b r ought forward this measure. —Oleo', hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing this Bill, said, " I feel that this measure is par ticularly severe, and I particularly regret the necessity of proposing it."—(Hear, hear, sod laughter.) Still, after this strenuous support, it was the fauft of the House that this Ffasure was not carried.—(Cheers.) The House will, I trust, Oserve to what the expressions of the report, and the sentiments of this trustworthy committee bore ; it was as I havestated, in rewriting to the practice of 1822, to reilii , !e all those allowances one-tenth. Vet the Chan cellor of the Exchequer gave up the question even ytth out a division. Weti may we then ask— .. -- Cur indecores in I:mine primo rjettimus ? Cur ante tubam tremor ~cc”pat artus ?" --(1,(04d 4epys. ) And, Sir, humble and undistinguished a Member as I :tin ,cf this House, I will take upon me to declare, that it' Ministers will pulyafford me their support, I will undertake to carry this repucliatei4 4(1 triumphantly through the House in the course of the next . si;e. , k., (Contiwted cheers.) But what has the Chancellor of the Exchequer do . ite ? He has referred the question to another Committee. And to a Committee how con stituted ? I will tell the House. But in this, too, I will abstain from all personal allusions contenting ; myself with a general description. Let me first state, however, that in the Finance Committee there were six Ministers, two Ex-Ministers, eight Members of Counties, seven Representatives of Cities and Boroughs.— The present Committee on the superannuations consisted originally of eighteen Members. My Right Hon. Friend, the Chairman of the late Finance Committee, has been since forced upon them, and, to counterbalance him, they have added a Ministerial Member ; there are now, conse quently, twenty Members, of which four are Ministers, four Ex-Ministers, six County Members, five Representa tives of Cities and Boroughs. Thus nearly one-half the Committee consist of Ministers or Ex-Ministers. Before I sit down, I beg to refer to the Argument with which I know we shall be met upon this occasion, as we have often been met before—l mean by the argument of vested rights. If the House will pardon me, as that argument has been answered in better language than I could pos sibly use—in terms, too, most carefully considered by the Noble Lord who used them—l will quote them from the last speech delivered in this House by the Marquis of Londonderry. It was upon a motion in which, in op posing the opinion of Mr. Canning on this subj ec t, th e Noble Lord said, " If this notion of vested interests and freehold rights were to go forward, then there must be an end to legislation—these rights and interests would meet them at every turn, and put a stop to every measure, how ever beneficial or necessary. Why should the public offices be conducted on a plan different from private con cerns ? If a banker or private merchant wished to remove a clerk, or to lower his salary, he did it at once. Now, would any man contend that the clerk would have a right to turn round and say, ' I gave up a fellowship at college, and a place in the church, to accept of your clerkship, and therefore you ought not to dismiss me.' If any Hon. Member on the other side were to bring forward a motion of this kind."—Aye, Sir, these were days before we, on this side of the House, had transferred our services to the Crown, and had deserved by our conduct the name of " his Majesty's Opposition."—(Hear, hear, hear.)—"'lf any Honourable Member on the other side were to bring forward a motion of this kind, and he (Lord L.) were to meet it by saying that the salaries in the pre t blic offims were vested rights—were a kind of freehold, and could not be tampered with, the idea would be scouted."— (Loud cheers. )—These, Sir, were the last words of that Noble Lord in this House. They merit our praise, for they were true—they deserve to be inscribed on our recol lection, and I trust that they will not be forgotten in the vote of to-night.—(Cheers.) It is the higher classes of offices that are the subject of my motion ; it is they upon which I propose to take your vote to-night ; it is they which are included in the returns for which I am about to move. I seek to regulate them, and until I see them de nied me by the vote of this House, I will not believe that even the influence of the Minister of the Crown will be sufficient to refuse there.—(Hear.) I have read some where, and I fully subscribe to the truth of the observa tion, that the mark of a wise and prudent Government, and that which distinguishes it from an unwise and im prudent Government, is well to know the time and man ner at which no longer to refuse what is demanded of them.—(Hear, hear.) Let the Government now show their wisdom and prudence ; for if ever there was a time when the people of this country imperatively demanded a se Irching scrutiny into the public expenditure, it is at this moment.—(Cheers.) I will put to public proof the question, whether the conduct of the Administration de serves to place them high in public opinion, on the score of the use they make of their patronage ? On that sub ject there is a pledge of theirs most solemnly put forth, that they would voluntarily make every saving required by the public interest, and capable of being carried into execution consistently with the public safety. I will put that pledge of theirs to the test. I will propose a measure of substantive retrenchment, economy, and reform. That is the issue which we are to by to-night. On a former occasion I yielded—l took their pledge. Let them now redeem it—let them give me these returns, and we shall then see whether they have been willing to keep good faith with this House and with the people of this country.— The Hon. Member concluded by moving for returns of all Salaries, Pay, Profits, Fees, and Emoluments, Civil and Military, received between the sth of January, 1829, and the sth of January, 1830, by the %lemhers of the Privy Council, the amount paid to each individual, the cause for which paid, and the source from whence derived," — and he resumed his seat amidst very loud and general cheering, which continued for some time. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—If I rose to address the House under the feeling that I was about to propose anything to obstruct the enquiry which the Hon. Baronet is desirous of instituting; if I rose to in terpose any obstacle to a plan of general reduction of ex penditure or abolition of sinecures—for the better regula tion of the half or full pay—or if I intended to deny the Hon. Baronet the means of bringing before the House this particular question, 1 might rise with feelings of greater diffidence than I do at present.—(Hear, hear.)—But, Sir, I have not, and the Hon. B xonet knows I have not, any such intention. lam prepared to grant him a return, or more than one return, which will fully satisfy him, aid which will more distinctly and fully give him the means of attaining the object which he desires. Let me, Sir, now state the causes of the dif f erence of opinion between us. The Hon. Baronet, with that courtesy which distinguishes him, and which is most conducive to the easy and conve nient transaction of public business, stated to me the mo tion he was about to make, and asked me whether I had any objection to it. I told him that I did not object to give the information, but that I objected to the particular form in which he demanded it. I told him that there were returns already ordered, and likely soon to be upon the table of the House, which appeared to me sufficient to answer the purpose he required. The Hon. Baronet said that these returns contained a large mass of information, from which it would be difficult to collect the particular instances he adverted to. I met this objection by telling him that I should most readily concur in granting returns of any limited number of offices, the amount of the sa laries paid, and also that there was no Member of the Go vernment, whose emoluments he wished to ascertain, the account of which should not be laid distinctly and clearly on the table of the House. —(Cheers. ) Is there, then, in this, Sir, any evidence of a dis position to conceal from him, or from Parliament, the amount of the emoluments he says he wishes to discover, and which he is anxious to reduce? Is there in that any wish to withdraw from observa tion those emoluments, so as to deprive him of the means of applying that pruning-knife which he deems those emoluments to require ? Or is there any proof of that interference to prevent the attainment of those ob jects which he has this night stated in detail? 'He ob jected to the returns, because, he said, they might appear invidious or personal. Ido not wish to estimate what is his view of what are invidious or personal observations ; but if 'I had to pronounce what appeared most likely to mean the imputation of being so, I should have said that that course which called for an account of the emoluments of officers, by the names of the offices, was less invidious and personal than that which was adopted by the Hon. Baronet, and which was accompanied by a speech deli vered in terms such as those he has thought fit to couple with this motion.--(Hear.)—The difference between us was, whether he should select the members of the Privy Council as the persons an account of whose emoluments was to be laid on the table of the House ? I told hini that I knew no precedent in which the members of the Privy Council, as such, had been called on for an account of their emoluments ; for that they, as members of the Privy Council, did not necessarily receive any emolu ments from the public. They are a' body comprising persons who, undoubtedly, receive emoluments from the public, on the whole, perhaps, to a very large amount.— (Hear, hear, from the Opposition. )—To bring forward a motion for the emoluments of the members of the Privy Council, was not, as it appeared to me, treating with sufficient respect a body composing the Council of the Sovereign, and a high judicial Court—it was treating them in an invidious point of view ; and that it was not advisable to depart from precedent, and to establish the principle that classes of men were to be held up to obloquy, not because of the situations they held, but because they enjoyed a high dignity at the same time. The Honourable Member states, as a justification for his motion, that the nous: has called for an account of places held by Members of Parliament. He thinks that this fact is a triumphant answer to my objection. But can he not see the distinction (sufficiently marked, I should think, to others) between this House requiring an ac count of offices held by 1 1 , Iernbers of its own body, and ofmpayffib necessary for the protection c" e held by the Councillors of ethaellig for Crown st. ? 1 account The one n of the privileges of the House—for th e p ur pose of purging the Members from the imput a ti on o f acting un d er an un due influence of the Crown—fur the purpose of protecting the liberties of the people, by kno w i ng h ow many Mem bers there were within the House subject to the imputa tion of abandoning the assertion of the rights of the people in consequence of the emoluments they received from the Crown. In such a ca.e there is a n i nte lli g ibl e groun d f or the interference of Parliament. If the Hon. Baronet's motion 1141 keen so framed, there would not have been an objection for one epoment to granting it. Is there any man who believes that the appointment by the King of Privy Councillors, not because they are Members of Par liament, but on account of their judicial learning and ability--I say, is there any man who believes that such an appointment operates against the independent discharge of `~ ~ their duties elsewhere? Let the Hoc Baronet consider of whom the Privy Council consists. He will then see the difficulty of granting his motion. He begins his de • tail by excluding the most illustrious of the Members of the Privy Council. He says that he does not allude to the Members of the loyal Family, although certainly, by the words of his motion, an account of the sums they receive is called for. The next persons in the list are the Arch bishops of Canterbury and York. Sir J. GRAHAM - -I exclude them. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—There is no such exclusion in the motion. Sir J. GRAHAM—The motion is confined to Members of the Privy Council holding offices either civil or military, under neither of which heads, at least, as I conceive, could these most Rev. Prelates be included.—(Hear.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER con tinued—The Hon. Baronet knows that the first Judges in the land are included in his motion. They have received their salaries from Parliament ; yet still they are brought in for their share of the obloquy cast upon the Privy Council by this motion ; and they serve to swell the list which the Hon. Baronet has so circumstantially enume rated. In the next place, are the men who are receiving rewards - for services performed for this country--men whose names are recorded in the page of our history, and the recollections of whose services will descend to our latest posterity ; and yet these men, too, are, by this motion, held forth as undeserving of public emoluments ; and they, too, serve to swell the list of grants of money that have been conceded to Members of the Privy Council. Considering; these things, Sir, I object to the form of the Hon. Baronet's motion ; and I tell him that I think he may reach his object by the motion which I now propose. He has not confined himself to the discussion on this simple question which is in issue between us—he has not con tented himself with stating what is necessary for the pur pose of this motion, but he has gone into a wider field, and has travelled into a history of the conduct of the Members of his Majesty's Government, and has communi cated upon some of the communications which have re cently taken place. He has, adverted to the question of the superannuation list—he has imputed that the members of his Majesty's Government did not, with respect to that question act with sincerity ; and he has personally charged me with a want of correctness in the discharge of my duty. I beg distinctly to repudiate the charge. He has no right to make that charge against me. He tells me that I brought forward the motion on that question in such a manner as to delude the House. He says that I supported it weakly, and withdrew it feebly; that the op position was feeble, yet that the measure was withdrawn. He ought to know that it is not always the strength of the opposition that decides a question—it is frequently the weakness of the support that leads to the abandonment of the measure. I came down almost immediately after the Finance Committee had recommended the measure ; I came down, Sir, on the 2d of July, in the full confidence that as it had been agreed to in that Committee, I should have the support of every Member of that Committee, who knew as well as I did that much prejudice and feeling were to be overcome before that which we all agreed ought to be adopted could be passed into a law, and before that which had been already enacted could be repealed. I came down, I say, Sir, expecting the ardent support of the Hon. Gentlemen who had agreed to that measure in the Committee. Let the Hon. Baronet spy which of his friends supported that measure. The Hon. Member for Aberdeen, who, on other occasions, was never absent from his duty, did on that occasion forbear to attend. The Hon. Baronet himself was absent. [Sir J. Graham inti mated that this was a mistake]. It is true he was pi e sent when I moved the Bill; but on the second reading, when it was thrown out, he was absent. When he states that I withdrew the Bill—that I withdrew it without a division—he ought to have known that I did so, as I (bought it was better that the measure, if introduced again, should be introduced without the slur of having previously had a negative cast upon it. I made that statement at the time; and if my Right Honourable Friend the Secretary for the Home Department were now is his place he would confirm what I say. When, therefore, lam taxed with indiffer ence on the subject of the Superannuation Bill, I must deny the charge. It was impossible at that moment to carry that Bill. I have not been so long in Parliament without knowing something of the manner in which the measure of the evening is likely to be decided ; and not only was my opinion, founded on my own experience, set- tled as to the impossibility of their carrying that measure, but I received and acted on the assurance of my friends around me to the same effect. Parliament had again re jected the proposal to make a reduction from the salaries of public officers for the purposes of that Bill, though Parliament did not then agree to that measure ; but I said it was one in which it was open to the Government to take certain steps to effect its object ; and a Treasury Mi nute was passed, declaring that from any person who should be afterwards appointed to an office, an annual de duction to a specified amount should be made from his sa lary, until Par liament decided what should be done with it. Besides this, I have prepared a Bill, and have at this moment a Bill directed to the application of these reduc tions; and this Bill is so much better than the other, since the public will not be called on to pay one-half of the su perannuations ; but the understanding has been that these deductions shall provide for the whole fund.—(Cheers.)-- I doubt whether, after this, any man will be disposed to believe the Hon. Baronet that I was insincere on that point, or that in moving for that Bill I did not do my utmost to secure success to the measure. If any man is, how ever, disposed to believe the charge of the Honourable Baronet, let him look at the measure I have taken the pains to prepare, and let him and the House decide whether the individual who now addresses you is desirous to remedy that which all admitted to be a great and increasing evil. The Hon Baronet says that the Com mittee altogether was a delusion; he suspects them; but his suspicions are as unfounded as those he entertains with regard to myself. I put upon that Committee men who had given the subject the fullest consideration. There was my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary at War, who had pre pared estimates of the reduction of the expenditure. I also put upon it my Right Hon. Friend the Master of the Mint, because he had drawn up the resolutions to which the Committee had agreed. And yet, because I put these Right Hon. Gentlemen, as they were men both of ability and zeal, I am accused of having tried to practice a trick. But another part of the Hon. Baronet's charge is, that I put Ex-Ministers upon the Committee. When he makes this a charge against me, and says that Ex-Ministers are men calculated to favour the views of Government, is he so little experienced as to think that a Minister, departing from office, is of all persons the most likely to abet the schemes of the person who is appointed to succeed bim ? —(Hear, hear.) Is that his experience? I, who have more experience of Parliament, should say, that if I wanted individuals who would be thoroughly impartial— individuals who, not being influenced in favour of Govern ment, were yet those who knew the whole details of the subject, and had no .personal feeling to prevent their search ing to the bottom of it, I could hardly have chosen persons more fully answering the description. I despair of convinc ing the Hon. Bart., but I throw myself on the knowledge of the House, and entreat them to give the Government a fair trial of the measute they will introduce, and which, I trust. will effect the object which the Committee origi nally proposed.—(Hear, hear.) 1 cannot leave this part of the subject without one other observation : The Hon. Baronet complains that, in making up that Committee, I omitted the Chairman of the Finance Committee. It is true I did omit his name; but no sooner was the omission suggested to me, than I most readily added it to the list. I am not anxious to convince the House of my great capa city for the business of that office with which his Majesty has been pleased to entrust me; but I do feel most anxious that the House should not suppose me capable of this double dealing, and which I most solemnly affirm never for one moment entered my mind.—(Cheers.) There are other parts of the Hon. Baronet's speech to which I might be tempted to reply, if he had not given an intimation that occasions would hereafter occur in which they might be snore favourably discussed. At this late hour, and after the fatigue the House has already undergone, I will not go into these questions—questions which I do not avoid, and only forego now, as at another time there will be a fall opportunity for their consideration. The individuals he has alluded to, do receive emoluments from the public. First, there is Lord Cathcart, whose services to his country have been rewarded by a pension, which it is true he re tains, although he still holds office. Ido not believe it was the intention of the Parliament who made the grant, that that grant should not be held together with any office the Noble Lord might afterwards hold. There are other in dividuals who do receive emoluments in the shape of sine cures, as rewards acquired for them by the services of their ancestors. In considering this question, I beg him to bear in mind the circumstances of the individuals to whom he has alluded as birds of prey, feeding on the vitals of the Constitution.—[Mr. Brougham—That expression was retracted].--I apologise.—[Sir James Graham bowed in acceptance of the apology].—lf these offices are now held by individuals who fill public situations, it is not by the culpability of individuals now in the Government, but in consequence of the forma• mode of remunerating public servants. It was formerly the practice to reserve sinecures for those who might not be able to remunerate themselves for services which they had performed, but who thus made provision for those who came after them; and if the Hon. Baronet looks at the list, be gill find the salaries less than • ,`a ~ c. those which have since been conferred for the same offices. and in this manner they provided for their descendants, instead of having a retiring allowance, which Parliament provided as a substitute. If we have, in a subsequent period, thought an advance in the salaries of Chief Justices and Chancellors necessary its order to deprive them of these means of providing for their families, I hope he will not consider the change carries blame to those who hold offices which have been granted by the Legislature as a reward for public services. If I have, in the coarse of my observations, said anything that his given offence to the Hon. Baronet or the House, I should regret it ; but I trust the House will pardon me, if, in the endeavour to vindicate my own character, I may have displayed some warmth, feeling, as I do, every possible desire to stand well with the House. I beg leave to more au amend ment to the Hon. Baronet's motion—an amendment which, with one exception, is in almost the same words as his. The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved an amendment, in which, instead of the words, " of all sala ries received by members of the Privy Council," were introduced the words, " salaries received by Public Officers," and of these the Right Hon. Gentleman pro posed to limit the return to salaries exceeding 2,000/. He continued—l propose, then, to limit the return, as the number would otherwise be too great for any useful pur pose ; but I have left the amount at present a blank to be filled up as the Hon. Member may please. This amend ment will, I think, prove to the House that Ido not wish to obstruct the Hon. Baronet in his reformation of public abuses. The SPEAKER, after reading the motion and amend ment, put the question, and paused in order to see if any member rose before he ordered that strangers should with draw for a division. A general cry of " withdraw, with draw," being raised, the gallery was cleared. After having been excluded for about five minutes, we were again admitted, and found Lord MILTON on his legs, speaking in a very elevated tone, and accusing the Chancellor of the Exchequer of wishing to defeat the object of the motion by the amend ment. The object of the motion, he contended, was to ascertain whether the Ministers had meted the same measure of justice to persons in high stations that they had meted to individuals in subordinate capacities. It was not directed ad invidiam against any individual, but to procure valuable information with regard to the influence exercised by the Crown over the whole body of the Privy Council. The distress (although somewhat exaggerated) prevailing in some parts of the country, ought to induce the House to examine matters minutely, for taxation was the greatest evil under which the country groaned, and which, if not lessened, would be ultimately destructive of the interests and power of the kingdoin. _ _ Sir G. COCKBURN—I did not rise before, because I took it for granted that the Hon. Baronet meant to bring forward all the cases in a distinct shape when he had ob tained the information he seeks by his motion : as, how ever, the Noble Lord has thought proper to call upon me, and to call upon me in no very delicate terms—(Hear)--- in a manner in which I should be extremely sorry to ad dress myself to Lis Lordship—the House will forgive me if I obtrude myself on its notice in order to state the nature and amount of my emoluments. Those emoluments will appear in the return when it lei laid upon the table. lam by no means ashamed of them, because I have endeavoured to earn them, by a conscientious discharge of the duties at tached to my office. The situation of a sea Lord of the Admiralty, it is well known to most Hon. Members, though, perhaps, not to the Noble Lord, has always been considered worth 1,5001. a year; the lay Lords receive 1,0001. a year, but the sea Lords have 1,000/. a year and their half-pay as Admirals,, amounting to 500/. a year. So much for my office as a Lord of the Admiralty. It has pleased his Majesty, as a reward for the services—the poor services I have been able to render—(Much cheering) —to confer upon me also the high rank of Major-General of Marines : there are but three such officers of this rank, and I have the good fortune to be one of them. This, give me leave to add, is entirely independent of my situa tion in the Admiralty, and it was not thought necessary to take from me the salary then due to me because I had been made a Major-General of Marines. lam willing to admit, that, very undeservedly, I have attained the highest station in the Admiralty, which can be given to a man in the naval profession ; but I deny that it is to be looked upon entirely as a civil :situation, because, no civilian can hold it. I have been placed in it, be cause, as a naval officer, I am supposed to be well acquainted with the service and its details.—(Hear.)—l am obliged to be always resident in London ; and, including my salary as Lord of the Admiralty, my pay as Major-General of Marines, and my half-pay as a naval officer, give me leave to say that I do not receive as much as is paid to a Secre t try to the Treasury, or to the Secretary of the very Board of which lam a member.—(Hear, hear.) In the whole, I am free to confess, that I do not receive as much as 2,500/. a year.— (Hear, hear.) It is well known to the House, and to the country, that men of our profession hare not usually large fortunes. God knows lam not an exception to the rule ; and placed at the head of this great service, and constantly resident in London, I can assure the Noble Lord, with the expenses to which I am necessa rily exposed, were I to go out of office to-morrow, I should quit the service of my country a loser by its bounty. —(Much cheering.) In addition, I may be allowed, per haps, to assure the House that I have made no inconsi derable sacrifices by the course I have taken. While I have been endeavouring, late and early, to do my duty here, others in the same profession on different stations have made five, or, I may say, ten times as much in the year as the whole salary I receive. —(Hear, hear.)— Putting it in the most invidious way, I may assert that the 1,0001. a year, as a Major-General of Marines, has been given me as a reward for past services, valued by others fir above their real worth. I will not trouble the House further about myself and my merits. I have ex plained exactly the situation in which I stand ; and if it shall be the pleasure of Parliament to pronounce that " the labourer is not worthy of his hire," I shall retire without hesitation ; but I trust without deserving the epithet and the tone applied to me by the Noble Lord. Mr. HUME explained the difference between the mo tion of his Hon. Friend (Sir J. Graham), and the amend ment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It would be perfectly futile in the Hon. Baronet to accept the amend ment as a substitute for his motion. Sir J. YORKE complimented the Hon. Baronet on the tone and temper of his speech, which did him the highest honour.—(Hear, hear.)—He rose principally to state that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have no possible reason for concealing what was required, if all the Privy Councillors who received emoluments could make out as good a case as his Right Hon. and Gallant Friend (Sir G. Cockburn.) The CHANCELLOR of the EXCLIEQUER was per fectly ready to amend his amendment, by expunging the words "public officers" and substituting "all persons." Mr. E. DAVENPORT apprehended that the returns as required by the amendment would be so voluminous as to occasion a delay of two or three months, when the House would have been dismissed for the Session. He wished to know when it was likely that it would be laid on the table. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER replied, that an abstract could be speedily made from documents al ready prepared. Sir H. HARDINGE thought it justice to Mr. Brown, a most deserving individual in his department—the War Office—to mention that he had served the public for five and-forty years, and that all the emoluments he now re ceived; as a supposed pluralist, had been allowed to him while he was Private Secretary to General Fitzpatrick ; his whole salary, from whatever quarter derived, had been assigned to him by . a minute of Treasury of the year 1806. Lord ALT HORP observed that the importance of the motion had been raised in his eyes by the promulgated in tention of Government to resist it ; it looked as if there was something to be concealed. He maintained the right of the House to inquire the names and duties of all who received the public money, whether belonging to the Privy Councillor to any other body. The Right Hon. Gentle man had spoken of the motion as if it were a matter of obloquy and disgrace to receive the public money. It would be neither obloquy nor disgrace to receive it if it were earned, and he could not conceive any objection to the motion that did not imply the necessity of not letting the public into the secret how its money was disposed of He was the last man in the world to deny the Right Hon. Admiral (Sir G. Cockburn) the utmost merit. He well deserved the reward his services obtained—(Hear, hear.) but, as a matter of mere fact, he must observe that he was the first Lord of the Admiralty who had ever receivel full pay at the same time that he was allowed his official salary. Mr. HUSKISSON would not trespass upon the time of the House for snore than a few minutes. lie rose to state that he agreed that the information to be gained by the amendment would not be at all equal to that which was asked by the motion. He entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give way upon this point, and he would tell him upon what ground. The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the production of the information would expose individuals to public obloquy awl scorn.— (The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he had not used the word " scorn.")—Well ; that it would expose them to obloquy. Now, if the Hon. Baronet's statement went forth to the world, as go forth it must, without means being afforded of correcting that statement by the production of the correct returns, the Privy Council would indeed be held up to public obloquy. It would be said out of doors that the Privy Council, as a body, r e " ceived in the whole so much of the money of the n ation, and that certain members of that body, who were sle ° Members of the House of Commons, received so much oat of the taxes raised from the people. All this might expo ° the parties to unmerited obloquy, and this obloquy W ould best be removed by the publication of authentic infortnatio l on the subject. There could be no obloquy in receiving just reward for services performed, and it became the chit' racter of the Privy Council to avow that there was 1 10 mystery, and no necessity for concealment upon the sub" ject. As an individual member of that body he had 00 objection to any disclosure ; but without the alteration suggested by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume)' he should not be included in the list. Let every Prig Counsillor show that he had earned the reward he re', ceived at the hands of hi s S overe i gn , an d j ust if y hirnseb like the Right Hon. and Gallant Admiral, and there would not be found a man in the country to raise an oh" jection.—(Hear, hear.)—Above all things he deprecated the affectation of mysterywhere none was necessary. As 03 what had been said of th e C omm itt ee o f Fi nance , h e co ok' , assert, of his own knowledge, that both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Master of the Mint had done their utmost to promote reductions of expenditure. And he further thought, that when the Chancellor of the El' chequer brought in the Bill to which he had alluded, be had not been supported as he had a right to expect. fie gave due credit to his Majesty's Government for whe t they had done, and for what they had promised to do , and he looked for the performance of these promises. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER explained' He had not intended to state that the motion would hive the effect of throwing obloquy in any direction. Lord HOWICK supported the motion. Mr. PORTMAN hoped that the Right Hon. Garth" man, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would net pre ° the question to a division. Mr. W. SMITH was understood to say that he woOla vote against the motion of the Hon. Bart., for he thought that the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman, (the Chancellor of the Exch e q uer ) gave a ll t h at the 1"/". Birt., could desire. Sir JAMES GRAHAM, in reply, heard what had fallen from the last speaker wi* surprise and regret. He (Mr. S.) had sat in that House 50 years, bad been the com panion of Fox and of the old Whigs, and it was with, sorrow and disappointment that he now viewed that [lon. Member departing from the general tenour of his past life' It was lamentable that the Hon. Member for Norwich should throw the weight of his vote into the Scale again° such a motion as that then before the Honte. •Whatle complained of in the Ministers was, that they , gave much, more than he required. He asked for one thig and they gave him another. He asked for 'a list of aba;li t 175, and they gave him a list of 1,500 nr 2,000. lie asked, as it were, for a glass of wine, and they gave him a glass of wine, certainly, but diluted with a bottle of water' His motion referred to the great Officers of State, and hi t e object was to ascertain what th e i r emo l umen t s were i n s uc h a manner as that they should stand out clearly and di*" tinctly apart from any other class of the public servants; He had been charged with being factious, but he wall tell some of those who made that c h arge , th at h e 10 " learned a pretty lesson in that way from certain Ex-Mini' ters, not above three years ago; on that memorable occv sion, wben he might with truth say, that a factious opr; sition rent the proud heart, and short ene d th e ex i s t en ce °` a Prime Minister, under whom the Attorney-General op' posite had served.—(Cheers.) General GROSVENOR said, that the Hon. B a roeet said but a very short time since, that between him and h' Majesty's Government there was but onequestionon which a difference could arise, and that he believed was the cur rency. In fact, it amounted to this, that there was but one question between him and the Treasury Bench. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that at the commence-. ment of the Session his Majesty's Ministers gave certain pledges, and upon those pledges, and upon the faith of their being redeemed, he professed his willingness to give them his support, with the single exception, he beli"e d ' of the currency; but they had departed from much of what they had led the House to expect, and accord►ngly the points of difference between them and him. were in creased.—(Cries of "Spoke, spoke.") He had' only to add, that he believed the Gallant General had' taken the glass of wine without having diluted it with the bottle of water.—(A laugh.) The House then divided, when there appeared, Or the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the E s ' chequer. x 231 For the original Motion 147 Majority ._g4 The other Orders of the Day were then disposed of, an the House adjourned at Ten Minutes to Two. FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE. FRENCH PAPERS. LIES OF THE LE JOURNAL DE ROUEN—" The announcement we made the day before yesterday of the arrival at the Pror fecture of the ordinance for the dissolution of the Chatty' ber is fully confirmed. Gazette de France." The Electoral Colleges are to assemble on the 24th of June, and not on the 25th. It is said that the King,, himself spoke of it the day b e f ore y es t er d ay t o se vere' persons. The Ministers appear to have formed the project of opening the next Session without any speech from the Crown, and consequently without provoking any addrete from the Chamber. They may do just as they please ; the speech from the Crown is not absolutely necessary, a nd If the Chamber were decided on forwarding an address to the King, it might do it of its own accord, though it woul d not have any communication to reply to. B es id es* it it probable that if the Chamber finds itself again in presence of the Ministry, it will not be contented with what it do' lately, but will prefer entering immediately on some g reat diacussion, such as the budget, for instance. B e that as it will, supposing the new Chamber to be as sent.. bled fo l r the Ist of August, all the usual preliminary opera tions will take up a month, and the Chamber will not be able, before the month of September, to investigate am of the questions which may be submitted to its attention. Temps. We long ago foretold that the negotiations opened et London, by the ➢Minister of the three Powers on the affairs of Greece, with so much blindness and precipiti• tion, would fail at the moment of bcing put into exece" tion. However, the Duke of Wellington still appears to Kaye preserved some hopes of engaging Prince Leopold to accep t the sovereignty of Greece. The Courier, which is the servile organ of the Ministry, affirms in its number pub: lished last Saturday, that all is definitely settled, that hi e Royal Highness may now take possession of his new king' dem, and that the documents relative to this affair Aill be communicated to Parliament ere long. The other English papers do not manifest the same hopes. He had at first adopted an arrangement, which is a true picture of his character. He consented to proceed to Greece, but accompanied by one of his nephews, in favour of whom he could abdicate in one or two years, in order to return to England, and enjoy there the advantage of his brilliantposition. It is well known that towards the end of last month the Prince, fatigued by the solicitations of the French Ministers, left Paris on the 28d of April. On his road to Calais he met a courier, sent by the Duke of Wellington , in order to persuade him to return to Paris, assuring hie , at the same time that all his demands should be granted. The same courier delivered despatches to Lord Rothesayr engaging him to detain the Prince in Paris by all possible means, as his presence in London would only prove a ,nett/ embarrassment for the Ministers. His Royal Highness did not attend to this request, and continued his journey• At London the French and Russian Ambassadors renewed their importunities to obtain a decisive answer, but the Prince refused to satisfy them. At last, M. de Polignac, who, till then, had not been discouraged by all the hesitations of Prince Leopold, 'ass recovered from his lethargy, and taken the initiative. Baron de Varennes has been sent to Constantinople w ith orders for our Ambassador to suspend the nego:iatioue tend ing to engage the Porte to adopt the London protocols. Previous to its being forwarded to its destination, this despatch was communicated by the President of the Coun cil to the Ambassador of Russia, M. Pozzo di Borgo. Has M. de Polignac been prompted to such a step by s noble indignation at the obstacles which England opposes to the expedition of Algiers? or has he some other reason to be displeased with the Duke of Wellington ? It is im possible at present to answer these questions. However that may be, notwithstanding the numerous faults of the Government, hopes may be entertained that the force of events will oblige M. de Polignac to replace the French Cabinet, in regard to Greece, on the sa me footing as it was at the fall of the Martignac Ministry. As for our future influence over the drabs of G ree ce and the East in general, it is impossible to conceal that it depends almost entirely on the issue of the expedition against Algiers; we say Algiers, because the official vent of African expedition appears to us somewhat too pompous. The Augsburg Gazette, which published, before all other paper, the London protocols on the affairs of Greece, contains the following letter from London, dated April 24, in its number of the 7th of May. The information which this letter furnishes relatively to the dispositions of the Britit what test i adval Aliveßritu Barb horta °bill bay( alon send the to p 1. our the who has as s a re ene also De hay Tu Cor Wel per luo by 45C ver ,91 Itei 89; Lo; 55e (IL *di Ck Li, v . _ La El B H U Pi