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

,
/A
.
4, -`x-;. I -
,

PRICE 7n.

mont a soough the paper tallies, equally absurd, were
preserved),',and upon the mode of passing sheriffs' accounts,
which was all mere childish mockery. As long as the
House voted the money now required, this, monstrous sys-
tem would be preserved. He would now examine the items
of which the vote of 5,0001. was composed. Was it.
right, or was it respectable, or was it decorous, that Judges
should receive a petty paltry allowance of 171. 10s. for
stationery ? They had salaries of 5,5001. a year, and
they could well spare 171. 10s. It was at no time proper
that they should have had it. The King's Counsel had an
allowance of Si. Bs. also for stationery. Hs did not
much object to it—it might be an old custom, and it was,
perhaps, the only salary which they received— he there-
fore thought it was not worth talking of. There were
various charges for messengers scattered up and down
through thole estimates; and it required the utmost diffi-
culty to diScover how the accounts really stood. It
would require ' all the assiduity and all the clearness
of his Honourable Friend the Member. for Aberdeen
to analyse them, and present a clear view of tlae sub-
ject to the House. Nothing could equal the complexity
and confusion of the affairs of the Court of Exchequer.
If any one took the trouble to look into " Maddox's
Histcry of the Court of Exchequer," he could not fail
to see that its complexity was beyond example. In that
work he found a curious quaint old dialogue, in which a
person, calling himself Gervasius Tilburiensis, takes a
part, and which discloses, in a very striking manner, the
state 'of-obscurity in- -svhich. that -Court was at the time
when the dialogue was penned—namely in the reign of
Henry 11. Gervasius was looking out of his tower at Til-
bury-upon-the Thames, and he heard a voice saying unto
him, " Master, dost thou not know that treasure being
hidden is of no value ?" Receiving an assent to that, the
voice proceeds and says, " Master, dost thou not know
that knowledge being hidden is also of no value?" Ger-
vasius assenting, is admonished that the knowlsdge pos-
sessed by him respecting the Court of Exchequer—know-
ledge possessed by so few, 'ought to be given to the public,
and thereupon a History of the Court of Exchequer was
compiled. The mode of doing business in it was then
proverbially complex ; it had since become more so, and
it now passed all understanding.
Mr. G. DAWSON said, the preent vote had no more
to do with the Court of Exchequer than it had with the
Court of King's Bench. A salary was paid to the Usher
of the Court of Exchequer, amounting to 1,839/., which
was distributed as compensation for certain fees and other
emoluments, and for stationery amongst certain offices of
the Court of Exchequer. This sum was distributed in
sums—ranging from 65/. to 1/. 3s. 7d. This arrange-
ment was adopted some years ago, and by it a saving of
5001. a year was effected.
Lord ALTEIORP thought that his Hon. Friend had
taken a very fit and proper opportunity for bringing the
subject under the consideration of the House. It was
admitted on all hands that the system of the Court of Ex-
chequer required revision, and the Finance Committee had
expressed an opinion to that effect, but that, Hie others of
their recommendations, bad not been acted on.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose, as
he stated, to explain the reason why the recommendation of
the Finance Cominittee had not beer, acted on ; but having
said so much, he directed his voice across the table, and
dropped it toso low a tone as to become perfectly inaudible.
Mr. HUME should strongly recommend his Honourable
Friend to refuse the vote—to divide the House, and though
it might not he attended with perfect success, the mere
fact of the division would probably have made an impres-
sion on their minds which might hereafter lead to a benefi-
cial result next Session or the Session after.

BERRIES said, that a change of system was in
contemplation, and would be carried into effect as soon as
possih'e.
Mr. GORDON hoped he had attracted the attention of
the House to the subject, and he trusted that the conse-
quence would be a change of system.
Mr. HUME wished to ask a question of the Right Hon.
Gentleman while they were upon the subject of messen-
gers. He had understood that previous to the present
Session a King's Messenger was sent down to the Duke of
Buccleugh, requesting him to move the Address. If that
was the way messengers were employed, he must be allowed
to say, that their business was net very important—he
wished to know if his information was correct ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
would be impossible for him to speak to that particular
case ; he had no recollection of it, one way or the other.
_ _ . .

Mr. HUME had little doubt that the flu'A was so.

Mr. P. THONISON complained of the expense of Fo-
reign Mesengers—they cost three times as much as they
were worth—air rather than what the business might be
done for.—The vote was then agreed to.
The next was a sum of 9.58/. ss. to he paid to certain
Professors of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
for the delivery of certain lectures there.—Agreed to.
This was followed by 13,7781. 2s. for the payment of
the Salaries of the Commissioners of the Court for the
discharge of Insolvent Debtors, and of other expenses con-
nected with that Court.

Mr. WARBURTON saw no reason why the country
should be put to so much expense for the Insolvent Debtors'
Court, when the Commissioners of Bankrupts cost so
much as 250,0001. It was to he observed, that though
the sum was so great the emolument of each Commissioner
amounted to only 5001. a year.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that the two
Courts could not be juiced, because the Commissioners of
Bankrupts had most important points of law to decide,
and most enormous property to distribute ; while the In-
solvent Commissioners had no serious points of law to de-
termine, and no great property to dispose of. The busi-
ness transacted in the Bankrupt Court was of the greatest
importance.

M. O'CONNELL agreed that the.business of the two
Courts was very different, but he did not find, in Ireland
at least, that the Bankrupt Commissioners were very
grave or learned persons; on the contrary, they were al-
most all young men, and not particularly attentive to busi-
ness either. He would also ask whether these young bar-
risters had not sometimes had a fee of ten guineas sent for
an opinion in a case, which, under another name, came be-
fore them for judgment on the next day?
Mr. WARBURTON said, that it was not by the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman's eulogising the Bankrupt Com-
missioners that satisfaction was to be given to the public.
The opinion that he (Mr. Warburtm) had given was the
opinion of the most eminent lawyers, as given in evidence
before the Royal Commission three years ago. Nothing
but a complete change of the Bankrupt Laws would sat;sfy
the mercantile interest.

Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, that if the Insolvent Com-
missioners had neither land to divide nor money to distri-
bute, means might be found to lessen the expences of that
Court very considerably.—(Hear.)
Mr. P, THOMSON said, that under the present sys-
tem of Bankrupt Laws, there was not a merchant in ,Lon-
don who would not rather accept 59. in the pound than
put his c,se into the Bankrupt Court, even with the pro-
spect of a dividend of 10a. or 15s. in the pound.
Lord ALTHORP thought that the two Courts could
not be united, because the Insolvent Commissioners had to
go to circuits, which appeared to him to fre incompatible
with the business of the Bankrupt Court. Ha could not
admit that the Insolvent Commissioners had no legal pints
to decide.

After a few words from Mr. BATLEY, Mr. Svi:Ls, and
JOIIN Woon,
Mr. HUME said, that from all he had heard, the Bank-
rupt Court was one of the greatest nuisances ever inflicted
on the country. The Commissioners in the Bankrupt
Court actually practised at one time as Judges, and at an•
other as Counsel in the very same Court. The Attorney--
General had stated that law was cheap in England com-
pared with other countries. What, then, did he say to
the Bankrupt Court having cost 250,000/. in one year ?
It was the grossest reflection on the Lord Chancellor, the
Secretary of State, and the Attorney and Solicitor-Ge-
neral for the time being ; and if they could not find a way
of attending to the complaints of the public on this sub-
ject, the sooner they gave up their offices the better.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
his lion. and Learned Friend had pronounced no eulogy
on the Bankrupt Courts; he had only stated that the du-
ties of t!,e two Court., were so .dissimilar, tle,t it was im-
possible for both of them to be discharged by one set of
Commissioners. . _ _

The•SOLICITOR.GENERAL said that whatever ac-
cusation might he made against him by the Hon. Gentle-
man, he doubted whether ally of the responsihiLty at-
tached to his office; lie had no more controul ov,r the
Commissioners of Bankrupts than the lion. Gentleman,
iiiinstlf had.

Mr. Alderman WAITIIMAN did not object to the

I,lrwilluals who were tha Commissioners of Bankrupt.,
nit be objected to the office, and the number of those
Commissioners. There were seventy-two of them, some
whom were both Commissioners and Advocates, and
the must skilful of them were frequently employed to pro-
tect, before other Commissioners, the greatest seoundri!;s.
Fie felt so indignant at these laws, that he could not do
otherwise than protest, in the name of the cow nilrcial
community, against them.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY knew no difference between an
insolvent and a bankrupt, except that which the law made.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the whole question of the
Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors' Laws was far too im-
portant to be discussed on that occasion. He did not know
a subject in which the whole community was more in-
terested than these laws, the whole of which needed
revision.

Mr. MONCK said a few word., enforcing Mr. Brig Les
views, we under toed, but what the Hon. Member sa:d
was not distinctly audible in the gallery.
The vote was then agreed to,

The next vote of 4,641. for the expense of the Alien
Office, and Contingent Expense', was agreed to, alter a
few words from Lord ALmoar.

The vote of 21,1351. for the Penitentiary at "Milbank
was postponed, in order to avoid discussion, after a few
words from Mr. Hum's.

The next vote was for 6,8821. to defray the charge of
sunerannuation allowances and pensions of all the public
offices.

Mr. LENNARD complained that the Act regu!ating
the superannuation allowanccs.was very unjust iu its ope•
ration.

Sir J. NEWPORT also considered that the operivion
of this Act was unjust.
Lord ALTHORP was understood to say, that be would
not enter into the subject, as a Committee had been Ap-
pointed to inquire into it. There was, however, a point
connected with that Committee to which he wished ti ad-
vert. It bad been some time appointed at the suggestion
of the Right lion. Genttnati, but had never yet met. lie
ha l I,cn a long time a Member of that House, but he was
not aware how he ought to act on such an occasion ; or,
being a Member of that Committee, he should have brought
the subject before theA-lonse.----==-"=
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
being himself, as Well as •ac-veral other gentlemen who
were Members of the Committee, Members of another
Committee, he had discussed the matter with them, and it
was agreed that lie should give them notiee of the day that
the Committee was to meet. He hsd not yet fixed -that
day; but, in the mean time, be was preparing the papers
that were to be submitted is it, and was not willing that
it should meet till everything was ready for it immediately
to proceed to work. If the Noble Lord desired it, be vrAs
ready that the Committee should meet to-morrow ; but be
thought that it would be better not to meet till the papgis
to be submitted to it were quite ready. He could assure
the Noble I.ord that the Government was sensible of the
evils belonging to the superannuation sysloem, and v.-as
willing to remedy them.
Sir H. HARDINGE also stated that the Government
was not averse horn calling the Committee together, hut
had delayed it as a matter of convenience.
Mr. GORDON said a fewwords which were inaudible.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply,
stated that measures had already been taken that no per-
sons appointed to public situations, subsequent to last
July, should be a burden on the public for their super-
annuation.

Mr. MABERLY called the attention of the Committee
to two items of the vote that were most improper and
unjust—he meant the provision for the Retired Officers,
Stamp Masters, and other of the Linen Boards of Scot-
land and Ireland. The Commissioners of the Scotch
Board did not know what to do with the money allowed
them, and they advertised for persons to point out th,
means how they might best employ it for the encourage-
ment of trade. The Commissioners had a fund of the
public money ; they had what they did not know what to
do with, and therefore they pensioned off the stamp mas-
ters. The vote was only for 2751., but the payment ac-
tually amounted to upwards of 2,000/. These stamp
masters, who were now pensioned, received a fee for
stamping all the linen made in Scotland, and they did
not stamp one piece in one thousand. The House bad
put an end to this Board, and the gentlemen at Edin-
burgh, without the consent of that House, not knowing
how otherwise to employ the public funds in their hand-,,
gave pensions to these stamp masters. Such persons
ought not to be quartered on the public, and it was not to
be borne that the public money should be wasted in that
manner. With respect to the Linen Board of Ireland,
the Government had long granted a large sum for that
Board, under the idea that it would improve the linen
trade of Ireland. That system had been given up, and
the grant devoted to pensioning the officers of the Board.
He called on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put a❑
end to the Scotch, and, perhaps, to the Irish Boards, with
all their dependents.

Mr. DAWSON, in a low voice acron the table, de-
fended the Irish and Scotch Estimates.

Mr. MABERLY contended that it was impossible to
employ the money ♦oted annually for the encouragement
of arts and manufactures of Scotland.

Mr. HOME DRUMMOND said that the money was
granted by an Act of Parliament, and it could not be
touched without the Actwas repealed, although lie believed
that the grant was now useless.
Mr. HUME said it was public money voted by the
House, and the accumulation mitht be disposed of by the
House. He wished to know if the office of Secretary,
vacant by death last year, was filled up? A place of
6001. a year was a convenient gift to a Provost of Edin-
burgh.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that the grant arose
out of an arrangement at the time of the Union, and that
the accumulated surplus of the grant was applicable to
Scotland exclusively. A report was printing, which would
show how the fund stood. The Secretary had been cer-
tainly a Provost of Edinburgh, bat he had been appointed
Secretary twenty years ago ; and at his death, although
another secretary was appointed, he now acted without
any salary.

Mr. HUME thought it inconsistent to argue the case
upon the pecuniary arrangements of the Union, for since
that period England had spent vast sums on local improve-
ments in Scotland, such as the millon spent on the Cale-
(lonian Canal. The Learned Lord had argued that very
Session, that the Union ought to be laid aside when the
wants of the State required it; and his argument now
was totally inconsistent with hie last.--(Cheers.)
Mr. MABERLY said that the trustees had no right to
apply the money to superannuations.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY thought the blame rested on
the House, for not sanctioning the recomatnendations of the
Committee.

Mr. HUME mentioned the superannuation of a Mr.
Anstey, of twenty-seven years of age, who, after severs
years of employment as Clerk of the Hunt, at a salary of
201., was allowed to retire on a pension of 401. a year.
The Treasury Bench had given the House a pledge iu 1822,
that every person qualified should be brought back to office,
and no new appointments should take place. Now not
one single individual superannuated had been brought back
to his employment ; but new individuals bad been intro-
duced. —( Hear, hear.)
The vote was then put and carried.
The following votes were then passed without opposition
13,643/. 10s. for allowance to Toulosese and Corsican
Emigrants, and to Dutch Naval Officers.
2,500/. for the Vaccine Establishment. Upon this
latter grant,

Mr. HUME observed, that the plan of granting su-
perannuations to retired officers of such institutions was
the source of every sort of job.—(Cheers.) No superan-
nuation should he granted without consent of Parliament.
Mr. DAWSON said, that a statement of increased
salaries was laid before Parliament every year, and the
superannuation were stated in it.
On putting the vote of 3,0001. for the Refuge the
Destitute, Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said he had no
objection to the Institution itself, but it vise conducted in
the most objectionable manner po4sible.
Mr. Alderman ATKINS defended the Institution, but
the coughing of the House prevented our distinctly hear-
ing his observations.
Lord HO WICK insisted that the Treasury Bench
should fulfil their pledge, and withdraw the motion.

M. DAWSON withdrew the vote.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progreu, and asked leave
to sit again.
The SrEmcr.rz resumed his seat.

On the motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EX-
CHEQUER, the House, at its rising, agreed to adjourn to
Monday next.
MINISTERIAL EMOLUMEN rs.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM, amidst a profound silence,
rose and spoke as fol'ows :—Sir, I assure you that I very
much regret that his Majesty's Ministers should think it
consistent with their duty not to grant the returns for
which I am about to move. I must confess that I am both
sorry and surprised at their resolution. lam sorry, be-
cause it will entail on me the necessity of exciting your
patience for some time—(Hear,. bear, bear)—and I am
surprised, for I am at a loss to know.upon whit grounds
they can intend to rest this measure. I feel in)self au
strong in principle, that I think I may safely rest sity ea,e
on a gemral principle alone, without resorting to any otiie
ground. The general principle is, tu.3, tlac

. .
. . . .
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, itf 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.--(Lourl 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.
Now, 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 Exchequer, who so zealously, and faith-
fully, and enthusiastically brought 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 subject, the
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 pretblic 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 difference 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 11,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 the purpose of purging
the Members from the imputation of acting under an un-
due influence of the Crown—fur the purpose of protecting
the liberties of the people, by knowing how 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 an intelligible ground for
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 Parliament 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, re"
ceived in the whole so much of the money of the nation,
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 Would
best be removed by the publication of authentic infortnatiol
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 110
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 his Sovereign, and justify 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 the Committee of Finance, he cook',
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 whet
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 Exchequer) gave all that 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;lit
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 hite
object was to ascertain what their emoluments were in such
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 charge, that he 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 shortened the existence °`
a Prime Minister, under whom the Attorney-General op'
posite had served.—(Cheers.)

General GROSVENOR said, that the Hon. Baroeet
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"ed'
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 Es'
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 before yesterday to severe'
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, and If
the Chamber were decided on forwarding an address to the
King, it might do it of its own accord, though it would
not have any communication to reply to. Besides* 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 great
diacussion, such as the budget, for instance. Be that
as it will, supposing the new Chamber to be assent..
bled folr 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 accept
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 hie
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 with
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 same
footing as it was at the fall of the Martignac Ministry.
As for our future influence over the drabs of Greece
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