The Sun.
London, England, 1812-05-08 00:00:00

pouncia.r He conceived he was fully jitstified in
dwelling at some length on the amount of these lees
when it wasseen that two officers annually derived
from the public taxes d sum at least equal to the
interest of a Million of money. Let any Geodeman
look to the reMUneration which other pnblih. men
lid received, and see what peciportion the salaries
of these officers bore to such remttneration. It
u ould be found that the 70001. per annum that had
b-en given to Lord Nelson, the 40001. to Lord Wel-
lington, the 20001. to Earl St. Vincent, and all that
had beem given to Lord Hutchinson, Sir R. Aber-
crombie, and certain other officers who had fought
the battles of .their country, put all together, fell
short by several thousands of what each of these
Tellers of the Exchequer received. He wished the
public to know what right these Tellers had to of-
fices producing so great a revenue. He thought ti(i
man could doubt the propriety of reducing their fees
down_to the standard by which the salaries of other
public men are regulated. He might be told that
these being the grant of the Crown were to be held,
sacred; but he would contend that these grants are
not like a grant of land from the Crown, or a grant
of a portion of the Excise Revenue. Of such grants
he would say nothing ; but he would contend, that
offices of the nature of these sinecures were under
the cuntroul of Parliament. Could any one deny the
right of the House to alter them ? He should like
to see Counsel for the two Noble Lords at their Bar,
to tell the House what right these two• Noblemen
had to live on the ruin of the country. He would
like to hear what they could say of that sacred and
indefeasible tight which was set up, and he should
like to see how their arguments on this subjeft would.
be received by the House. He then quoted a Re-
port signed by Mr. Not (now Sir Arthur Pignt)
and others, which set forth the right of Parliament
to reduce to a reasonable standard the emoluments of
such offices. He maintained that if this was such a
sacred property, that those two persons should be
annually allowed to divide the interest of a million
of money, raised out of the public taxes, between
them, without its being noticed by Parliameur, no
legislative At ought to infringe it. There passed,
however, no session of Parliameot in which it was
not repeatedly violated in the Bills that were passed.
They had before the House, the other day, a Bill
for granting an annuity of thirty-six thousand pounds
to the Princesses. Or, annuities greater fees were
paid to the Tellers than on any thing else ; and on
that Bill, if a provision had not been made against it,
each would have gained by it no less than 2001.,per
annum for life. In cases of charity, and in a variety
of instances, they were excluded from receiving their
usual fees. Mr. Burke had brought in a B:11 to
limit the vote for secret service to t 0,0001. This,
if their rights were to be held so sacred that no al

teration should be made to atrea them, was a Bill
which they might have said had no right to pass, as
the money allowed for secrot service had before 'been

_ •
unlimited, and thereimight have been greater than
they could possibly be afterwards. 13nt in addition
to what he had said to prove that Parliament wai

. -
competent to make an alteration in these offices, he
had to state. that an a6tual alteration had positively
beetrmade. In they year 1710, in consequence of
the expense of the atmy extrantdioaries having in-
creased_to the amount of three hundred thousand
periods, the fees of the 1 ellers of the Exchequer
were reduced trout five shillings per cent. to 3s. g-J.
If then the right to these offices was not so sacred
but an alteration could be made, in consequence of
theartny extraordinaries amounting to three'hundred
thousand pounds, he should like to know why,
when the army extraordinartes caused an expendi-
ture of seven millions, a similar reduaion in the fees

of the Tellers could not be made. He then recapi-
tulated his various argumenis, observing- that lie
should not think it right to call on the House to say
what ought to be the amount of the fees, but that
his concluding resolution would be expressive of
the right of Pailiament to confine those fees within
bounds more conformable to the 'usual grants of pub-
lic money for public. services, and more consistent
. .

with the burthens to which the people were at the
present period subject. He concluded by moving
se,ven Resolutions, embodying the statements and

opinions which were contained in his speech.
first was,

" That it appears to this House, that the two Tellerships
of the Exchequer, now hcld by the Marquis of Buckingham
and Earl Camden, are ottices performed entirely by deputy,
and that the same were given to the said Marquis of Buck.
Ingham and Earl Camden, on account merely of the profits
resulting therefrom, and as a remuneration for the public
services of their respedive fathers."
Mr. P. MoORE seconded the motion. -

The CHANCELLOR Of the EXCHEQUER allowed,
that the first resolution being a truism, might be
affirmed without inconvenience, except ai to agree
to it would imply that the House thought it neces-
sary to inquire into the subject at the present mc.
meta. On that ground, 'he should move the previ-
ous question upon that and the five following Reso-
lutions, giving a decided preference to the last.
This was a question on which the Houe ought to
be jealous, lest feelings of interest on their part
should influence their decision. The question was,
first, whether the individuals possessing these offices

under the grant of the Crown., had, in virtue of that
grant, a vested interest in the offices themselves ?
and, secondly, whether that vested right could be
interfered with by Rirliament ? The first point was
not denied by the Honourable Mover. The of-
fice of Teller of the Exchequer was an ancient
one, and the right of the Crow❑ to grant it was
coeval with the existence of the Exchequer
itself. The Honourable Gentleman allowed that a
legal grant of the Crown did confer on any pro-
perty but that of office, as clear a right to the pus-
' sessor to retain it as that held by the possessor of
an estate. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer)
contended at considerable length, that property in
offices ought not to be exempted from this princi-
ple ; but thesstrong part of the case was, wh.4 Par-
liament had done already with respect to those offices
themselves. When, in the year 1782, Parliament,
aware that the emoluments of those offices were
considerably greater tha❑ it was supposed they
would be at the time they were granted, no attempt
whatever was made to reduce those emoluments,
which were held to be a sacred right, but all the,
proceedings of Parliament on the occasion, were
prospective ; not half the advantage would be ob-
tained by the nation, even in the economical view
of the subjea, by breaking in upon such rights as
by maintaining the security of property, and denying
its liability to that interference of Parliament, which
being once exercised, Enigbt not soon be supped.