Star.
London, England, 1822-04-22 00:00:00

.he felt that.the opinions lie bad, formed were correct
-ones, and be sincerely believed that those to whom
he had alluded would, sooner or later, see their error,
and amend it—(Applause). They were all well ac-
quaiisted with the promises which were held out to
the People previously to the commencement of the .
Session of Parliament. The reform of abuses, the .
removal of grievances, the adherence to a system of
comprehensive retrenchment, the adoption of the
most strict and rigid economy—these were the pro-
fes.ions which were heard at all County and other
Public Meetings. A strict and rigid economy in every
department of the State, from the highest down to
the lowest, was promised ; but when Parliament met,
u hen the Estimates were laid before the House of
Con:mons, he was sorry to say that the People found
themselves miserably deceived. The only reduction
of taxation conceded to them was Is. a bushel upon
Malt, and ten per cent. taken from the salaries en-
joyed by those who held offices under Goveniment.
This, it was stated, was the only retrenchment which
Ministers could bestow ; this, it appeared, was all the
relief they could or would afford. Now, he asked of
the Gentlemen whom he addressed, to put it to their
feelings, to put it to their conscience, whether Minis-
ters did not deceiveahe People, when they thus blasted
land destroyed their just expectations ? What was this
reduction of Is. per bushel in the Malt tax, what was
She reduction of ten per cent. in the salaries of Mi-
nisters and other officers holding situations which
were supported by the public purse, when compared
with the burdens that literally bowed down the
People? But even this latter measure could not be
viewed as a fair and equal measure of justice. It was
proposed that the reduction should affect riot only
the highest, but the lowest offices in the Government.
And what was the consequence ? ‘Vhy it was this—
that the Secretary of State, whose present salary was
£5OOO per annum, would receive £4500, while the
lowest clerk ou the establishment, who had now a mi-
serable pittance of £5O, would have that pittance
reduced to ‘4s—(Sliame). —This, lie contended,
was not dealing out an equal measure of justice.
The moment a proposition was made for the reduc-
tion of sinecure places, that moment they heard the
House of Commons (for they and the Ministers of the
Crown were completely identified) loudly protest
against such a measure. "Oh !" cried they, " you
must not abolish this undeserved pension, or that
useless place, because the safety of the
.State depends
on their continuance !"—(Loud laughter)—What!
the safety of the State depend on keeping up useless
offices ? if it were so, it was an intolerable State—a
State not to be borne ; for, if the Constitution of
England depended for its existence on such a system
of corruption, then he would say that the Constitu-
tion of England was not worth preserving—(Applause).
But the Constitution did not stand on so weak and
shall. ,w a foundation: it stood on higher ground—it
was placed on a nobler elevation—it rested on the
great basis of public opinion —that basis on which
every good Government must stand, and by the ope-
ration of which every bad Government must fall—
( Cheers).—The British Constitution was founded on
the immutable principles of truth and justice; and
he hoped that, by a Reform in the House of Com-
moos, they would be enabled to transmit that Con-
stitution, pure andssnimpaired, not only to their chil-
dren, but to their children's children—(Applause).
He was afraid, he was ashamed as an Englishman,
to say that they might look to other countries for
brighter manifestations of the spirit of patriotism, for
more noble instances of self-devotion, than were to
be found in his native land. To illustrate this posi-
tion, he would allude to the conduct of a Spanish
Officer, Colonel Alava, who had served with the
Duke of Wellington through all his campaigns in the
Peninsula, and who had also been present at the bat-
tle of Waterloo. For his services a pension of 13,000
dollars a year, a boon equal, he believed, to £2,000
per annum, had been conferred on this gallant Of-
ficer, with whom be had the honour of being ac-
quainted, by his grateful country. But the moment
that honourable man saw his country labouring under
the difficulties which at present oppressed her, he
gave up his pension for the benefit of the State, con-
tenting himself with the thanks of the Cortes, the
Parliament of Spain, which followed this munificent
act—(Applause).—He could not avoid contrasting
the conduct which he had just described with that of
an individual at home. He felt that it was painful
and invidious to mention names, but when public
men forced themselves into particular notice, the in-
evitable consequence was, that their conduct would
occasion pointed animadversion. He now alluded to
Lord Sidmouth. That Noble Lord had been in of-
fice for about thirty-three years. From 1789,
with the exception of one or two years, he had held
very high offices, and received very large salaries.
He had successively filled the situations of Speaker
of the House of Commons, First Lord of the Trea-
sury, Keeper of the Privy Seal, Lord President of
the Council, and lastly, Secretary of State for the
Home Department. But this was not all. Daring
his administration, he conferred a sinecure office of
£3,000 a-year on his son, who was then a boy at
school. He was now living, and in the enjoyment
of that sinecure—(Shame). But yet Lord Sidmouth
WAS not satisfied with this—no, he retired sm a pen-
sion of £3,000 per annum, wrung from the hard
earnings of an impoverished people—(Shame, shams).
This he had, in addition to the sinecure of £3,000,
which was held by his relative. Having for 33 years
received the salaries attached to high official situi-
tions—being now in the full possession of his facul-
ties and understanding—being indeed in the prime
of life and health—his mental powers as perspicuous
as they were at any former period—under these
circumstances the Noble Lord retired, carrying
with him £7,000 per annum of the public money.
Was this what the People had a right to ex-
pect ? Ground down as they were, had they not
a right to complain of such conduct ?—( Ises, yes).—
He had lately read in the newspapers a long Cid ht-
bowed article, written by the venerable Major Carts
weight, against moderate reform. Now he was in
favour of that sort of reform. Ile wished reform to
be effected without tumult; he wished it to be founded
on temper and moderation ; he wished it to emanate
from the reason of man, not to be the child of his
~asston (Applause).—Still,.— however, he was a friend
to radical Idi :