Star.
London, England, 1817-03-12 00:00:00

might br seen from the frequent appeals
the people in the dissolution of Parliament.
as a most convincing proof of the influence of
(own out of doors. He could not agree to the
opinion, that statesmen and those in office
corrupt as was said. Corruption, if it existed
:re, was sarong the great mass of the people. '
1% is more aware than he was of the deep ne-
.l adopting measures of economy; yet these
we: e not to be adopted when they came in
contact with the safety cf the State : nor did he wgree
in the opinion, that because an office was held by a
person who employed a deputy to discharge its du-
Les, that that individual was a sinecurist. He iin-
cchtedly received a salary from the public; but
stn it wns to be remembered, he became responsible,
!;:. the performance of these duties. N• 1 man, he be.
3:-ved, could suppose that system of Government to
t,e right which allotted no rewards to its public see-.
rants. Rewards were indispensably necessary for
nieritofons services, and certainly sinecures were in.
fir.iiely better than public pensions. Convinced as be
was that the giving of pensions would be felt to be a
more serious evil than sinecures, he thought the grant.
kg of these pensions would disgrace Parliament more.
&wanes might be compared to prizes in a lottery,
whic:i (ached the emulation of many. It would be
impolit;e, he thought, to do away such grounds for
emulator. It had been said that the present existing
distres,es of the country called for Parliament giving
some fledge to the people respecting whal they would
do. This was, however, a principle on which he de-
rldwl I.e shJuld never act; because he Most firmly
believed that much harm had been done to the pub-
tri...l by those discussions which had taken place
va sinecure., and by the attacks of one party on the
other. Such a principle would in its very nature be
productive of much evil, were it to be acted on. Had
he been present, he would on this account have joined
Ncble Lord on the cross bench ( kedesdale) in his
opposition to the proposed voluntary contributions on
vie salaries of public officers, for he considered this
measure extremely well fitted to encourage the rya.
ler delusion respecting public officers being too well
picl, which any man who was acquainted with the
subject knew to be wrong. It was encouraging, he
would again repeat, the absurd opinion of the public
salaries being too large, and on that account he
would have opposed it. He should also say further,
that he did not see the policy or propriety of Minis-
ms recommending his Royal Highness th renounce
part of his income. The salary given to that illus-
trious personage was in consideration of the high situ-
s: on in which he was placed, and it had been given
to him after a solemn and dispassiOnate deliberation
in Parliament. He differed materially from the Re-
solutions proposed by his Noble Friend, because he
cthsidered they took the attention of the country
f:om the greatest of our evils, which undoubtedly
-.:as our public debt, and which had been too much
I:,:reased by the deterioration of public currency.
Thia was the great cause of the present distress, and
attempts at minor reforms were therefore to be re-
probated, inasmuch as they diverted public attention
trum the great evil. His Lordship concluded by say-
ing he should vote against the Resolution of his No-
bk Friend respecting the abolition of sinecures, as
that idea tended only to amuse the people, without
producing a single advantage to the country.
Lord DARNLEY had no hesitation in admitting
that the Constitution of Parliament was much better
with respect to the influence of the Crown than it
once was. When the times were so severely pressing
as the present were, he thought some attention and
respect should be paid to the public voice. The coun-
try had, he might almost say with one voice, declared
the system of rewarding public services by sinecures
to be extremely objectionable, and certainly some at.
terion should be paid to that voice. He did not
deny that the system of rewarding by pensions was
objectionable and improper, but he still thought a
better way might be devised of granting public re-
wards. Aware that the public wished and expected
their Lordships to attend to this subject, he withed
to impress it on their minds. He believed his Noble
Friend who had just spoken had acted from the beet
of motives, but he should vote for the motion of his
Noble Friend (Grosvenor), because he was persuaded
the country expected their Lordships to do something
respecting sinecures, and because he thought some
attention was due t 9 the public voices
Lord HOl4-AND felt it imposialk not to say a'
few words on `we present occasion. tlp the.observa-
lions be was now to submit to their" Lord:hips, he
could not help commencing with noticin)Ovhat had
fallen from the Noble Earl (Liverpool) at the head
of the Treasury, respecting the increase in the Funds
since the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act had
takes place. An argument of a more extraordinary
nature bad perhaps on no occasion been ever stated
in the House. The argument might, in tact, be car-
ried infinitely further than their Lordships were
awares for, might it not be urged. that if since the
Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act the Funds had
risen so high, especially when that suspension was
only for three months, it might be proper to abolish
the Habeas Corpus Act altogether I Surely if the
temporary suspension of the Act in one case did good
to the Funds, its abolition most, on the same reason-
ing, de infinitely more. The Noble Earl at the head
01 the Treasury had begun his speech by expressing
his Virtuous indignation at the charge made respect-
ing the people of England being libelled. The Noble
Earl had disclaimed any inch idea as that of libelling
the people of England. This was plausible enough,
but it was worthy of notice, that he had nevertheless
punished the whole people of England, by depriving
them of their liberty, in consequence of the poli-
tical follies of a few. Whether the country were or
were not implicated in these follies, it was neverthe-
less true that it had been deprived of its liberty
!had its best privilege torn from it—(lisar,:lsear.)
The Noble Earl had contrasted the line of conduct
now followed by his Noble Friend (Lord Grosienor)
with what he had formerly done. True it was that
Its Noble Friend had voted formerly for theenspen-
twin of the Habeas Corpus Act, but then let it be
remembered the country was in circuesatances of a
totally different nature. Then we had to contend
against a formidable enemy, and against the intro-
duction of principles hostile to the &itish Constitu-
tion. He (Lord Holland) had never seen that dan-
ger in so great a light as some of his friends had, and
he had therefore opposed the Suspension Act. His
Noble Friend, however, had voted for it, because he
aPerellended the danger to -be gnat. But the cis.

or doors
made
to
This was
the Crow
?;,‘ pplliar
%erg SO C
r. any whet
t,,, I.:0 man
:re colic y t.i
'ha measures
P •nntACI V