§ Mr. Dawsonrose to put a question to the noble Lord, as to the salary of the Lord Privy Seal. Upon looking at the evidence taken before the Committee for inquiring into the salaries of the Officers of State, he saw that the present Lord Privy Seal declined to receive any salary for his services, holding his office to be a sinecure. He saw now, however, by the papers on the Table, that the salary was paid, and he therefore supposed that Lord Durham had changed his mind. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether any part of the salary of the Lord Privy Seal was due up to the present time, or whether any application had been made for it, or whether, in fact, Lord Durham was not now receiving the full amount, and had not received it from the first? The question, too, upon the same grounds, he wished to extend to the case of the noble Postmaster-general.
§ Sir George Warrendersaid, the right hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that his question applied to the Postmaster-general. That noble Duke did state to the Committee, that he should be unwilling to take the salary, thinking it a sinecure; but, when he found the office an efficient one, with heavy duties, he did not object. He always stated what he thought right on behalf of individuals against whom imputations were made, and he was not to be schooled in doing so by his right hon. friend. He thought it fair to say, on behalf of Lord Durham, that the Committee communicated to him their opinion, that his not taking the salary would be a great injustice to the office, and an injury to his successors.
Mr. JohnWood corroborated the statement, as one of the Committee who appealed to Lord Durham not to refuse the salary, upon the ground that it would be hard to deprive his successors of it.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he believed that the Lord Privy Seal had received his salary regularly, though he was not quite sure. With regard to the Postmaster-general, he did not receive some of the early portions, but he now intended to do so. He believed there were few Gentlemen in that House who would not agree with him, that it was a bad principle to introduce, for noblemen, because they had large fortunes, not to receive the salaries attached to their offices—and he thought those noblemen had not judged well in the first instance.
§ Mr. Dawsonsaid, his object was, to know whether the salaries were received or not, and not to complain of their having been received, which he thought they always ought to have been. He was sorry his hon. friend had been nettled at the observations he made to him.
§ Sir George Warrendercould assure his right hon. friend, that one of the things he always carefully avoided was, being nettled.