Sitting of 14 May 1830

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Bright, the quantity of Tobacco imported into Great Britain and Ireland in 1829, distinguishing whence it came, and in what state imported:—On the Motion of Mr. Hume, the manner in which the sum of 30,500l. voted to defray Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons; and the sum of 17,000 l. voted to defray the Expenses of the Lords and Commons were expended:—On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, a Committee was appointed to take into consideration the Laws relative to the growth and cultivation of Tobacco in the United Kingdom.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. S. RICE, from the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Limerick:—By Lord G. BENTINCK, from the Inhabitants of King's Lynn:—By Sir J. NEWPORT, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Cork:—By MR. SCOTT, from the Burgh of Hawick:—By Mr. LATOUCHE, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Sligo. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. JONES, from the Magistrates of Pembroke:—By the Earl of UXBRIDGE,

707
from the Grand Jury and Inhabitants of Anglesey. For Assistance to Emigrate, by Sir M. S. STEWART, from two Emigration Societies at Glasgow. For an alteration in the Grand Jury System (Ireland), by Mr. HUME, from John Ryan, of Tipperary. For extending Poor-Laws to Ireland, by Mr. HUME, from the Inhabitants of Kilmanagan (King's County). For an alteration in the Marriage Laws, by the same hon. Member, from the Free-thinking Christians of London. Against the Tithe System (Ireland), by Mr. O'CONNELL, from several Parishes in Wexford. Against the proposed increase of Duty on British Spirits, by Sir W. J. HOPE, from the Inhabitants of Athlone; and from the Landholders and Occupiers of Dumfries:—By Mr. CAREW, from the Landowners of Ballaghkeen (Wexford):—By Mr. SCOTT, from the Landholders of Roxburghshire:—By Lord GASLEY, from the Landholders of Wigtown:—By Mr. JEPHSON, from the Landowners of Kilmeen, Culen, and Dromtariff. Against the Sub-letting Act (Ireland), by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Inhabitants of several Parishes in Wexford. For the abolition of the Duties both on Malt and Beer, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Inhabitants of Rolvenden. Praying for Relief under Distress, by Sir R. VYVYAN, from the Occupiers and Owners of Land in the Hundred of East and in the Hundred of West (Cornwall). Against the proposed Alteration in the Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Sir W. J. HOPE, from the Inhabitants of Athlone. In favour of the Jews Emancipation, by Mr. COKE, from the Inhabitants of Diss, Norfolk.

STAMP DUTIES, (IRELAND).
Mr. Moorein presenting a Petition from an industrious and meritorious class of his constituents, the Gold and Silver Operatives of the city of Dublin, observed, that they had seen with dismay the proposal assimilation of duties in their trade with those at present existing: in England, and they prayed that this House would pause before it sanctioned such assimilation. He could not help saying that the case of the petitioners was one of peculiar hardship, and entitled to the serious attention of the House. He believed that, of all the classes of Dublin artisans who had suffered so severely by the Act of Union, there was none on whom that measure pressed so intensely as the petitioners. They were a class whose industry could look for demand solely from those who were comparatively opulent, and the withdrawal from the metropolis of most of the nobility of Ireland, and a large proportion of the gentry, had reduced their calling to a slate of continued struggle and progressive decline. In this condition he would call the attention of the House to the proposed enormous increase of taxation on their industry by the proposed assimilation of duties on the manufacture of gold plate; that proposed increase was at no less a rate than 1,600 per cent on the present duty, the latter being but 1s. an ounce, whereas it is now proposed to impose a tax of 17 s. an ounce. Nor was this all; the gold and silver workers at present
708
were obliged to take out a license only once during their lives, for which they paid five guineas; whereas, by the proposed schedule, they must take out a yearly license at the expense of five guineas and a half, which, according to the usual mode of computing the value of a life, would amount to nearly sixty guineas for that which at present they were obliged to pay only five—thus proposing an increase of nearly 600 per cent; an increase that, if persevered in, must, in the present struggling and declining condition of that branch of domestic industry in Dublin, crush the petitioners altogether. Under these circumstances he must earnestly press on the House and his Majesty's Government the justice and necessity of reconsidering this oppressive aggravation of the burthens under which the petitioners at present labour.
Lord Morpeththought the case of the petitioners very hard, and that they were deserving of the most favourable consideration. As the Legislature had deprived them of much of their trade, it should rather seek to lighten than increase their taxation.
Mr. Jephsonsaid, that these manufacturers were already reduced to the lowest ebb of distress, and any attempt to impose additional burthens on them, would infallibly ruin them. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desist from such a project.

FORGERY.
Mr. John Smithpresented a Petition from three individuals whose names and character need but be named to be known as amongst the highest in the commercial world. The Petition was for the abolition of the punishment of death for the Forgery. The first name to the Petition was that of Mr. Rothschild, the greatest merchant in the world, and one through whose hands more Bills of Exchange passed than through those of any twenty firms in London. The second was that of the firm of Overend, Gurney, and Co., through whose hands bills of Exchange to the amount of 30,000,000 l. passed last year; and the third was that of Mr. Sanderson, a Bill-broker, and also a Member of the House. He was himself convinced of the impolicy of punishing this crime with death, and declared that, with respect to himself, many instances had occurred on which he would not prosecute, because of the penalty of death. He, however, was of opinion that transportation to New

709
South Wales was no adequate punishment, because the man who could defraud the public of 8,000 l., or 10,000 l. might have that transmitted there, and live in luxury. The punishment ought to be one infamous, degrading, and uniformly applied.
Petition laid on the Table.

BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, he was unwilling to stop the course of public business; and had accordingly a proposition to make to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He felt it his imperative duty to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice: he was most anxious to do so; but still he was unwilling to bring it forward as an Amendment upon the Motion of the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. It was his undoubted right to introduce the question in this manner; but he considered it a right which should be cautiously and sparingly exercised—one, in short, which should only be asserted upon great and important occasions. He was accordingly anxious to avoid making his Motion as an Amendment, and, with the consent of the hon. member for Aberdeen, who had been good enough to allow him precedence, he would propose to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should go into the Committee of Supply, on the understanding that no vote should be proposed after ten o'clock, but that he should be then allowed to bring forward his Motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerfelt great difficulty in replying to the hon. Baronet's proposition. He gave him credit for not wishing unnecessarily to obstruct the public business; but at the same time he allowed him less free will in the matter than was altogether satisfactory, since he had only the choice of going into Committee for four hours or not going into it at all.
Mr. Humewas willing to give the hon. Baronet's Motion precedence; but he wished to state that he did not concur with him in the opinion that the right of moving such questions as amendments to a motion for going into a Committee of Supply was one that ought to be sparingly used. He thought it was the legitimate course of the House that motions concerning the people's grievances should be
710
brought forward when they were asked to vote away the people's money. If, however, the hon. Baronet and the Chancellor of the Exchequer agreed that the former motion should come on at ten o'clock, he would give way; if not, he would pursue his own course.
Sir J. Yorkesaid, it was a perfectly plain-sailing question, and he wondered that his right hon. friend should think of opposing the hon. Baronet's proposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he intended to grant the hon. Baronet's wish, with a very slight difference of form, which was perhaps scarcely worth discussing.
Sir J. Newportobserved, he was a Privy Councillor, and could not see why the Motion should be opposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, his objection to the Motion was, that it applied to a class: he had nothing to oppose to a motion for the total amount of salaries, or to the salaries enjoyed by particular persons, as public officers. He objected to the Return being made quoad Privy Councillors, as he would quoad Baronets, or any other class. This was the only point on which he and the hon. Baronet differed. He would propose, as a substitute for the hon. Baronet's Motion, one for a Return of the total amount of all Salaries received by public officers, and of the amount received by each, distinguishing the source from which he received his Revenue.

SUPPLY.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
12,000 l. was voted to supply the deficiency of the fees of the Home Secretary's Department for the year 1830.
17,000 l. to make good the deficiencies of the fee fund of the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Humesaid, that the expenses of this department had doubled since 1797. The establishment at the office cost 27,000 l., Contingencies were 10,000 l., Messengers and couriers 26,000 l., other officers, 10,000 l. The charge for messengers was most enormous, and it arose in part he understood, from the messengers paying the expenses of their fellow travellers. Any gentleman who wished to have a pleasant trip to Constantinople or Madrid, might go with a King's Messenger free of expense.
Mr. George Dawsonjustified the expenditure in consequence of our being

711
obliged to send messengers to every part of Europe. It was not true as stated by the hon. Member, that individuals could travel with the couriers free of expense. If any person chose to accompany a courier from the Foreign Office, he was obliged to pay for himself, and he was not suffered of course to delay the courier, who always travelled with the utmost speed.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for the sum of 17,500 l. to make good the deficiency of the Fee-fund of the Colonial Department.
Mr. Humesaid, if the Government would leave the colonies more to them-selves,—if they would leave them more free in their actions, and not keep them in leading-strings, as they did, this expense might be spared. In 1796, the whole expense of this department was 9,000 l., and last year it was 26,000 l. He could not say whether the different individuals connected with this department were necessary or not; but Government appeared to add one thing to another in the way of expense. He observed an item of 1,500 l. a-year for a standing counsel. He understood that the gentleman who held that appointment had got another situation, but he did not know whether he still retained that of standing counsel.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, there was no person acquainted with the business of the Colonial-office, but must admit that the services of Mr. Stephen, the standing counsel, were invaluable. While he was on his legs, he would call the attention of the House and the Government to the alteration which had been made in the military department of the Home-office. By the extensive reduction of the yeomanry and the militia, nothing could be more certain than that the military duty of the Home-office had been considerably lessened. He might be told that the business of the criminal branch had increased. He admitted that it had increased; but, taking the two branches together, he thought that there could be, and ought to be, effected, a reduction in the expense of that office. He would call the attention of the House to another office connected with the Home Department, in which a saving might be made. The charge was not, indeed, a very great one; but where-ever an expense was incurred, without producing any benefit to the public, that
712
expense ought, on principle, to be spared. The office he spoke of was the Alien-office. If the Secretary of State for the Home Department were present, he did not think that he could state any possible ground, or point out any imaginable advantage, that could accrue from keeping on our Statute-book any portion of the law for the regulation of aliens. So long as the law gave a severe sanction to our sending aliens out of the country, although it was an impolitic, unjust, and atrocious law, yet it was an effective law, and answered the purpose for which it was in-tended. But the law as it now stood served only to clog and embarrass commerce and trade. The trader, under this law, was compelled to proceed to some particular port, when, perhaps, his interest would induce him to go elsewhere. The law, while it thus interfered with commercial pursuits, did not afford any protection against the dangers contemplated by the original Act. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, would move for the repeal of that bill, and thus get rid of the office altogether.
Mr. Humewas sure, that the subject could not be in better hands than those of his hon. friend; for his own part, he had quite enough to do already; but if his hon. friend would move for the repeal of the Alien Act, he would vote with him. He would take that opportunity of stating, that it was most preposterous that several of the clerks in the Home Department not only received salaries for their services in the office, but derived further emoluments as agents for different colonies.
Sir G. Murraydid not, generally speaking, advocate the propriety of appointing clerks as agents to colonies. It was a practice that ought not, perhaps, in all cases, to be pursued; but in these particular instances it was necessary. The business was well done, and the expense was not greater to the colonies than if it were performed by other parties.
Sir J. Newportadverted to the danger of allowing balances to accumulate in the hands of those agents, and instanced the case of Mr. Chinnery, who, at the very time that Parliament was voting large sums of money to meet Bills of Exchange that were drawn on account of New South Wales, had very considerable funds in his hands. He was ultimately a defaulter to the amount of 18,000 l. or 20,000 l. He would not, therefore, intrust clerks in

713
public offices with largo balances of money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated, that care had been taken to provide against such an occurrence in future.
Mr. W. Smithdid not approve of insinuations being thrown out with respect to individuals who were not present. Allusion had been made to Mr. Stephen, whom he knew to be as conscientious and trustworthy an officer as any under the Crown.
Colonel Daviessaid, the hon. Member laboured under an error. His hon. friend never threw out any reflection whatever on Mr. Stephen. He only said—and he (Colonel Davies) agreed with him—that the salary for standing counsel ought to be dispensed with. He believed that Mr. Stephen did a great deal of duty, but he also believed that that duty ought to be done by others.
Mr. Humewished it to be understood that he had not the least idea of making any insinuation with respect to Mr. Stephen. He objected to the fact of giving a salary to a standing counsel, and of allowing the clerks in public offices, to receive salaries as agents for the colonies.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, the vote in the hands of the Chairman was to defray the Salaries of the Secretary, Under-secretary, and Clerks of the Colonial-office. It had nothing to do with the payments of those clerks as agents. If, therefore, the hon. Member objected to their receiving separate allowances, it would be better to make a separate motion when those grants were called for. The House was not then called on to vote any of those sums.
Resolution agreed to.
The following Votes were agreed to without observation:—
16,850 l. to make good the deficiency of the Fee-fund in the departments of the Privy Council, and Committee of Privy Council for Trade.
8,000 l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of his Majesty's Treasury.
8,045 l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of his Majesty's Home Secretary of State.
The next Resolution was for 34,750 l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of his Majesty's Foreign Secretary of State.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he should move that this vote be reduced by 4,000 l.
Mr. Hume.—You may as well move that the grant be reduced by 10,000 l.
Mr. O'Connellthen moved, that the vote be reduced to the extent of 10,000 l. If the expenditure turned out to be less than the smaller sum, which, perhaps, it might, then the country would receive credit for the difference; but if the expense proved to be more, Government could find no difficulty in providing for the deficiency whenever it should occur.
Mr. George Dawsonassured the hon. and learned Member that great inconvenience might arise to the public service from the proposed diminution of the vote, as Government possessed no means of making up the deficiency if the vote should prove too small to cover the expenditure. If the grant exceeded the outlay, of course the balance should be refunded. The expenses in question were paid in ready money; there was no credit in that branch of the public service, and any deficiency would be inconvenient. The hon. and learned Member must himself perceive, that if he would only put a moderate share of confidence in the Foreign Department, there would be no necessity for pressing his amendment.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he was just as much indisposed to put confidence in Government on a point of expenditure as any genuine Representative of the people ought to be. The people had sent him to that House, and no Representative of their's ought to repose confidence in any Ministers when the expenditure of the public money was concerned. However, he had no inclination to press his Motion if it were the wish of the Committee that it should be withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
On the Motion that a sum, not exceeding 10,500 l. be granted to his Majesty to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messengers' bills in the department of the Secretary of State for the Colonies for the year 1830,
Mr. Humeinquired what the Colonies wanted with Messengers?
Sir G. Murrayexplained, that more than half the amount of the grant (namely, a sum of 5,500 l.) was devoted to Contingencies. Of these, the expenses of the Slave-registration Office amounted to 596 l.; there was an allowance to reduced clerks of 898 l.; and the charge for preparing Returns was considerable, 1,255 l. These were some of the items that came under

715
the head of Contingencies. With regard to the expense of Messengers, owing to the state of the Levant, great expense was incurred by the necessity of communicating with the island of Corfu over land; and although the messengers had to convey matters not immediately connected with the colonial service, but with other affairs, the expense was included in the vote, the amount of which was thus necessarily augmented.
Mr. Humesaid, he was quite willing to consent to the expense of making out returns, provided they were properly prepared; but the misfortune was, that he never could get the returns he moved for.
Resolution agreed to.
3,725 l. to defray the Contingent Expenses and Messenger's Bills in the departments of his Majesty's Most Hon. Privy Council and Committee of Privy Council for Trade, for the year 1830, was voted without discussion.
Mr. G. Dawson Mr. G. Dawson moved, that 6,500 l. be granted to his Majesty to make compensation to the Commissioners appointed by the Acts 1st and 2nd George 4th, c. 90, and 3rd George 4th, c. 37, for inquiring into the Collection and Management of the Revenue in Ireland, and the several establishments connected therewith, and into certain other Revenue departments in Great Britain, for their assiduity, care, and pains, in the execution of the trust reposed in them by Parliament.
Colonel Daviessaid, he had no doubt that these Gentlemen had discharged their duty with great benefit to the public. He was aware that they had made several valuable reports, and many useful suggestions, with respect to the subjects of their inquiry, particularly as related to certain departments in Ireland; but it should be recollected at what an expense these objects had been effected. The first payment to the Commissioners took place in 1823, and amounted to 6,255 l.; the next was in 1824, the amount, 6,000 l.; in 1825, 5,200 l. was paid to them; in 1826, 5,675 l.; in 1827, 6,000 l.; in 1828, 6,500 l. and a further sum of 2,000 l. for Contingencies; in 1829, there was paid also 6,500 l. and 2,500 l. for Contingencies; this year, to be sure, the payment was only 6,500 l.; but still, there had been paid altogether to these Commissioners, including the present Estimate, a sum of 53,130 l. This was a prodigious expenditure. How was it possible that the Com-
716
missioners could spend eight years in their inquiries and be diligent in the discharge of their duties?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the annual saving effected by the Commissioners in the collection and management of the public income considerably exceeded the aggregate amount of the payments made on account of their services. The labours of the Commissioners had now closed, and this was the last vote which the House would be called upon to grant them; but although Parliament would hear no more of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, in the matter of voting money to them, it would have frequent opportunities to bear in mind the benefit derived from their labours.
Mr. Humeasked, what was the subject of the Commissioners' inquiry in the present year?
Mr. Dawsonsaid, they would submit another report on the state of the Post-office.
Mr. Humewas aware of the general importance of the labours of the Commissioners, but their proceedings with regard to the Post-office had met anything rather than his approbation. What he wished was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try and effect a complete revision of the laws relating to the Post-office. Although the general feeling was, that the Post-office was the best conducted department in England, he entertained a very different opinion on the subject.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Dawson Mr. Dawson moved, that a sum of 5,000 l., be granted to his Majesty to defray the Salaries of certain Officers, and Expenses of the Court and Receipt of Exchequer for the year 1830.
Mr. R. Gordonwished to make a few observations relative to this vote. He was of opinion that if we assented to it, we should continue to sanction the recorded follies and acknowledged absurdities of an antiquated system. The Exchequer was divided into seven different departments; the Tellers' department, the department of the Pells, the Auditor's office, the Tally court, and three others, viz. the Pipe-office, the department of the King's Remembrancer, and that of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. He should take the Pipe department which had seven subsidiary absurdities: among these were the Clerk of the Nichils, the Clerk of the Estreats, the Cursitor Baron, and the Foreign Apposer;

717
it might be sufficient to mention these at present, who were all subsidiary to the department of the Pipe.. Parliament had felt the absurdity and inconvenience of the system from time to time. In 1783 the first Act was passed on the subject. It was then declared, that after the extinction of certain existing officers, reforms should be introduced and acted on. In 1821, the attention of the Legislature was again called to the matter, and additional Acts were passed, but with so little effect, that in 1824 a commission was appointed, consisting of three Lords of the Treasury, to inquire into the subject. He should ground his observations principally upon the information furnished by their report. The commissioners stated, that the Pipe office consisted of eight sworn attornies two board-end clerks, and eight clerks attached to the sworn attornies. Of the eight sworn attornies, it appeared, that five had their residences in the country, at considerable distances from London. Two of the witnesses examined had been in the office, one nine years, and the other twenty-five; and it appeared from their evidence, that five out of the eight sworn attornies never came near the office, so completely were their situations sinecures. Perhaps it might be imagined that the clerks did something in the absence of the attornies,—no such thing. The commissioners stated, that the articled clerks appeared to have no stated duties to perform—no fixed hours of attendance; in short, that they did no more than they thought fit. Such were the words of the commissioners, who were not opposition Members, seeking for faults, but Lords of the Treasury, who were generally supposed to conceal them. Was such a system as this to be allowed to go on for ever? Were we always to be told of vested rights and reversionary interests, in answer to propositions of necessary reform? If Gentlemen took the trouble to examine the report of the commissioners, and he trusted some would do so when it was laid upon the Table, they would find, that the Lords of the Treasury had examined into the situation as well as the duties of the clerks, and discovered that three of them had been at school after they had been appointed clerks. One of these Gentlemen admitted, that subsequently to his nomination he was five years at school at Chelsea, two years in a conveyancer's office, and that he now practised as a
718
barrister, and might look in at the office once a month. The board-end clerks were much the same as the articled clerks, and the commissioners referred to the evidence of one of them, in order to prove the utter ignorance of the duties of their office (if any there were) that prevailed amongst them. Lord Lowther and Lord G. Somerset, two of the commissioners, in their report very properly disputed the right to superannuations and compensation, supposed to be possessed by persons in this office. They observed, that it would be for the Lords of the Treasury to decide whether the right of succession by seniority to highly-paid offices was so sacred, that no plea of ignorance, incompetency, or lack of duties, should interfere as a bar to a full claim for remuneration in the event of an alteration in the arrangements of the office. The same observation would apply to many other departments, which wore filled by officers who were scarcely able to tell what were the duties that they had to perform. The hon. Member proceeded to say, that he had been a member of the committee appointed to inquire into the fees and office of Sheriff, and added, that any one acquainted with the result of that investigation must be convinced of the mummery, inconvenience, and folly of the system. Five great rolls of parchment went down to the Sheriff yearly, containing accounts of supposed debtors to the Crown during the last 300 years. The Sheriff or Sub-sheriff was bound to summon a jury, in order to ascertain what money was due to the Crown on the roll. The sending of the roll down and up again occasioned an expense of 15 l. He should not trouble the House with any detail, as to the duties of the clerks of the nichils: it might be easily conjectured, from the very title of the office, that those duties were very scanty. The commissioners from whose report he had got all the details he had given to the House, and he was bound to bear his testimony to the manner in which they had performed their labours,—the commissioners went into a history of the mode of examining and passing Sheriffs' accounts in the Exchequer chamber, and described the practice of throwing, in the presence of the Cursitor Baron, small copper coins behind a hat, from one little square of the cloth on the table to another—a proceeding not calculated to test the accuracy of the accounts, and which could only tend to produce a feeling of

719
contempt in the minds of the accountants. Where the Sheriff's accounts appeared correct, a person cried out "tot," and whenever any inaccuracy appeared, another individual exclaimed "nil," and according as these words were uttered the copper coins were shifted from one part of the chequers to another. Were we to vote money to support absurdities like these? He had explained the mode of proceeding in the Pipe-office, and might join the department of the King's Remembrancer and the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer with it is as equal in folly. He now proceeded to other branches of the Exchequer, and in doing so confessed that he thought the Committee would be surprised at the manner in which the public money was paid into the Tellers of the Exchequer. There were four Tellers, and each had a little cabin near that House, in which he or his deputy sat, accompanied with the proper clerks, for the purpose of receiving from the Excise the Customs and the Stamps, money that was paid nominally to them, but in reality to a branch bank of the Bank of England, which sat in the next room, where two or three clerks from the Bank were placed to receive money, which was paid out of the Bank to be paid into the hands of the Bank again. The Tellers, on receiving the money, signed a parchment, written in a mixture of Latin and Saxon, a sort of language or jargon which nobody but a Teller could understand. They passed this roll through a pipe into another room below, and there it was cut into a particular shape, and carried to the Auditors of the Exchequer. It was true, the wooden tally formerly in use had been put an end to within the last six or seven months, but the parchment tally, for this roll was nothing but a parchment tally, was continued. The absurdity and inconvenience of this practice were felt so strongly by Ministers, that they had abolished Exchequer payments to a considerable extent, and they were now managed by certain clerks of the Treasury. He should be told, that Ministers were anxious to introduce improvements. We were always told this. It was always said, "Give us time, and we will do what you want." However, he contended that we should not wait till vested interests were at an end, and all persons had been satisfied who thought they had vested expectancies. The sum voted on account of the present
720
item was, in 1827, 5,700 l.; in 1828, it amounted to 7,000 l.; in 1829 to 6,200 l.; and this year, to 5,000 l. It was true, there was a reduction this year, which he imagined must have been made in some of the larger items. Out of this sum there was an allowance to the Barons of the Exchequer for stationery, 17 l. 10s. for each Baron. The Barons surely could afford to pay for their own stationery out of their salaries. Again, the King's Counsel were allowed 8l. each for stationery. He did not much object to that—it might be an old custom, and it was, perhaps, the only salary which they received—he therefore thought it was not worth talking of. There were various charges for Messengers scattered up and down through those Estimates; and it required the utmost difficulty to discover how the accounts really stood. All the assiduity and all the clearness of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, would be necessary to analyse them, and present a clear view of the subject 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 History 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 which that Court was at the time when the dialogue was penned—namely, in the reign of Henry 2nd. Gervasius was looking out of his tower at Tilbury-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?" Gervasius assenting, is admonished that the knowledge possessed by him respecting the Court of Exchequer—knowledge 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. George Dawsoncomplained that the hon. Member should have delivered such a speech on the present occasion,

721
instead of bringing forward a specific motion on the subject. The present vote had no more to do with the constitution of the Court of Exchequer than it had to do with that of the Court of King's Bench. A sum of 1,839 l. was distributed by the Usher of the Court in lieu of salaries, and emoluments, and perquisites, in sums varying from 65 l. to 1l. 3s. 7d. By this system a saving of 500 l. annually had been effected. With respect to the expense of Messengers, it was impossible that he could go into all the details connected with such a subject. The House must see that a very large number of Messengers was necessary for the conduct of the public business.
Lord Althorpthought, his hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) had taken a very proper opportunity of bringing forward the constitution of the Court of Exchequer. For his own part, he felt great disappointment in finding that no change had been made in the system of keeping the public accounts. This was a matter for which the Ministers were responsible; and the more so, because it was agreed in the Finance Committee that the system should be changed without delay. With respect to the charge for Messengers, his hon. friend had very properly called the attention of the Committee to the fact, that instead of being brought forward as one item, it was scattered over various parts of the Estimates. He must also add, that taking into consideration the sums charged for Messengers in other places, it did appear to him most exorbitant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that so many difficulties had occurred in attempting to carry the recommendations of the Finance Committee, as to the mode of keeping accounts, into effect, that it had not been possible to accomplish its wishes; it might, however, be satisfactory to the House to know, that they would be complied with as far as possible, and that, in the mean time, every care was taken to prevent every species of extravagance.
Mr. Humesaid, that as this sum was asked to pay the salaries of certain officers of the Court of Exchequer, he could not understand what the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. G. Dawson) meant by saying it had nothing to do with that Court. For ten years past he had complained of the constitution of that Court, and though every Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised, every year, that the system
722
should be altered, no change had yet taken place. He should recommend his hon. friend to divide the Committee on this vote, in order to impress the subject on the minds of the Ministers.
Mr. Herriessaid, that a change in the system was still in contemplation, and would be carried into effect as soon as possible.
Mr. R. Gordonsaid, that he should not divide the Committee. He was content with having called attention to the subject; but he must say, that he was much susprised that even the recommendations of the Treasury Commissioners had not been carried into effect. It was six years since the report was made.
Mr. Humesaid, that after what they had heard of the necessity and importance of Messengers, he begged to ask one question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it true that a Messenger had been sent to the Duke of Buccleuch, to ask him to come up and second the Address?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he really could not carry in his recollection each individual service performed by the Messengers. He could not tell whether a Messenger had been sent to the Duke of Buccleuch or not.
Mr. Humehad learned, upon very good authority, that a Messenger had been sent on this errand to the Duke of Buccleuch.
Mr. Poulett Thomsoncomplained of the expense of Foreign Messengers. There was a Messenger sent every week to Paris. This person travelled post with four horses, and his expenses were treble what they ought to be. Why could not a Government Messenger travel, like the commercial couriers, on horseback? But the worst of it was, that this Messenger's real employment was smuggling. The Messenger was employed in bringing over gowns, and gloves, and shoes; and his bag was full, not of despatches, but of smuggled goods.
Resolution agreed to.
"The sum of 958 l. 5s., to pay the Salaries and Allowances of certain Professors in the Universities of Cambridge and Oxford, for reading courses of Lectures," was voted.
The Resolution "That the sum of 13,778 l. 2s. be granted for paying the Salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, of their Clerks, and the Contingent Expenses of their office, for

723
one year; and also of the expenses attendant on the Circuits," was opposed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that while they had such an expensive bankruptcy establishment, he did not see why they should be called upon to pay such a sum as this for the support of an Insolvent Debtors' Court. In a work lately published by a Commissioner of Bankrupts, the expense of the Bankruptcy Establishment was estimated at 250,000 l. a year. He did not see why the business of the Insolvent Court and the Bankruptcies should not be managed by the same parties, without entailing the additional expense which this vote required.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, it would be impossible that the business of the two Courts could be managed by the same set of commissioners. If the Bankrupt Court were to be made permanent, it would entail a vast expense on the country, and the commissioners could not obtain constant employment. The employments of the two Courts were quite different. The Bankrupt Commissioners had to decide upon important points of law, and to distribute a great deal of property; whereas the commissioners of the Insolvent Court had no points of law to decide, and no property to distribute. The legal knowledge necessary in Commissioners of Bankrupts, and practical acquaintance with the business they had to do, would compel the country to give them large salaries if permanently employed, and would create an immense expense.
Mr. O'Connelladmitted, that the constitution of the two Courts was different, and that the Bankrupt Courts had to decide important questions in law and equity, which would require considerable legal experience; but in looking at the selection made of Commissioners of Bankrupts in a country with which he was acquainted, it would not be found that these acquirements were exactly the qualifications for which they were chosen. Good political or family connexions, and little or no experience, seemed, in many instances, to have been made the grounds of choice. They were generally practising barristers, and it was not uncommon to obtain by a fee, substituting feigned names, their opinion on cases to be afterwards brought before them as commissioners. Altogether, the abuses under the present system were horrible, and he trusted that they might be remedied, If
724
no other Member should undertake the task, he would, however little qualified for it, bring forward the subject next Session, if it were only to stimulate those in whose hands the matter would be much better managed.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that in objecting to the present system he spoke not his own opinions, but those of the most eminent barristers, who recommended that a total change should be made in the constitution of the Bankrupt Court.
Sir M. W. Ridleythought, that if the Insolvent Debtors' Court had neither to decide important points of law, nor to distribute any considerable property, means ought to be taken to reduce the expense at which it was maintained. He was also of opinion, that the number of Commissioners of Bankrupts might be reduced one-half.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that there was not a mercantile man in London, who would not accept 5s. in the pound, although there might be hopes of the estate furnishing assets to the amount of 10 s. or 15 s. under a commission, rather than suffer it to go into the Bankrupt Court, where, as it was at present constituted, justice was denied, while the expense was enormous.
Lord Althorpsaid, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) did not exaggerate the importance of the Commissioners of Bankrupts, yet he seemed to undervalue that of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. He thought that the value of the Court ought to be estimated, not merely by the amount of money distributed by it, but by the compositions of which it was the cause. The present system was bad, as it held out temptations to insolvents to spend their money in prison, and left nothing to distribute.
Mr. Batleythought, the business of the Court would be much better discharged, if the commissioners had permanent salaries, and were men of a certain standing at the bar. He did not think it beneficial that the Judges in that Court should be practitioners in Chancery, for they gave up more time to seek profit in their profession than to discharge their duties as commissioners.
Mr. Sykescomplained of the enormous amount of the fees, and trusted that this branch of the law would be soon revised.
Mr. J. Woodsaid, that both barristers and solicitors felt that a great alteration ought to be made in the law. To merchants and traders it was ruinous and

725
delusive. The most corrupt and disgraceful transactions took place in those Courts, and the sooner they were completely reformed, the better the public would be pleased.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Bankrupt Law was one of the greatest nuisances with which the country was afflicted, and yet the hon. and learned Solicitor General came forward to eulogise the Bankrupt Court. The evil mentioned by the hon. member for Clare was not confined to Ireland, for here also Commissioners of Bankrupts practised as pleaders in other Courts. The Attorney General, on a former occasion, said, that law was cheap in England, compared with other countries. What would he say to the fact of the Bankrupt Court having cost 250,000 l. in one year? He thought it was a reflection upon the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the Attorney and the Solicitor General, to allow the gross abuses of that Court to continue. He hoped that the Solicitor General would undertake the reformation of these evils. [The hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head.] Then if he would not fulfil that which was his duty, by proposing those alterations in the law which were necessary for the protection of the public, the sooner he gave up his situation the better. The Solicitor General stated, that the Commissioners of Bankrupts had grave questions of law to decide, leaving it to be inferred, that they ought to be men of talent, intelligence, and experience. But the fact was, that gentlemen were appointed Commissioners of Bankrupts, not because they possessed these qualifications, but because they were destitute of them, and could get nothing to do in their profession. How then could the law officers of the Crown have the assurance to make such statements? The hon. and learned Gentleman would pardon him, but he really felt indignant when he heard it asserted, that the commissioners were necessarily men of great talents. At the same time he should be guilty of great injustice, if he did not admit, that many of the commissioners were men of abilities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, had pronounced no eulogy upon the Bankrupt Commissioners, but merely said that the duties of that Court, and of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, were so dissimilar, that they could not be performed by one set of commissioners.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, that whatever accusation might be made against him by the hon. Gentleman, he doubted whether any of the responsibility attached to his office: he had no more control over the Commissioners of Bankrupts than the hon. Gentleman himself. He did not intend to retract anything he had said; he never meant to eulogise that Court: all that he had done was, to show that one set of commissioners could not perform the duties of both Courts.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, he did not object to the individuals who were the Commissioners of Bankrupts, but he objected to the office, and the number of those commissioners. There were seventy-two of them, some of whom were both commissioners and advocates, and the most skilful of them were frequently employed to protect, before other commissioners, the greatest scoundrels. He had known an instance in which one of these commissioners gave an opinion, that an individual was subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and that very commissioner afterwards argued, before other commissioners, that the individual was not subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and defeated him (Alderman Waithman), by which he lost 1,000 l. This had given him a distaste for the Bankrupt Laws, and he had never since applied to them. The Insolvent Debtors' code was intended to relieve our prisons, which were overloaded with prisoners, and though it was not as bad as our Bankrupt Laws, it needed amendment. It was not to be expected that he or any other individual should bring forward any measures of improvement, for unless they were proposed by the officers of the Crown they never succeeded. It was the business, therefore, of the law officers to effect a reform. He expected that from them. In particular he wished to get rid of the army of commissioners. The whole system was bad, and he was sure that no persons who could help it would ever have recourse either to making his debtor a bankrupt, or forcing him to take the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. He would lose both his money and his time. He felt so indignant at these laws, that he could not do otherwise than protest, in the name of the commercial community, against them.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he knew no difference between an insolvent and a bankrupt, except that which the law made. They were both persons who could not pay

727
their creditors; but while the bankrupt, after receiving his certificate, could again possess property, the insolvent was liable to be called on to pay his debts in full. The Attorney General, in a bill then before the House, had introduced a clause which he thought likely to be beneficial. In introducing it, indeed, he had spoken of the preparation of going to prison; though what beneficial effect that preparation, whether legal or moral, was to have, it was out of his power to say; but the Attorney General proposed, that after going to prison as a preparation, a debtor who could pay 10 s. in the pound, and could satisfy his creditors as to his honesty, should be immediately liberated, and be freed from all further demands. This would be a great improvement in the law, and acceptable to the whole trading community; for men were generally very ready to compound for their bad debts at the rate of 10 s. in the pound; and, in fact, were very glad to get so much.
Mr. Brightsaid, that the whole question of the Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors' Laws was far too important to be discussed on that occasion. He did not know a subject in which the whole community was more interested than these laws, the whole of which needed revision. Let any of the Members go to Guildhall, and there they would see three or four commissions working at the same time; three or four barristers examining as many witnesses, a great number of attornies consulting a number of clients, and altogether such a scene of confusion as never was seen in any other court of justice. It was not a question of a single debtor, or a single creditor, but a question that involved the welfare of the whole mercantile community. The interference of the Government to provide a remedy for this state of the law was necessary. At present no man who could avoid it went before the Commissioners of Bankrupts—he took what he could get from his debtor; but when he did go, he never left the Court without being affronted and ashamed at the abominable conduct of the commissioners. The Insolvent Debtors' Acts were worse, if that were possible, than the Bankrupt Laws. The dividend of the debtors liberated under them was, he believed, nothing. The attorneys and clerks of the Court were well paid, and they throve on the general distress, but the clients got nothing. Those persons
728
who defrauded their creditors were sometimes imprisoned for a short period; but in general they were immediately set at liberty. Under such a system there was no encouragement for honesty, but much for roguery. There never was a system better calculated to corrupt a community than our system of Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors' Laws. He did not mean to propose any improvement in those laws; but he must say, that the system must be improved, for it was unbearable. It was complained of from one end of the kingdom to the other, and in particular the practice of allowing the commissioners to practise as advocates was complained of every where, and by every body. The very rules these gentlemen laid down as judges they afterwards employed their talents to subvert: they employed their ingenuity to oppose their own decisions. As advocates, they were bound to urge all the reasons they could collect, in order to overthrow what they had themselves, as commissioners, laid down as law. Such a system could not be tolerated, and the House and the Government were bound to devise a better.
Mr. Monckwas of opinion, that the Judges of the Bankrupt Court ought to be permanent, and ought not to be allowed to practise as barristers.
Vote agreed to.
4,034 l. for the expense of the Alien Office, and contingent expenses, was voted.
The next Vote was for 6,882 l. to defray the charge of Superannuation Allowances and Pensions of Public Officers, under the 50th Geo. 3rd c. 117, and the 3rd Geo. 4th c. 113.
Mr. Lennardcomplained that the Acts regulating the Superannuation Allowances were very unjust in their operation. They gave a large portion of their income, as a superannuation, to those who had large incomes, and only a small portion to those who had small incomes. He considered that the Acts ought to be amended.
Sir John Newportexpressed his concurrence in these views. The regulation pressed hard on those who had small in-comes, and was liberal to those who were amply provided.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he would not enter into the subject, as a committee had been appointed to inquire into it. There was, however, a point connected with that committee, to which he wished to advert. It had been some time appointed, at the

729
suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, but had never yet met. He had been for a long time a Member of that House, but he was not aware how he ought to act on such an occasion; or, as he was a member of that committee, he should have brought the subject under the notice of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the delay in the meeting of the committee was attributable to the circumstance of most of the Gentlemen on it being actively engaged on other committees. As soon as he could get an adequate number of members together, he should be most happy to meet them, and submit the views of his Majesty's Government on the subject to the committee.
In reply to an observation made by Mr. Gordon,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, measures had been taken to prevent all persons appointed to public situations, subsequent to last July, from having any claim on the public for Superannuation Allowances.
Mr. Maberlycalled the attention of the Committee to the provision included in this vote for retired stamp-masters, and other officers of the Linen Boards of Scotland and Ireland. The Boards were so useless, that the Linen Board of Scotland did not know what to do with the money confided to its care for the encouragement of the linen manufacture; and it had actually been obliged to advertise, in order to find means how to employ it. He thought, therefore, that it was high time to put an end to these Boards, and all their dependents and charges for superannuations.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, that the Superannuation Allowances of all kinds had been so amply discussed last year, and a committee had been appointed to investigate them this Session, that he could not think that it was necessary to defend the vote he proposed.
Mr. Maberlythought it strange that the House should continue to vote a sum for the encouragement of arts and manufactures in Scotland, and that, in the absence of any object to which it could be applied, the trustees should write begging letters, soliciting suggestions for the employment of the money. He thought the proper course would be, to recal the grant, now that it was found to be unnecessary.
Mr. H. Drummondobserved, that the grant was made originally to encourage the growth of flax in Scotland, but that it
730
ought now to be applied to other purposes, more congenial with the improvement of the age, for the benefit of Scotland. He doubted whether the funds in the hands of the trustees of the Board could be touched, as they were vested in them by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Humeobserved, that the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman was inadmissible. The money voted for a specific purpose was public money, and necessarily reverted to the public when it was not applied to the purpose for which it was given. Connected with this question he wished to ask, whether the office of Secretary, with a salary of 600 l. a year, vacated by death, was discontinued?
The Lord Advocatemaintained, that the fund was applicable to Scotland alone. It had been voted for the improvement of that country at the time of the Union, as an equivalent for the introduction of the Excise and Customs of England. With respect to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, he was able to state, that another Secretary had been appointed, but he was to do the duty without a salary.
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise, that the noble and learned Lord should have appealed for a sanction of the grant. He would ask the noble and learned Lord, whether the Union called upon Parliament to expend so much money as had been expended upon Scotch roads and Scotch bridges—whether it called upon them to lay out a million of money upon the Caledonian Canal? He should be very willing to strike a balance with the noble and learned Lord.
Mr. Maberlywas of opinion, that the Trustees had no right to appropriate the money, and said, that the manner in which superannuations were allowed, and in which the Secretary had been appointed, were as gross jobs as ever were known.
Mr. Humecondemned the principle of superannuations altogether; and as an instance of the abuse to which it was liable, quoted the case of a young man named Anstey, 27 years of age, who, on the abolition of an office, the salary of which was 120 l. a year, received 40 l. a year superannuation. Besides, it had been determined in 1822, that those who were superannuated should be recalled, if any occasion required the appointment of new officers. But, in defiance of this understanding, not one had been recalled, though many new appointments had taken

731
place. The system of superannuation ought to be put an end to altogether, for experience had fully shown that it could not be modified.
Vote agreed to.
13,647 l. 10 s. to defray the Pensions to Corsican Emigrants and Dutch Naval Officers was voted.
2,500 l. for the National Vaccine Establishment was also voted.
3,000 l. for the Refuge for the Destitute was proposed.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanopposed this grant, upon the ground that the charity was misconducted.
Mr. Alderman Atkinsdefended the charity.
Lord Howickreminded Ministers of the pledge given to his hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), and suggested that the vote should be withdrawn for the present.
Vote withdrawn.

EMOLUMENTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.
Sir James Graham Sir James Graham, then rose and spoke as follows:—Sir, I assure you that I very much regret that his Majesty's Ministers should think it inconsistent with their duty to grant the Returns for which I am about to move. I must confess that I am both sorry and surprised at their resolution. I am sorry, because it will entail on me the necessity of exercising your patience for some time; and I am surprised, for I am at a loss to know upon what grounds they can intend to resist my Motion. I feel myself so strong in principle, that I think I may safely rest my case on general principles alone, without resorting to any other ground. The general principle is, that the Representatives of the people, the guardians of the public purse, are, as of right, to call for statements of what sums of public money have been received by any particular individual, or number of individuals, or class of individuals, and it is for the Ministers to show some special reason for the exception to the general rule. If I am right as to the general rule, it is incumbent upon Ministers to produce the Returns, and in the shape in which I now ask for them, as similar Returns have been asked for before, and have been granted. I asked in 1821 for a return of the places held by Members of either House of Parliament under the Grown, stating the income, salaries, and emoluments enjoyed by each officer, and specifying whether they were held for life,
732
or liable to removal on the demise of the Crown—and that return was granted. There was another Return for the number of pensions and sinecures enjoyed for offices chiefly executed by deputy, which was also made. The House will observe, that in these Returns it is especially stated, what Members of either House are in the receipt of any income, salary, or emolument under the Crown. It therefore rests with the right hon. Gentleman to show the distinction and difference between the two classes—between the Members of either House of Parliament, and the members of the Privy Council. 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 makes 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 observed respecting the Privy Council than has been evinced towards this House. It cannot be contended that the Privy Council is not a body recognized by the Statutes, and known to the House? Were it necessary, I could cite many authorities in proof of the fact, but I shall content myself with referring to three. I find that by the Statute of Henry 7th, it is made death, without benefit of clergy, to attempt or compass the life of a Privy Councillor. Secondly, there was another Statute, the 12th and 13th William 3rd which commands that no man born out of the kingdom, except of English parents, shall be a member of the Privy Council. The last is germain to the matter introduced by the hon. member for Aberdeen the other night—it is an Act of Anne, and provides that the Privy Council shall continue for six months after the demise of the Crown, unless sooner determined by the successor. The Privy Council, therefore, is a body known to the law, and it is known to this House; for I think I have frequently heard it stated by you, Sir, from that Chair, that an Address to his Majesty should be presented by members of the Privy Council. If, then, I am

733
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 by the Constitution, the onus of the proof why, in this instance, there should be any exception to the general rule, lies on the right hon. Gentleman. 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 permission of the House, I will read the motion of the hon. 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 Military 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, for the year 1829]. Now, Sir, this is the Return moved for by the hon. member for Lincoln; and I think I shall be able to show the right hon. Gentleman himself—and I am sure he will have the candour to acknowledge it—that this return would not answer my purpose. The Return, be it observed, is for those persons 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. 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. This, then, Sir, I submit, the right hon. Gentleman must admit is a reason perfectly conclusive in favour of my persevering in the course I deem it proper to pursue. Sir, in now bringing forward this question, I may be exposed to something like taunts when I allude to the document on which I propose to ground it. It is one which I have endeavoured, at the expense of much time and labour, to form with all possible accuracy from returns laid before this House; but as they are scattered over an immense space, and appear in the inter-
734
vals of a long period, I may not always have succeeded in avoiding errors. Besides, for some offices and places there are no returns at all. In these cases, however, I have obtained the best information that could be procured except a Parliamentary Return. But before proceeding further, I think it well to stale, that it is not my wish to say anything that may appear unkind or invidious towards any Gentleman. My Motion is of a peculiarly delicate and painful nature; and notwithstanding the allusions of the right hon. Gentleman on a former occasion, I hope I shall forget nothing that is due to the feelings of individuals. The course I shall pursue will be to analyse this document. 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 votes of this House, and by Act of Parliament; there is nothing mysterious about them; they have frequently been considered and discussed in the Commons House. There are then, as far as I can ascertain, 169 Privy Councillors, exclusive of the members of the Royal Family; of these 113 are in the receipt of pay, pensions, or allowances, to the annual amount of 650,164 l. The average amount distributed to each individual will be about 5,753 l. Of these emoluments, 86,103 l. is paid for sinecures; 442,000 l. for active service; and 121,650 l. for pensions. Of these 113 Privy Councillors, thirty are pluralists—that is to say, they either enjoy sinecures in conjunction with some post of active service, or they at the same time fill civil and military situations. The total amount annually received by them is 221,130 l. The average amount distributed to each is 7,371 l. The number of Privy Councillors receiving diplomatic pay is twenty-nine. The gross amount received by them annually is 126,176 l. The average amount distributed to each is 4,347 l. Of the 113 Privy Councillors, sixty-nine are Members of either House of Parliament. Of these sixty-nine, forty-seven are Peers, and they receive 378,840 l.; or on an average each receives 8,069 l. Twenty-two Members of the House of Commons are also members of the Privy Council, and they receive 90,849 l.; or the amount distributed to each is about 4,130 l. The House will remember that of the 113 Privy Councillors who are in the receipt of the public money, sixty-nine are Members of either

735
House of Parliament; and I can state that twenty-nine others hold offices, or receive money, who did hold seats in the House of Commons when the office or the emolument was obtained. The number of Members of the House of Commons who are also Privy Councillors is thirty-one; of those, twenty-two are in the receipt of the public money. Now, I have given to the House a complete and entire statement, to the best of my ability and belief, of the question respecting these offices and emoluments as it fairly stands. I cannot positively take upon me to assert that there are no mistakes—a few errors may have unavoidably crept in; but I am quite sure the statement 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. Grant me my Motion. I call upon the Ministers to join issue with me, so that the people of England may be satisfied. And now, Sir, I think it my 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 myself moved. It is a Return of the number of persons employed in the Public Offices in the year 1797, and also in the years 1805, 1810, 1815; also specifying the number of persons employed in 1827, and the reduction made since 1819. Now here I may observe, that it is a singular fact, while comparing the number of persons employed in 1797 and 1829, that the price of Wheat, which, after all, is the true standard, was, at both periods, nearly the same. There was only a couple of shillings difference. Now, comparing the amount of money paid to persons employed in the public offices in 1797 and in 1827—in 1797, the amount paid was 1,374,000 l., there being then 16,207 persons employed; in 1827, it was 2,788,000 l., the number of persons employed being 22,912. This is a comparison between the two years, as made upon a former evening. The average amount, paid to each person in 1797 was 84 l., in 1827 it was 121 l., making a difference of nearly thirty 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 in 1810 Wheat was 105 s. a quarter, at present it is 56 s. Now, a point that has been argued is, that fees were paid to cer-
736
tain 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 published 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 work I look upon as one of the highest value, and always consult as my manual upon questions like the present. But even from this statement, the saving effected appears to be a matter altogether insignificant. The whole amount of fees abolished was 160,000 l.; and now, taking into consideration that Wheat is now 56 s. the quarter, and was then about 105 s. a quarter, let us see what is the difference between the years 1810 and 1827, considering the number of persons employed, 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 l. In 1827 there were 22,912 persons employed, and the amount paid to them was 2,788,000 l. Thus it appears, there were only twenty-one persons fewer employed in 1827 than 1810; while the difference in the expense was less than 100,000 l. In what state, then, are we, unfortunate country gentlemen, placed? The price of Wheat, as I have stated, differs nearly by one-half; thus we are called upon to receive half prices, and to pay double annuities; while the persons employed receive double annuities, and pay but half the price. This presses heavily, not only on the gentry who have large estates, but on the whole community, and they regard it, as the Commons of England well may, with jealousy, and on it they ought not to hesitate to pronounce a strong opinion. 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 purpose on my part—to state that I for one could never consent to begin reduction with humble and powerless individuals, while those possessing influence, and power, and property were suffered to pass scathless. Sir, I cannot suffer these persons to go scot free. This does not fall in with my notion of justice; and I for one will never cease

737
to urge his Majesty's Ministers to turn their attention to this most important question without loss of time. I might bring forward many illustrations in proof of the facts I have stated. There is, for instance, Mr. Penn, who is superannuated on an allowance of 750 l. per annum, and who, being unfit for active service, has been made agent for Ceylon, with a salary of 1,200 l. a year; this I should call an objectionable proceeding: but why should I stoop to complain of this, when there is my Lord Cathcart, who, with emoluments to the amount of 2,000 l. a year in this country, enjoys the post of Vice-admiral in Scotland, with a salary of 2,013 l., and all his military allowances as a general officer and a colonel of a regiment. I cannot think, Sir, of touching Mr. Penn's salary till I have reduced and regulated Lord Cathcart's emoluments. Again, there is Mr. Browne, enjoying a salary of 1,200 l. for a situation in the civil department of the army, while he at the same time receives half-pay as a commissary. Nothing, it is true, can be more improper, or more opposite to all principle and justice than this; but when I look at 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 exclusively to his own profession—I say, when I look at him, 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. The gallant Admiral, in addition to his salary of 1,000 l. as a Lord of the Admiralty, receives the full pay of a Major-general of Marines, and, if I am not considerably misinformed, he has lately been paid 3,000 l. as arrears of half-pay. And now, if the House will allow me, I will read the form of Oath administered to all Lieutenants in the Navy, and the other subordinate officers, before they can receive their half-pay; here is the Oath:—"I, do swear that I am not in holy orders, and that I had not, between the day of and the day of 18, any place or employment of profit whatsoever under his Majesty, nor in any department of his Majesty's service, nor in the colonies or possessions of his Majesty beyond the seas, nor under any other government." This is the oath the junior officers must take, while their superiors are exempted
738
from any such restriction. Is this just? Is it right that the gallant Vice-admiral opposite, who is in the enjoyment of his civil emoluments, and of his full-pay as a Major-general of Marines, should be exempt from taking an oath of this kind while it was imposed on a poor Lieutenant? I might now mention another case—that of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, who, we were informed the other night, was oppressed with such a redundancy of business, that he had not a single moment to himself, yet he receives 600 l. a year as agent for the Cape of Good Hope. Then there is the First Lord of the Admiralty, who enjoys his salary of 5,000 l. a year, which, be it remarked, was considerably augmented during the war—at the period of high prices—and who, in addition, has a largo sinecure in Scotland of 3,150 l. per annum as Keeper of the Privy Seal. In like manner, I might complain of the Commissioners of Customs and of Excise, who received large augmentations of their salaries in 1801, and in 1816, on the alleged ground, as stated by a Minister in this House, of the diminished value of money and the increased price of provisions, and whose salaries have not been reduced since money has risen in value, and all things have fallen in price; but, Sir, there would be no justice, no principle, no honour in this, while my Lord Melville or my Lord Rosslyn, holding the Privy Seal of England, a sinecurist in Scotland, and the receiver of large military emoluments, can be presented to our notice. I confess that all this might not be sufficient to entitle me 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. 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; and my third is to ascertain, whether retired pensions and allowances of Ministers should not abate when they return to office. These are the three substantial grounds on which I move for my Return; and if it be granted to me, I pledge myself that I will bring these questions fairly before the House. I hope the House will consider them not unworthy its attention; and if it do not, I must declare that this Return is necessary to enable me to bring them fairly forward. The hon. member

739
for Newcastle has introduced a motion respecting Superannuations; it is a question blended with all 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 before; 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 lavished 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 l. was paid for persons in a non-effective state, while 4,371,000 l. was the expense of the effective, or one-ninth of the whole sum was paid to those in a non-effective slate; 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, this regulation is acted on with rigour, as far as it affects 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 appointment of individuals who have served their country in the military 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 he displayed in that committee); and why did not the Government, after all
740
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 the Superannuations to the standard 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 subject. This he did on the 2nd of July, 1828; but as he stated, the opposition was so strenuous—so insurmountable—that he was compelled to yield. The persons who so irresistibly opposed this bill were, the hon. members for Lincoln, for Dovor, for Bristol, my gallant friend the member for South-wark—the hon. member for Inverness, 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. But I beg the House to attend to the very words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who so zealously, and faithfully, and enthusiastically brought forward this measure. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in proposing this bill, said, "I feel that this measure is particularly severe, and I particularly regret the necessity of proposing it." Yet, after this strenuous support, it was stated that it was the fault of the House that this measure was not carried. The House will, I trust, observe to what the expressions of the Report, and the sentiments of this trustworthy committee bore: it was, as I have stated, in returning to the practice of 1822, to reduce all these allowances one-tenth. Yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave up the question, even without a division. Well may we then ask—
"——cur indecores in limine primo
Deficimus? Cur ante tubam tremor occupatartus?"
And, Sir, humble and undistinguished a Member as I am of this House, I will take upon me to declare, that if Ministers will only afford me their support, I will undertake to carry this repudiated Act triumphantly through the House in the course of the next week. But what has the Chancellor of the Exchequer done? He has referred the question to another committee. And to a committee how constituted? 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,

741
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, consequently twenty Members, of which four are Ministers, four Ex-ministers, six county Members, five Representatives 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—I 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 possibly use—in terms, too, most carefully considered by the noble Lord who used them—I will quote them from the last speech delivered in this House by the Marquis of Londonderry. It was upon a motion, in which, in opposing 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 of legislation—these rights and interests would meet them at every turn, and put a stop to every measure, however beneficial or necessary. Why should the public offices be conducted on a plan different from private concerns? 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 that 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"—"If any hon. 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 public offices were vested rights—were a kind of freehold, and could not be tampered with,
742
the idea would be scouted."✶ These, Sir, were some of 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 recollection, and I trust that they will not be forgotten in the vote of to-night. It is the higher classes of offices that are the subject of my Motion; it is they upon whom I propose to take your vote to-night; it is they who are included in the Returns for which I am about to move. I seek to regulate them, and until I see these returns denied 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 them. I have read somewhere, and I fully subscribe to the truth of the observation, that the mark of a wise and prudent Government, and that which distinguishes it from an unwise and imprudent Government, is well to know the time and manner at which no longer to refuse what is demanded of it. Let the Government now show its wisdom and prudence; for if ever there was a time when the people of this country imperatively demanded a searching scrutiny into the public expenditure, it is at this moment. I will put to public proof the question whether the conduct of the Ministers deserves to place them high in public opinion, on the score of the use they make of their patronage? On that subject we have 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 their's to the test. I will propose a measure of substantive retrenchment, economy, and reform. That is the issue which we are to try to-night. On a former occasion I yielded—I 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 5th of January, 1829, and the 5th of January, 1830, by the Members of the Privy Council, the amount paid to each individual,
*Hansard's Parliamentary Debates, New Series, Vol. vii., p. 1848.

743
the cause for which paid, and the source from whence derived."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, if I rose, Sir, to address the House under the feeling that I was about to propose anything to obstruct the inquiry which the hon. Baronet is desirous of instituting; if I rose to interpose any obstacle to a plan of general reduction of expenditure or abolition of sinecures—for the better regulation 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, I might present myself to your notice with feelings of greater diffidence than I do at present. But, Sir, I have not, and the hon. Baronet knows I have not, any such intention. I am prepared to grant him a Return, or more than one return, which would fully satisfy him, and 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 convenient transaction of public business, stated to me the motion 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 salaries paid, and also that there was no member of the Government, whose emoluments he wished to ascertain, the account of which should not be laid distinctly and clearly on the Table of the House. Is there, then, in this, Sir, any evidence of a disposition 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 observation those emoluments, so as to deprive him of the means of applying that priming-knife which he deems these emo-
744
luments to require? Or is there any proof of that interference to prevent the attainment of those objects which he has this night stated in detail? He objected to the Returns, because, he said, they might appear invidious or personal. I do 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 come under 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 delivered in terms such as those he has thought fit to couple with this Motion. 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 him 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 emoluments 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. 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 it was not advisable I thought 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 hon. Member states, as a justification for his Motion, that the House 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 account of offices held by Members of its own body, and calling for an account of offices held by the Councillors of the Crown? The one may be necessary for the protection of the privileges of the House—for the purpose of purging the Members from the imputa-

745
tion of acting under an undue influence of the Crown—for the purpose of protecting the liberties of the people, by knowing how many Members there might be within the House subject to the imputation of abandoning the assertion of the rights of the people in consequence of the emoluments they received from the Crown. In such a case there is an intelligible ground for the interference of Parliament. If the hon. Baronet's Motion had been so framed, there would not have been an objection for one moment to granting it. Is there any man who believes that the appointment by the King, of Privy Councillors, not because they are Members of Parliament, 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 hon. Baronet consider of whom the Privy Council consists. He will then see the difficulty of granting his Motion. He begins his detail by excluding the most illustrious of the members of the Privy Council. He says, that he does not allude to the Members of the Royal 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 Archbishops 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, can these most rev. Prelates be included.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercontinued: 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 their emoluments serve to swell the list which the hon. Baronet has so circumstantially enumerated. In the next place, it includes 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 recollection 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,
746
too, serve to swell the list of giants 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 of this simple question which is in issue between us—he has not contented himself with stating what is necessary for the purpose of this Motion, but he has gone into a much wider field, and has travelled into a history of the conduct of the members of his Majesty's Government, and has commented upon some of the transactions which have recently taken place. He has adverted to the question of the Superannuation List—he has imputed to the members of his Majesty's Government that they 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 hastily; that the opposition 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 2nd 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 say 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 intimated Unit this was a

747
mistake.] It is true he was present 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 know that I did so, because I thought that it would be better that the measure, if introduced again, should be without the slur of having previously had a negative east upon it, made that statement at the time; and if my right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home Department were now in his place he would confirm what I say. When, therefore, I am taxed with indifference 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, settled as to the impossibility of carrying that measure, but I received and acted on the assurance of my friends around me to the same effect. Parliament rejected the proposal to make a reduction from the salaries of public officers for the purposes of that bill, but though Parliament did not then agree to that measure, did I abandon it? Far from it—I said it was one in which it was open to the Government to take certain steps to effect its object; and a Treasury Minute was passed, declaring that any person who should be afterwards appointed to an office should have an annual deduction, to a specified amount, made from his salary, with a view to provide a Superannuation Fund, until Parliament decided what should be done with it. Besides this, I have prepared a bill for the application of these reductions; and this bill is much better than the other, since the public will not be called on to pay one-half of the superannuations; but the understanding has been, that these deductions shall provide for the whole fund. I doubt whether, after this, any man will be disposed to believe, with 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 be, however, disposed to believe the charge of the hon. 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
748
to remedy that which all admit to be a great and increasing evil. The hon. Baronet intimates that the appointment of the committee to inquire into Superannuations was altogether a delusion; he suspects the members of it; but his suspicions are as unfounded as those he entertains with regard to myself. I have put upon that committee men who have given the subject the fullest consideration. There is my right hon. friend the Secretary at War, who has prepared 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 Finance Committee had agreed. And yet, because I put these right hon. Gentlemen on the committee—both men of ability and zeal—I am accused of having tried to practise 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 implies 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 him? 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 Government, were yet those who knew the whole details of the subject, and had no personal feeling to prevent their searching to the bottom of it, I could hardly have chosen persons more fully answering that description than Ex-ministers. I despair of convincing the hon. Baronet, but I throw myself on the knowledge of the House, and entreat it to give the Government a fair trial as to the measure it will introduce, and which, I trust, will effect the object which the committee originally proposed. I 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 capacity for the business of that office with which his Majesty has been pleased to intrust me; but I do feel most

749
anxious that the House should not suppose me incapable of this double-dealing, and which I most solemnly affirm never for one moment entered my mind. 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 more 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 full 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 retains, although he still holds office. I do not believe it was the intention of the Parliament which made the grant, that that grant should not be held together with any office the noble Lord might afterwards hold. There are other individuals who receive emoluments in the shape of sinecures, but they are rewards given for 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.]—If these offices are now held by individuals who fill public situations, it is not by the culpability of the present Ministers, but in consequence of the former mode of remunerating public servants. It was then the practice to reserve sinecures for those who might, not be able to provide for their families by the services they performed, but who were thus enabled to make provision for those who came after them; and if the hon. Baronet looks at the list, he will find the salaries less than 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 subsequently provided as a substitute. If we have since thought an advance in the salaries of Chief Justices and Chancellors necessary, that they may not need these means of providing for their families, I hope that the hon. Baronet will not consider the
750
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 course of my observations, said anything that has given offence to the hon. Baronet, or the House, I shall 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 move an Amendment 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 Salaries received by members of the Privy Council," were introduced, the words "Salaries received by Public Officers," and of these the right hon. Gentleman proposed to limit the Return to Salaries exceeding 2,000 l. He continued—I propose, then, to limit the Return, as the number would otherwise be too great for any useful purpose; but I have left the amount at present, a blank to be filled up as the hon. Member may please. This Amendment will, I think, prove to the House that I do not wish to obstruct the hon. Baronet in his reformation of public abuses.
Lord Miltonaccused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of wishing to defeat the object of the Motion by the Amendment. He maintained that the House of Commons had not only a peculiar right, but an imperative duty, to inquire into the salaries and emoluments of the Privy Council—a body recognised by the Constitution, and responsible to Parliament. 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 individuals, but to procure valuable information with regard to the influence exercised by the Crown over the whole body of the Privy Council. He trusted that the much-boasted economy of the present Government would not be found such as while it stripped the indigent, left the wealthy to wallow in the full amount of their emoluments. He was surprised that the gallant Lord of the Admiralty particularly referred to by the hon. Baronet, had not attempted to refute

751
what had been advanced against him. Until it was refuted, the statement would carry but a bad face to the public. The distress (although somewhat exaggerated) prevailing in some parts of the country, ought to induce the House to examine matters of this kind minutely, for taxation was the great evil under which the country groaned, and which, if not lessened, would be ultimately destructive of the interests and power of the kingdom.
Sir G. Cockburnsaid, 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 obtained the information he seeks by his Motion: as, however, the noble Lord has thought proper to call upon me, and to call upon me in no very delicate terms—in a manner in which I should be extremely sorry to address myself to his 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 is laid upon the Table. I am by no means ashamed of them, because I have endeavoured to earn them by a conscientious discharge of the duties attached 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 1,500 l. a year; the Lay-Lords receive 1,000 l. a year, but the Sea-Lords have 1,000 l. a year and their half-pay as Admirals, amounting to 500 l. 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—to confer upon me also the high rank of Major-general of Marines: there arc 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 situation 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. I am 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, because, as a naval officer, I am sup-
752
posed to be well acquainted with the service and its details. I 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 Secretary of the Treasury, or to the Secretary of the very Board of which I am a member. In the whole, I am free to confess, that I do not receive as much as 2,500 l. a-year. It is well known to the House, and to the country, that men of our profession have not usually large fortunes. God knows I am 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 necessarily exposed, were I to go out of office to-morrow, I should quit the service of my country a loser by its bounty. In addition, I may be allowed, perhaps, to assure the House, that I have made no inconsiderable 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. Putting it in the most invidious way, I may assert, that the 1,000 l. a-year as a Major-general of Marines, has been given me as a reward for past services, valued by others far above their real worth. I will not trouble the House further about myself and my merits. I have explained 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 to be addressed in the temper and the tone assumed by the hon. Baronet and the noble Lord.
Mr. Humeexplained the difference between the Motion of his hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), and the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Motion required a statement of the Emoluments of all the members of the Privy Council: the Amendment went no further than to give a return of the Emoluments of Public Officers. There might be many Privy Councillors who received public money, but were not public officers, and thus only half the information desired would be supplied, and it would not show the extent of the influence of the Crown in the Privy

753
Council. It would, therefore, be perfectly futile in the hon. Baronet to accept the Amendment as a substitute for his Motion.
Sir J. Yorkecomplimented the hon. Baronet on the tone and temper of his speech, which did him the highest honour. 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 receiving emoluments could make out as good a case as his right hon. and gallant friend (Sir G. Cockburn). He could perfectly understand why the House should wish to possess the returns moved for, and it had a right to know that the salaries paid out of the pockets of the people were earned. He agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the Amendment would only give half or two-thirds of what was wanted, and he should therefore sup- port the original Motion. A libel had gone forth generally, that all the taxes levied upon the people were lavished upon the aristocracy, and it would be highly advantageous that the notion should be satisfactorily contradicted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he was perfectly ready to amend his Amendment by expunging the words "public officers" and substituting "all persons."
Mr. E. Davenportapprehended, that the return, 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 upon the Table?.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that an abstract could be speedily made from documents already prepared.
Sir H. Hardingethought it justice to Mr. Browne, a most deserving individual in the department of the War-office, to mention, that he had served the public for five- and-forty years, and that all the emoluments he now received, 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 Althorpobserved, that the importance of the Motion had been raised in his eyes by the promulgated intention of Government to resist it; it looked as if there was something to be concealed.
754
He maintained, in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, that the House had a right to inquire into the names and duties of all who received the public money, whether belonging to the Privy Council or to any other body. The right hon. Gentleman 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 the utmost merit. He well deserved the reward his services obtained; but as a matter of mere fact, he must observe, that he was the first Lord of the Admiralty who had ever received full pay at the same time that he was allowed his official salary.
Mr. Huskissonwould not trespass upon the time of the House for more than a few minutes. He rose to state, that, in his opinion, the information to be gained by the Amendment would not be 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. 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, received in the whole so much of the money of the nation, and that certain members of that body, who were also Members of the House of Commons, received; so much out of the taxes raised from the people. All this might expose the parties to unmerited obloquy, and this obloquy would best be removed by the publication of authentic information on the subject. There could be no obloquy in receiving a just reward for services performed, and it became the character of the Privy Council to avow that there was no mystery, and no necessity for concealment upon the subject. As an individual member of that body he had no objection to any disclosure—he was not ashamed of his emoluments—but without the alteration

755
suggested by the hon. member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume), he should not be included in the list. Let every Privy Councillor show that he had earned the reward he received at the hands of his sovereign, and justify himself like the right hon. and gallant Admiral, and there would not be found a man in the country to raise an objection. Above all things he deprecated the affectation of mystery where none was necessary. As to what had been said of the Committee of Finance, he could 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 Exchequer brought in the bill to which he had alluded, he had not been supported as he had a right to expect. He gave due credit to his Majesty's Ministers for what they had done, and for what they had promised to do, and he looked for the performance of these promises.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained. He had not intended to state that the Motion would have the effect of throwing obloquy in any direction.
Lord Howicksupported the Motion. He stated, that it was the understanding of the House, that the Superannuation bill had been withdrawn for the Session only, but the right hon. Gentleman had not again brought it forward.
Mr. Portmanhoped, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not press the question to a division. It was a general impression amongst the public at large, in which he participated, that many of the highest class of the public officers were much more largely paid than officers of a lower class, whose duties were more laborious. He wished, then, that the Return might be agreed to as a means of removing that error, and he had no doubt that it would be productive of that effect.
Mr. W. Smithwas understood to say, that he would vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet, for he thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman gave all that the hon. Baronet could desire. Thinking that the purposes of the Motion were fully answered, he saw no reason why it need be further pressed. At the same time he thought it due to the hon. Baronet to say, that he was entitled to the thanks of the country.
Sir James Graham, in reply, said, that he heard what had fallen from the last speaker with surprise and regret. That hon. Member had sat in that House thirty years, had been the companion of Fox and of the old Whigs, and it was with sorrow and disappointment that he viewed that hon. Member departing from the general tenour of his past life. On a great question of that nature—a great constitutional question, wherein the House of Commons called upon a certain class of the public servants, with their hands in the public purse, to state their own emoluments—it was, he repeated, cause of sorrow and disappointment to him, that an old Member of the old Whig opposition should turn upon a young Member of the new Whig opposition, who at an humble distance, and with a slow pace was endeavouring to follow and to imitate the great example which those brilliant characters had held out to him. It was lamentable that the hon. member for Norwich should throw the weight of his vote into the scale against such a Motion as that then before the House. What he complained of in the Ministers was, that they gave too much—more than he required. He asked for one thing and they gave him another. He asked for a list of about 175, and they gave him a list of 1,500 or 2,000. He 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 his object was to ascertain what their emoluments were, in such a manner as that they should stand out clearly and distinctly apart from any other class of the public servants. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman included them with many others, and would be useless for the purposes he had in view. Suppose he were trustee of an estate, and that he demanded from the steward or agent of that estate a return of a certain class of the upper servants of the establishment, and that, instead of complying with his requisition, the steward should give him a list of the whole establishment, agricultural labourers, grooms, lacqueys, and all, would not such a proceeding fill the mind of the trustee with suspicion? He had been charged with being factious, but he would tell some of those who made that charge, that he had learned a pretty lesson in that way from certain Ex-ministers, not above three years ago; on that memorable oe-

757
casion, when he might with truth say, that a factious opposition rent the proud heart, and shortened the existence of a Prime Minister, under whom his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General had first accepted office.
General Grosvenorsaid, that the hon. Baronet ought to have been the last man in that House to have brought forward such a motion—a motion of that vexatious and agitating kind. He said, but a very short time since, that between him and his Majesty's Government there was but one question on which a difference could arise, and that, he believed, was the currency.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that at the commencement 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 believed, of the currency; but they had departed from much of what they had led the House to expect, and accordingly, the points of difference between them and him were increased. 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.
The House then divided, when there appeared, for the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 231; For the original Motion 147—Majority 84.

List of the Minority.

Anson, Colonel

Clive, E. B.

Attwood, M.

Colborne, R.

Baring, F.

Coke, T. W.

Beaumont, Thos.

Davenport, E. D.

Bernal, R.

Davies, Colonel

Benett, J.

Dawson, A.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Denison, W. J.

Birch, J.

Dick, Q.

Brougham, H.

Ducane, P.

Bright, H.

Dickinson, W.

Brownlow, C.

Dundas, Sir R.

Byng, G.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Blandford, Lord

Drake, W.

Buck, L. W.

Duncombe, T.

Canning, S.

Ebrington, Lord

Carter, B.

Ellison, C.

Calthorpe, F.

Encombe, Lord

Cavendish, Lord G.

Euston, Lord

Cavendish, W.

Fane, J.

Cavendish, C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Cavendish, H.

Fortescue, Hon. G.

Calvert, C.

Frankland, Robert

Cholmeley, M. J.

French, A.

Clements, Lord

Fyler, T.

758

Gordon, R.

Pryse, P.

Grattan, J.

Portman, E. B.

Grant, R.

Poyntz, W. S.

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Protheroe, E.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Ramsden, J. C.

Guest, J. J.

Rickford, W.

Harvey, D. W.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Handcock, R.

Rice, Spring

Heron, Sir R.

Robinson, Sir G.

Heathcote, R. E.

Robinson, G. R.

Howick, Lord

Robarts, A. W.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Rowley, Sir W.

Honywood, W. P.

Rumbold, C. E.

Hoy, N.

Sadler, M. T.

Howard, H.

Smith, V.

Hutchinson, J. H.

Stanley, E. E.

Hume, J.

Stanley, Lord

Huskisson, hon. W.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Jephson, C. D.

Stuart, Lord J.

Kemp, T. R.

Sykes, D.

Keck, G. A.

Thomson, P.

Kekewich, S. T.

Townshend, Lord C.

Kennedy, T.

Trant, W. H.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Tynte, C. K.

Lambert, J. S.

Tuite, H. M.

Labouchere, H.

Tomes, J.

Latouche, H.

Tufton, Hon. H.

Lawley, F.

Uxbridge, Lord

Langston, J. H.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lennard, T. B.

Vaughan, Sir R.

Lister, B.

Wall, B.

Lloyd, Sir E.

Warburton, H.

Marjoribanks, S.

Waithman, Alderman

Macauley, T. B.

Warrender, Sir G.

Maberly, W.

Wells, J,

Morpeth, Lord

Wetherell, Sir C.

Mostyn, Sir T.

Webb, E.

Monck, J. B.

White, Samuel

Milton, Lord

Whitmore, W.

Marryatt, J.

Wood, Alderman

Macdonald, Sir J.

Wood, J.

Marshall, W.

Wood, C.

Marshall, J.

Wilson, Sir R.

Nugent, Lord

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Ord, W.

Wyvill, M.

O'Connell, D.

Yorke, Sir J.

Parnell, Sir H.

TELLERS.

Pendarvis, E. W.

Althorp, Lord

Palmer, F.

Graham, Sir J. PAIRED OFF.

Palmerston, Lord

Phillimore, J.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Ponsonby, Hon. T.

Slaney, R. A.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Power, R.

Price, Sir R.

MINUTES.
Positions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Chichester, against allowing Boys, under fourteen years of age, to be put Apprenticed to the Trade of Chimney-sweep; and from the Hop-growers of Mayfield, Sussex, against the Hop Duty. By Lord LYTTELTON, from a Society of Surgeons in London, praying the Legislature to pass a measure for facilitating the study of Anatomy. By the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Freeholders and House holders of Randwick, in Gloucestershire, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief, By the. Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Magistrates of the County of Roscommon, against the introduction of the Poor-laws in Ireland. By the Earl of BRADFORD, from Walsall, Staffordshire, in favour of a Free Trade to India and China:—By the Duke of RUTLAND, with a similar prayer, from Leicester and its neighbourhood; from the Licensed Victuallers of Derby, against the proposed alteration of the Licensing System; from the Seamen of Scarborough, praying to be freed from Contributing to the Funds of Greenwich Hospital; and from the Ship-owners of Scarborough, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from Belfast, praying that Foreign Grain in Bond might be permitted to be ground into Flour. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE, from the Mayor and Corporation of Falmouth:—By the Earl of CLARK, from the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland:—By the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from the Directors of the Athlone Bank:—By Vise. LORTON, from the Bankers of Sligo:—And by the Earl of CARBERRY, from the Bankers of Cork. By Lord KING, from the Freeholders of Devonshire, in favour of an alteration of the Tithe Laws. By the Marquis of ANGLESEA, from the Inhabitants of St. Paul's, Dublin, against the Duty on Coals imported into Ireland, and against the additional Duty on British Corn Spirits; also a similar Petition to the last, from Athlone:—And by Lord CALTHORPE, from the Protestant Dissenters of the Baptist Persuasion of Ipswich, against Sunday Labour.
Their Lordships again proceeded to examine Witnesses on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill.