rose to remind the right hon. gent, that a right hon. friend of his, not yet come to his place (Mr. Tierney), had given notice of his intention to divide the House upon the question for the third reading. His right hon. friend was absent, at this hour, only from an understanding that the business would not come on so soon; and therefore he hoped that the short delay, usual under the courtesy of the House, would be allowed on the present occasion.

said, that the other business of the day being now gone through, there was no alternative, from the motion he had made, but the question for adjournment. There was another subject upon which the right hon. gent. not now in his place, would have full as good an opportunity of expressing his sentiments, and taking the sense of the House; namely, the Droits of Admiralty. But he had no objection to withdraw his motion for the present.

said, that his right hon. friend was with him in a Committee up stairs, and was coming down to the House.

did not wish the motion to be withdrawn; nor should he, at this hour of the evening, press any delay of the public business on account of the absence of a member; but in the absence of his right hon. friend, he should certainly divide the House upon the question for the third reading of the bill.

The House then divided on the third reading: For it, 41; Against it, 20.—On the re-admission of strangers into the gallery,

was speaking upon the subject of this bill. He said, that if it was considered that, since the period when, those Droits of Admiralty commenced, the House had added more than 200 millions to the public debt, he thought it was not unreasonable to ask gentlemen seriously to consider whether, out of the large sum of 5,200,000l. which appeared by the papers on the table to have accrued to the crown, it would not be wise and prudent to advise his Majesty to apply a sufficient sum to purchase the annuity for a prince so nearly allied to his family. He admitted, for the present, the strict legal right of his Majesty to the disposal of this fund in what manner he should judge proper; but at the same time, when it was considered that his Majesty had a very large sum applicable to the expences of his privy purse, which it was supposed would be principally applied to acts of royal munificence, and when so large an addition was made to this fund by these Droits of Admiralty, he could hardly have expected that the House would have been called on to relieve, out of the consolidated fund, so near a relative of his Majesty. He begged that the minister would seriously consider whether they would not be placing his Majesty in an ungracious point of view, if they were to advise him to apply no part of this fund to such a purpose; but to throw the whole incumbrance upon the country, which is at present so excessively burthened.

was astonished that the hon. gent. should still continue to repeat the sum of 5,200,000l. as the amount of the Droits of Admiralty, as appeared by the paper, notwithstanding all that had been already stated in the House upon that subject. He should have recollected, that of this sum two thirds were applied, in the first instance, to remunerate the captors, and that therefore but one third of the sum, or 1,735,000l. could come to his Majesty. Of this sum, also, it had been stated that his Majesty, two or three years ago, gave a million to the public service; and he himself had stated more than once, that in the course of the last year between 3 and 400.000l. more were given to the captors, for the value of the prizes taken at Copenhagen, which must otherwise be paid for by the country. It therefore appeared, and that from the documents then before the House, this sum of 5,200,000l. had been reduced as low as 300,000l. The hon. gent. had only professed to argue from the papers on the table; and upon that paper, he therefore met him, without pretending to give an accurate account of the amount of this fund. He could not be called upon without any notice to state accurately what part of this fund was now undisposed of. There were some other grants made out of this fund, in the time of Mr. Pitt's administration, but which he did not think it then necessary to state.

did not believe that it was by any means a general practice for the crown to give two-thirds of those Droits as a remuneration to the captors. In the case of the capture of the Spanish frigates, he had good reason to believe that no such proportion had been given. It had been, however, uniformly and expressly, stated, that in such cases it was mere matter of grace and royal favour whether any thing should be given to the captors or not. It was in this point of view that it had appeared to him so enormous, that the crown should get hold of eight millions of money, without rendering any account whatever of its disbursement to the public.

could not pretend to say which of the two hon. gentlemen was right. He had voted, however, against the bill, upon the idea that in the Droits of Admiralty there were sufficient funds to provide the proposed pension, without imposing any fresh burthens on the country, by charging it upon the surplus of the consolidated fund. If, however, there was not a sufficient, and by the gestures of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would rather understand that there was not a sufficient fund remaining of the Droits, his objections would, of course, be done away.

said, that he by no means meant, either by his words or gestures, to signify that this fund could not afford 70,000l. which he believed would be about the value of the purchase of such annuity. It was, however, impossible for him to avoid shewing some surprise, when, instead of 70.000l. five millions was the sum which had first been spoken of.

said, that the question now was, whether the House should stop the progress of the bill till the account of Droits of Admiralty could be examined and discussed; or pass the bill now, and discuss afterwards whether the annuity might not be charged upon this fund? After the confession that there were 70,000l. in the hands of the registrar, the point, as far as the reason of the thing went, was decided. He agreed as to the monstrous nature of the circumstance, that the crown should have the disposal within a few years of eight millions of money, independent of Parliament. There had been formerly a question, whether the crown could accept of a voluntary loan, &c. but the absolute command without the controul of Parliament of this sum was monstrous. All this had arisen from the change of things in this country, to which we had not been always careful to accommodate our institutions. While the King paid his army and navy out of his own possessions, it was fair that he should have the disposal of whatever was captured. But when the country paid 19 millions for a navy, and about as much for an army, was it equitable that the crown should have the proceeds of captures without the obligation of account? Another objection to it was, that it was a bounty upon injustice. The nation would be ashamed of improper captures from foes or friends; but a minister of the day might not scruple to procure large sums in this way. He adverted to the capture of the Spanish frigates, the greatest blot upon the administration of a right hon. gent. now no more. Such temptations ought not to be left upon any ministers. He hoped the Droits of Admiralty, would, at no distant period, be regulated by an act of Parliament, but, in the mean time, it was their duty to ascertain whether the present annuity might not be supplied from them, before they agreed further to load the consolidated fund.

observed, that whenever the ministry came down to the House to propose a provision for any part of his Majesty's family, that House always acted with the greatest liberality. It appeared to him, however, an extraordinary contrast to this liberality, that when the House was anxious for the passing a bill to lighten in some degree the public burthens, by the suppression or regulation of useless sinecures and improvident reversions, this bill should always meet the most vexatious and pertinacious opposition from a quarter whence no such opposition ought to be expected.

regretted much the absence of his right hon. friend (Mr. Tierney) who had been detained so long in a Com- mittee above stairs, as to be prevented from being able to attend in time to give his opinion on this subject. He would, however, wish to propose to the right hon. gent. to postpone the further progress of this bill for a few days, in order in the intermediate time to ascertain what the state of the fund arising from Droits of Admiralty actually was at present. Nobody objected to the annuity, and if it should be found necessary to have recourse to the consolidated fund, the last resource of the country, he for one should not object to its being charged upon that fund. But he would put it a little ad verecundium to the ministers, whether, even out of regard to the crown itself, they would not agree to the proposed delay. The right hon. gent. said, he did not refuse the production of the account required; but then he refused to grant it in time to consider, whether part of the fund might not be applied to the purposes of this bill. The House had heard of a sum of a million, granted out of this fund by his Majesty for the public service, and it was to be presumed from this paternal attention to the interests of his people, that he would not refuse any sums, that could be spared, for their relief, if he were properly advised. They had also heard that his Majesty had, in his munificence granted several large sums to some of his royal progeny; satisfied, no doubt, that the exigencies of their circumstances required such aids, and that if there had not been this fund in existence, his Majesty must have called for aid from his Parliament. It would be in the recollection of gentlemen, too, that out of this fund a sum of 25,000l. had been granted to sir Home Popham; and he also heard that money was granted for defraying the expences of the return of a governor-general from a distant settlement. By a particular act of Parliament, his Majesty was empowered to dispose by will of his private property. At the time that this act was passed, it certainly was not in the contemplation of the legislature that such a sum as eight millions could by possibility thus get into the possession and remain at the disposal of the crown. If this fund was not exhausted, he did not know any stronger claim that could be made upon it, than to make good this annuity. He would ask, then, whether it was wise, whether it was candid or affectionate towards his Majesty, to advise him to overlook this fund, and for this purpose apply to his subjects at once at a moment when the chancellor of the exchequer, by the measure which he proposed last night, confessed the difficulty of finding new sources of taxation, and when some (Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Rose) who had been in his confidence, whose knowledge of the subject was unquestionable, and who of late had laid the foundation of a strong claim to the confidence and approbation of the country, had urged the strong and indispensable necessity of retrenchment? When the right hon. gent. had resorted to the surplus of the consolidated fund, to furnish the ways and means of the year, a measure, which to say the least of it, he thought erroneous; was it shewing a proper regard to the dignity of the crown; was it dutiful or respectful to his Majesty, to advise him to come upon his subjects for this 7,000l. a year, when he himself had a fund out of which to pay it? He hoped that what his hon. friend (Mr. Lambe) had said, would sink deep into the hearts of the members of that House. All that was wanted, was, a delay till the state of the Admiralty fund could be ascertained, and with that view he moved. That the debate be adjourned till this day se'nnight.

said, that it was quite clear, and as far as he could perceive agreed on all hands, that the pension could not be charged upon those droits, but would most properly in the first instance be charged on the consolidated fund. He should repeat what he had said before more than once, that if the House, upon further examination into the nature and amount of this fund, should think proper to address his Majesty to grant 70.000l. or a much larger sum to be transferred to the consolidated fund for the public service, it would be just as easy for them to do it after this question was disposed of; and it appeared to him, that such an address would go with a better grace at a future time, as it would not appear so directly like asking his Majesty to pay an equivalent for a grant which was supposed to proceed from the liberality of parliament.

The House then divided on Mr. Whitbread's Amendment, Ayes 37; Noes 65; Majority 28.

shortly after came into the House, and apologized for being absent after having given notice that it was his intention to oppose the bill. The fact was, that he was detained to a late hour in a committee up stairs, (the bullion committee), and that he imagined that another question (the finance resolutions), which was likely to take up some time, would come on before it. He gave notice now, that he should, on the first open day, move for a general account of the droits of admiralty; his object was to ascertain whether there was not a sum of 70,000l. disposable; and if there was, he intended to move an address to his Majesty to grant the said sum to the consolidated fund.—He also wished to know from the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intended to bring in the bill for providing for the interest of the loan.

answered, that he would, perhaps, bring it in tomorrow.

then expressed his intention to oppose the principle of the bill upon the second reading; as it appeared to him to be not only wrong, but a violation of faith to the public creditor, to throw this interest upon the consolidated fund.

rose and moved the reading of the second resolution, which being read accordingly, the hon. gent. expressed his intention of moving an amendment. It had been observed by many gentlemen, that sinecure offices ought not to be abolished until some other fund should be created, from which his Majesty might be enabled to make that provision for long and efficient public services which those occasions afforded. Now, the object of his proposed amendment would be to couple the abolition of sinecures with the substitution of such a fund—and in doing so, he hoped to render the measure of abolition more acceptable to his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to the committee. Indeed, he thought that the substitution would take away all objections to the abolition, while there could be no doubt of its being more agreeable, not only to the country, but to such meritorious officers as were entitled to reward. For the real fact was, that sinecures had fallen so much into disgrace, perhaps from their misapplication, but certainly from a general suspicion that they were disposed of rather according to the influence of favour than of merit, that a certain degree of disrepute attached to those who accepted them—that in truth a brand or mark was fixed upon them. Therefore, those offices instead of conferring honour, the people so much revolted against them, actually attached a stigma. To take away that stigma, then from the fair objects of public bounty, it was necessary that a fund should be created in lieu of those sinecures, and also to remove the anomaly which belonged to the very principle of having officers in the receipt of salaries without any duties annexed to them. After panegyrizing the system upon which our revenue was collected, which he contended was much cheaper than that of any other nation in Europe, the hon. gent. proceeded to press upon the attention of the committee the propriety of establishing every practicable degree of economy. It was with that view he particularly recommended the adoption of the resolution. He would not be understood to expect that by any measure of this nature the clamour of certain persons could be satisfied. Those persons were not in fact to be satisfied by any thing which that House could or ought to concede. This he was extremely sorry to see. But it never could be argued that, because certain factious persons put forward extravagant demands, that House should not do what was reasonable—that parliament should not accede to whatever was fit and proper for the public welfare. These clamours had their flux and reflux, but it was notorious that they had no influence upon the proposition under discussion, which, in fact, so far as regarded the abolition of sinecures, had its origin before such clamours were heard. He trusted, therefore, that whatever might be the conduct of the factious, the Committee would never lose sight of the propriety of consulting the wishes and cultivating the good disposition of the sound and rational part of the community, who would, he had no doubt, be materially conciliated by the adoption of a measure so long and so unanimously called for—that of the abolition of sinecure offices. It would be preposterous to oppose to such a desirable measure any idea of reverence for old establishments, for it was impossible that these sinecure offices could have been originally established without any duties attached to them. The committee would in fact only repair the injuries of time by abolishing such offices. He therefore hoped for a general acquiescence in his motion, which was grounded upon the principle of mode rate reform, and which, while it did away obnoxious offices, would establish a fund in their room, calculated to answer every object which those who pleaded for the existence of such offices professed to have in view. The honourable member concluded with proposing the amendment he had described.

said, he should have been desirous to have abolished entirely all sinecure places; but as he was anxious to gain something, rather than lose all, he would accede to the amendment proposed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bankes.) The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that the House should not interfere without being able to do something effectual. He allowed the position, because he thought it was high time they should do something effectual; for the House had been upwards of thirty years promising the people a relief or alleviation from these burdens, and yet, let who would bring forward the subject, nothing had been done in it. He thought the hon. gentleman had founded his resolutions on those of Lord North in 1782; and though he differed in opinion as to the effect, yet he was willing to support the hon. gent's. resolutions, because, as he before said, he would be willing to obtain a little rather than to do nothing. He had however, a very great objection to the system of rewarding public services, by sinecure places, because the crown was not conscious of what it gave; and to prevent the servants of the public from being too profusely rewarded, it would be more satisfactory to the parties requiring reward for public services, to have the reward defined, than to have it conferred in the way in which it was now done. And as the national debt had increased in a degree beyond all imagination, it was the duty of the House to lessen these burthens as much as possible. There was one circumstance which struck him most forcibly, which was, that where a person of large hereditary fortune had done meritorious services, he ought not surely to expect the same degree of remuneration as a person who had dedicated his whole life without any fortune of his own to support him, save only his own exertions and superior talents. Under these circumstances, being desirous to obtain the best relief he was able, he should support the resolution of the hon. gentleman.

, in allusion to the opinion of Mr. Burke with respect to the abolition of places of this description, stated that it was not the opinion of that gentleman that all sinecure offices should be abolished. The hon. gent. who proposed the amendment had not stated any substitution for the places abolished, nor had he indeed informed the House at what time the abolition was to take place. He had seemed to consider that in the distribution of the offices there were great abuses, and that the crown had influence sufficient. But when the House should consider the difference in the value of money now and at the time when his Majesty came to the throne they would find the influence of the crown had derived very little accession from the disposal of the sinecures. It did not appear that the hon. gent. had furnished a sufficient argument for the abolition, because though persons might have done little service to the state, still they deserved reward. He entirely differed from him in the idea that civil servants should not be rewarded with sinecure offices, on the contrary he conceived that none but civil servants ought to be rewarded in that manner. For instance would it be correct to have rewarded such a man as lord Nelson with the place of auditor of the exchequer?

would support the amendment, although his opinion was rather in favour of the original resolutions. He asserted that the influence of the crown had increased insomuch that in order to preserve the balance of the constitution it was desirable that that influence should be reduced. Therefore the total abolition of sinecures would more readily meet his approbation. As a means of rewarding meritorious services, which was the alledged plea for the existence of these sinecures, he thought them peculiarly unsuitable, and for two reasons; first, because, when the meritorious service should recur which called for reward, it was improbable that a sinecure office would be vacant; and, secondly, because, it was improbable that such office would be a fit reward for such service.

said, that all the House was at present bound to do was, to consider the advantages resulting from both plans, and to do something that would make matters better than they are at this moment. Notwithstanding what had just been said by the right hon. gent. who spoke last but one, he could not conceive the reason why naval and military services should not be rewarded from sine cure offices. It would certainly be an alleviation of the public burdens; and the only advantageous ground that ministers bad to stand on was, that it was a custom which had long prevailed that they should altogether be applied to civil services. He thought it most extraordinary, that after giving a sinecure office of 2,700l. a year to a right hon. gent. (Mr. Yorke) that same person should, in a very short time afterwards, be appointed to one of the first offices under the government, viz. that of first lord of the admiralty. If the right hon. gent. had been rewarded with a pension, he thought it would have been otherwise. It had been said on this subject, that these sinecures were originally intended, not only as rewards for services performed, but as marks of the sovereign's favour. He would, however, be bound to say, that from the Norman conquest to the present moment, there was no one reign in which this sort of favouritism, whenever exerted, was not unfortunate. What, he asked, had become of the 60.000l. a year granted for the privy purse of his Majesty, which was intended to be for the very purpose of enabling his Majesty to confer marks of his favour in rewarding public services; yet on every occasion which had since occurred, where public services were to be rewarded, this 60,000l. a year, instead of being applied to that purpose, had been expended, no one knew how; and in the reward of public cervices ministers had uniformly applied to parliament for grants from the civil list. When the crown granted the office of registrar of the admiralty to the right hon. gent.'s (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) father, it never could have imagined that the fees would amount to the enormous sums it now did, from the circumstance of the navy of England taking prizes from every nation in the world that sent ships to sea; and it was certainly extravagant beyond measure, that such an office should be continued further than the life of the present remaining reversioners.—He contended that the principle on which the present resolution was founded, was not new, but had been acted upon through a long series of years; and, in support of his opinion, quoted several acts of resumption in many reigns. Novelty could not, therefore, be urged against the measure. The necessity for abolishing sinecures, arose from the severe pressure of the public burdens. These could only be reduced by lowering the annual expenditure, and not less by the present measure, which would convince the people that, whether great or small, the economy of government was directed to prevent any imprudent waste of money, which, by being restrained would lessen the taxes. It had been said, that all officers attached to the crown, and princes of the blood, should be spared in this reform; but he had no hesitation in saying, that the dignity and honour of the crown would be more effectually consulted in attaching the affections of the people, than by pensioning 12 lords of the bed-chamber at 1,000l. a year, who had votes in the other House, and generally voted one way. Were they without salary, would the splendour of the crown be diminished, or the character of these noble lords lowered in public estimation?

declared it absolutely necessary in consequence of the extended patronage of the crown, and of extended burthens of the people, to follow up the principle of retrenchment in every department of the state. There was a ferment abroad; and the surest way to disarm those actuated by improper hopes was to afford reasonable indulgence to the great body of the people.—The ferment existing had not a stronger source of supply than in the thought, that whilst committees of that House were suggesting many plans of economical reform, as absolutely necessary, the House was in the uniform habit of not only not attending to, but of actually over-ruling their suggestions. He concluded with observing, that even if the House was not inclined to be honest from principle, the time was now come when it should be so from necessity.

said, the retrenchment of sinecures would not lessen in any extent worth notice, the burdens of the people. It was therefore on the principle alone that the matter was worth discussing. He objected to the present resolutions, because they abolished one source of reward, and said they would substitute another, which other they did not define. In opposition to the noble lord and hon. gent. opposite (lord Althorpe and Mr. Smith) he asserted, that the influence of the crown, so far from having increased, had decreased—(Shouts of hear! hear! from the Opposition.) He defended this assertion, on the ground that though the patronage of the crown had increased double since 1782, in consequence of the increased expenditure, yet that it was not in a greater propor tion to the wealth and population of the country, on which it had now to operate. In proof of this, he took the value of land and of trade, and thence deduced, that the wealth of the nation was in proportion of five to one, to what it had been in 1782.

said, the speech of the hon. and learned secretary of the treasury was a repetition of what he understood was said by him over and over again in the Committee-room up stairs. Indeed it was more applicable to any other subject than to the one on which it was introduced; it would suit a discussion upon the assize of bread much better, than a debate on the propriety of this restriction of the grants of the crown. With respect to these sinecures the country had but one opinion: from the system of favouritism pursued and the abuses visible in the way in which they were conferred, scarce a man out of the doors of that House could be found their advocate. They were not suited to the taste of the army, nor to the navy; but in the language of the hon. secretary, they were fitted for the civil department—that was for such efficient public servants as the learned secretary himself.—Mr. Whitbread next adverted to the grant recently made to Mr. Yorke, and contended that the public were not alone disgusted with such grant, but that from such an illustration every sinecure grant became an object of public aversion. Such opinions had been expressed in that House very generally, and he had himself heard the present secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. Pole) and a colonel (Wood) of one of the Middlesex regiments of militia state, that for their public services, whenever it should be thought fit to reward them, they would never condescend to take a sinecure office. Numerous were the evil effects, arising from such grants, and not the less considerable one was that these sinecures prevented the necessary increase of salary to the great efficient offices of the state. What for instance was the argument advanced in the favour of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when it was in contemplation to give him the Chancellorship of the duchy of Lancaster for life? It was then contended that the salary of the first office was not a sufficient remuneration for the discharge of its duties. It was however to be presumed, now that the same right hon. gent. was also first lord of the treasury, that, he would pot condescend to take that of the duchy and to receive the salaries of three offices (It was here whispered to Mr. Whitbread that he did not take the salary of Chancellor of the Exchequer). He begged pardon; he really had only just heard what he was before unacquainted with, that the right hon. gent. had declined, by a minute of the treasury, receiving the emoluments of the Chancellorship of the Exchequer; he had not been before informed of the fact, and therefore it was not to be wondered at that he had made the mistake. The option of such emoluments ought not, however, to be left to any man, and in his opinion, as well for their integral impropriety as for their lately incurred disgrace, sinecures themselves ought to be altogether abolished. To prove the gross misapplication of those sinecures he had only to state that Mr. Yorke had got 2,700l. a year, and lord Wellington only received 2,000l. Thus it was court favourites were rewarded, even above those whom ministers themselves decided to have merit. He wished before he sat down, totally to disapprove of the distinction which the learned gentleman who spoke last, seemed to make between the King and the people; they were one and indivisible, and the King's best interests depended on and sprung from the people.

agreed with the hon. gent. as to one point, that the interests of the King and people were the same. With respect to the propositions brought forward, he considered one of them as wholly useless. The adoption of it would effect nothing in point of economy, and do but little towards the diminution of prerogative. The proposition he alluded to was, that which declared that the remuneration of services by pension, was preferable to that by sinecure offices. He could not adopt his hon. friend's distinction, that pensions were more honourable than sinecures. He was persuaded that such a change would not abate one particle of the clamour that was so industriously excited against the latter. The gentlemen opposite would quarrel with pensions just as they did with sinecures. Did any man believe that this was the way to please and content the people, or appease the clamour, which those who declaim against sinecures, as stigmatising the individuals who accepted of them were too apt to increase? He defended the appointment of Mr. Yorke, than whom a more honourable man did not exist; and contended that this appointment had cast no odium on the system of rewarding services by grants of sinecure places. As for his emoluments, if it would afford the hon. gent. any pleasure, he could inform him that Mr. Yorke had, in consequence of holding the office of teller of the exchequer, relinquished the 2,000l. a year additional granted during the administration, of which Mr. T. Grenville formed a part, to that gentleman, as first lord of the admiralty.—He was not for his own part disposed to agree in the assertion that that House never could be backward in liberally rewarding public services. Why, those were the very services respecting the remuneration of which an impartial decision could never be expected from the House. It was impossible that gentlemen could agree to reward those whom they were in the habit of opposing for a number of years, and whose acts they reprobated or affected to condemn as the cause of whatever calamities might have befallen the country. He protested too against the position laid down by his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes), that an office granted under the great seal might be resumed. The admission of such a principle would shake the foundation of all property. It might as well be said, that the donation lands granted by Henry the 8th to the ancestors of the duke of Bedford might be, cancelled at this day, because they became infinitely more valuable than the original donor intended. There were only two ways in which the proposition could come recommended, with regard to its economical effect, and as it might diminish the prerogative. Of the former the House had no proof whatever before it; as to the latter he was persuaded, the same objections would apply to pensions that were urged against sinecures. Upon these grounds he should feel bound to oppose the Resolution as not likely to give satisfaction in any point of view.

was of opinion, that the resolutions of his hon. friend deserved the support of the House. He thought, if they were carried, they would do away a great deal of public scandal. A sinecure when once granted must be conferred anew when it became vacant, whether there was or was not a deserving person ready to receive it. This was not the case with a pension. As to the influence of the crown, he thought it had increased in a very rapid degree. He was not a person whose sentiments would be suspected; but he would rather consent to be plundered of his property than to give up his liberties. He thought this one of those otherwise indifferent propositions, by which it was possible, by agreeing to it to separate those who felt well-grounded discontent from those who pretended to feel so. The motion, therefore, had his support.

maintained that the fabric of the monarchy could never be supported except the throne was surrounded, not merely by a decent but a gorgeous splendour. He was persuaded the offices, which his hon. friend proposed to abolish could not be touched without vital danger to the constitution. Something however should be done with the Report. The House should either concur in the propositions contained in it, or negative them altogether. His objection to the proposition of his hon. friend, was that he adopted only half of the plan recommended by the Committee. He could not, however, with hold his assent from the principle of the resolution. He believed, that the objection on the score of public odium was much exaggerated; and he was also persuaded, that the power of disposing of sinecure offices never had been abused to the extent which had been asserted: He could not see how it was possible to provide by any legislative measure that the salaries of sinecure offices should merge whenever the person enjoying them should be improved in his circumstances. Such a hint urged as an argument ad verecundiam might be employed, but he did not see, how it could be applied, to establish a right to inquire into a person's private affairs. In cases of returning to public service, it was otherwise. That frequently occurred in the instances of ambassadors to foreign states, and the office of lord chancellor. He agreed with his right hon. friend as to the futility of leaving the remuneration of public services to the House of Commons. It would not be merely unadvisable, but dangerous in the extreme that it should exclusively possess such a power. Such was not the plan of his hon. friend. It appeared to be his intention, that the source of remuneration should still remain in the crown, but that the channel through which it was to flow should be changed: that it should be done by pension instead of sinecure. He was of opinion that the objection respecting limitation of service as a claim to remu- neration might be easily got over. He did not view the proposition as trenching on the prerogative of the crown. He considered himself however, no farther bound by his vote than to entertain the proposition. Whether he might hereafter assent to it wholly, or in part, would depend on the view in which it would be presented to him.

then rose and said, However unwilling I am to trouble the committee at this late hour, on a question too which has so often been debated, and therefore almost precludes the possibility of introducing novelty, I must nevertheless throw myself on the patience and indulgence of the Committee for a very short time. It will be in the recollection of the Committee, that when my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Martin) originally introduced to the House his propositions, arising out of the Third Report of the Committee of Finance, I declared my opinion, in the most decisive and unqualified terms, that as his propositions did not go far enough, inasmuch as they did not go to an absolute and positive abolition of these sinecures, I could not support them; of course, finding that the propositions now before the Committee, brought forward by the hon. gent. on the floor (Mr. Bankes) even fall far short of my learned friend's, it cannot be expected that they will meet my support. They cannot, Sir. I will not be content with any measure that shall fall short of complete abolition; because I feel and know the whole of this expenditure to be a direct waste of the public property; and, so feeling, I shall ill discharge the duty I owe to my constituents in particular, and to the state at large, if I countenance the continuance of an expenditure of this description. No, Sir; it is my duty to press and to insist on the abolition; and it is the just expectation of the public, who have repeatedly and firmly demanded it, by petitions and humble applications for a series of time past, that they should be relieved from these burthens. In the principle of this expectation, I am glad to find that the House are generally agreed; for, except the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, and the hon. gent. (Mr. Wharton) who sits near him, as far as the avowed sentiments of individual members can authorise such a conclusion, there appears to be no objection to the abolition, provided the Committee agree to some kind of substitute which is to be proposed hereafter on the strength of the amendment proposed by the hon. mover, to form a fund for the reward of public services, to be at the disposal of the crown, in lieu of these exceptionable sinecures. But, let the committee consider a little the grounds on which the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer treats this position. He considers it on two grounds first, as to the quantum of saving to the public after a substitute shall have been established; and, secondly, how far it will diminish the influence of the crown. Now, as to the first point, the right hon. gent. makes it a matter of calculation. I am glad of it, because, then, though contrary to his general position, the right hon. gent. subscribes to the propriety of conceding this obnoxious source of expenditure to the people, and removing the odium in which it is justly held. He is, however, pleased to contend, that subject to this operation, when the substitute has been formed, the residue will be so very small, that it could not be an object worthy the experiment. I hope, in these times, every retrenchment, however small, when retrenchment is become necessary, and has been so loudly demanded, will not be lost sight of; as a great number of small savings will soon form a considerable aggregate; and it ought to be immaterial to the public and to the Committee from whence they are derived, provided the aggregate be realized. Now, Sir, let me suppose that aggregate formed, by economical contributions, 3 or 400l. from one place, 2 or 3000 from another, ready for public appropriation. If we cannot have millions thus accumulated, as we ought to have, let us have hundred thousands, or fifty thousands, or even less sums, and then let the House avail themselves of (by rigidly applying) the congratulations of yesterday on the very advantageous terms on which the loan of the year has been contracted for. According to those terms, every 40,000 guineas and a small fraction of this aggregate of our savings, will exonerate the public burthens on the people to the amount of a million sterling. I have no doubt, that the abolition of these sinecures, would produce some millions in this way; and I have no hesitation in saying, the public have a right to demand it, as they have done, and to expect it, in common justice, from the fidelity of their trustees in this House, in relief of their own heavy burthens. These, then, would form no contemptible saving, as it was asserted, even in this operation, though the substitute were formed, to which I will not consent, as that would be a mere conversion, a mere change of terms, deluding and virtually disappointing the public expectation. Now, as to the second point, how far this operation will diminish the influence of the crown. In considering this point, the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer adopts and rests himself entirely on the doctrine and calculations of the hon. gent. near him, and, to use his own words, cordially unites in the sentiments of the hon. gent. as to the very dreadful consequences to be apprehended from this desperate entrenchment on the influence of the crown. One would suppose, Sir, that in approaching this very small sum as a reform, which the chancellor of the exchequer declares to be of no consideration as a relief to the people, and unworthy of public attention, that we were proceeding violently to snatch away the whole supplies of the empire, and to annihilate the very existence of the executive influence. Thus, when the question relates to the people, it is a sum of no consideration but the moment it relates to the crown, it is of vast importance, dangerous in the extreme, and of far more value than all the remaining eighty millions levied from the country financial expenditure, which, in fact, are not worth the acceptance of the crown when stripped of these odd farthings, to which the amount of the sinecures may not be unfairly compared, when they looked at the immense magnitude of the annual expences. But, let the committee go a little further, and examine the general doctrine, as it involves and exposes the reasoning of both these gentlemen. They have insisted that this paltry consideration cannot possibly be spared to the people without imminent danger to the public service, contending, as they do, that the influence of the crown has not encreased, as it ought to have done, since the year 1782, when Mr. Burke's Bill of Reform passed, in proportion to the encreased wealth and population of the country. Now this encrease of the wealth and population of the country, the hon. gent. from a variety of very minute calculations on the price of bread, &c. establishes on what he calls an exact ratio of three to one. But, forsooth, the hon. gent. only takes one side of the acconnt; be carefully withholds and smothers the calculated ratio on which the influence of the crown has increased; this, therefore, I will endeavour to supply for him. Indeed, had he been inclined to furnish it, he need not have travelled far for it, nor have been at any great pains to obtain it; for, if he would only have asked the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose), who sits next him, or have had the goodness to recollect what that right hon. gent. declared only last night on this very point, or even have reflected on the sum of his own annual account for last year, delivered only yesterday, he would readily have found the fair ratio, which he has, conveniently for his argument, omitted. Now, Sir, I will agree to take it in the very words of the right hon. gent. (Mr. Rose,) last night: they were these—"that while he had been in office, he had witnessed the growth of the public expenditure, from ten millions per annum to eighty millions per annum." Here then, the Committee will find the proportions of the encrease of the influence of the crown, in the same periods, which are no less than eight to one; and thus rests the whole position and conclusion, that if the encrease of the wealth and population of the country be as three to one, the increase of the influence of the crown in the same period, has been as eight to one, without taking into any calculation the dormant and unsought influence of honours, titles, offices, stations, government, &c. &c. throughout a vastly extended empire; army, navy, ordnance, &c.; promotions in all the various public departments of the state.—Yet, Sir, with all this encrease, so threatening to public liberty, so dangerous to general liberty, the right hon. gentlemen opposite, are uncommonly alarmed, lest the taking away the odd farthings and fractions from an expenditure, which, by the account now produced, last year exceeded 86,000,000l. the state should be overthrown, the national fabric should be subverted, and not a wreck of the whole empire should be left behind.—But, Sir, I do hope and trust, the public are tired of alarms, and that the Committee will be of a very opposite opinion, and come to a resolution promptly and instantly to abolish the whole of these sinecures. They ought to do so. The deplorable state of the country demands it—the people have demanded; and must, as I shall do, consider any modification in the way of substitute, as a mockery of their expectations and an insult to their feelings. Now, Sir, all this systematic opposition to reform of every kind, seems to be both unnatural and unaccountable to ordinary understanding. It is allowed on all sides, that reform, economy, and retrenchment, are necessary, and some gentlemen on the other side, say, laudable; that the crisis of our financial condition requires, and the safety of the nation renders it indispensable. This is broadly admitted even amongst ourselves; and our constituents, with attention as vigilant, minds as masculine, and judgments as correct as any within these walls, petition for it and demand it at our hands, in the express terms of the abolition of sinecures, unnecessary places, and improper pensions. These objects, though controverted by the treasury bench almost as much as if there were not any applications on the subject, form the very essence and substance of various resolutions at public meetings and of petitions to this House. Where then could the Committee more properly begin with retrenchment, than in the discontinuance of these odious payments, called sinecures, which have long been a disgrace to our establishments; are wholly an abuse of the supplies especially voted for, and exclusively consecrated to the safety, the honour, and dignity of the empire: and the payment of which ought never to have been tolerated. If the House refuse this abolition and reform, so obvious and so very reasonable, look to the consequences; the hopes and expectations of the people must vanish for ever, and give place to despair; it must teach them to believe, that much and plausibly as their representatives and trustees amuse them with the prospect of economy and reform, they mean to deceive them and resist every species of it. I have resolved to exonerate myself by giving the Committee these my sentiments, that it may not be forgotten that I have protested against the consequences, and exerted my endeavours to avert them. But this resistance to the fair expectations of the public, does not, in my opinion, terminate the mischief, which from the sentiments of his Majesty's ministers this night, manifestly threatens to be infinitely more extensive and calamitous; and I draw the most alarming conclusions from their conduct, comparing it with his Majesty's uniform speeches from the throne, to relieve the burthens of the country, and to spare his people; and the more especially, in that benevolent, but most memorable speech from the throne with which the no popery administration commenced its desperate and deplorable career in 1807. In that speech, after emphatically calling the attention of both Houses of Parliament to a system of rigid economy, his Majesty was pleased most graciously to conclude in these unqualified and endearing words, "that his Majesty had no cause but that of his people." Now, Sir, when I recollect these gracious benevolent and famed declarations of his Majesty from the throne, which his ministers are in duty and allegiance bound to act up to and fulfil, as to the tenor of their commission, and the line of their office; and witness nothing on their parts or in their measures and conduct, but a direct, undisguised, and systematic counteraction, of his Majesty's intentions towards his subjects: when I witness a scornful and deaf ear uniformly turned to the necessities of the people urgently claiming relief; combining these facts with the means lately taken by his Majesty's ministers to obstruct and to prevent petitions and humble statements of the grievances felt by his subjects, claiming his royal interposition and protection, being constitutionally presented to the throne; I can only form one obvious conclusion, that his Majesty is kept in ignorance of, and does not know, the calamitous condition to which his ministers have reduced his empire, that he does not know, that his ministers have studiously defeated his royal intentions towards his subjects; and that they have formed an unconstitutional system on which they are acting to keep the sentiments, and prayers, and growing distresses, of his attached people, and the accumulating difficulties of the country, so entirely from his knowledge, as to deprive the nation of all hope of his benign interposition. I repeat, that these various combinations fully authorise the conclusion, that his Majesty is studiously kept in the dark as to our growing distressess, and of the precarious condition to which the stability and tranquillity of the empire is thus reduced. And thus believing, I feel, or I would not express it, that it becomes the imperative duty of this House, from which they ought not to shrink, to ascertain the fact; to remove all unconstitutional obstructions, and to re-establish that dignified constitutional communication between a beloved sovereign and his affectionate people, as shall assure the people, that they still live under and enjoy the paternal protection of his Majesty, and shall restore confidence, to the country—that confidence, which has hitherto excited energy in the people, produced strength to the empire, splendour to the monarchy, and jurisdiction and stability to every one of its very important manifold institutions—that confidence, which, under the various struggles of our ancestors, to place the personal freedom of the subject, and the security of personal property, under the exclusive dominion of the law, formed the British constitution itself!!!

I have only one point more, and I shall make my humble thanks to the Committee for their attention. The point to which I allude, respects the debates which lately occupied the House on the subject of petitions, addresses, and popular proceedings in and out of this House.—(Question, question!) The Committee need not be alarmed, for I shall be very short in what I have to say; and that in explanation of my own conduct in the House; and indeed, I shall shew that it was a portion of their time justly due to me. They will do me the honour to recollect, that during the whole of the late discussions on these popular topics, I have not taken any other part, than contenting myself with uniformly marking and recording my sentiments by the votes which I have given. I have uniformly voted in defence of the popular rights, because, I believe and feel, that they were just and undoubted rights, and that therefore it is my duty to support them. I have been more than once privately asked, by some members uniformly voting on the other side of the House, who had observed this my line of conduct, the reasons for it? I will now endeavour to give the same explanations to the Committee as I gave to those gentlemen; that I thought and felt that the people, as the constituent body, inseparable from ourselves as their deputies; that we belonged to them and they to us; and that if a separation once took place, we must be extinguished, but that they would still exist with the united powers and strength of constituent and representative; that as they had right, and it was their interest and province occasionally, to instruct their deputies, they must have a right to petition, to remonstrate, and fairly to take broad, extensive, and commensurate exceptions to our conduct; and that, in the constitutional exercise of their rights, while they do not exceed, in latitude and strength of expression, the unchecked latitude and strength of expression which we were uniformly in the habit of using amongst ourselves, than which nothing could be stronger, in the unbounded and almost uncontrouled freedom of debate, in what is termed parliamentary language, that their addresses ought not to be deemed exceptionable; that I could not draw that wide distinction of language between the constituent and representative, because the one was within the House, and the other was without the same House, which is the house of legislature, specially and exclusively appropriated to the third estate of the empire, consisting of the whole of the people; and that I had oberved that the petitions and addresses deemed the most exceptionable, were, in fact, not more than repetitions and quotations of proceedings and speeches in the House. On these grounds, I had so voted; but, that perceiving the tide of the House otherwise strongly set in, and followed by many of my hon. friends on this side of it, who had been, some three times, and others four and five times as long a member as myself, I did not think it became me promptly to oppose my reasoning to theirs, on conduct which they alledged they had so long witnessed. But, from the most mature reflection since, I was now fully satisfied, that the House had mistaken its way, and had departed from the ancient constitutional course, by intercepting and obstructing the free exercise of those ancient privileges of the people, from which the very existence of the House itself, and their own privileges and authorities, had been derived, and erected, and which must be held, as sacred by, and as dear to, the country at large, as the privileges and existence of that House itself.—But, (continued the hon. member,) let the House endeavour to explore the real causes and motives of these various petitions, addresses, resolutions, and remonstrances. I believe and feel they do not by any means proceed from any imputed or imaginary instigation by individuals; on the contrary, I believe the truth to be, that individual leaders had nothing to do with them, except by involuntary adoption, the effect of feeling and suffering.—I feel and believe that the House must be so persuaded, or blind to the state of the nation; that discontents pervade the whole nation to a more alarming degree than ever before known; and that the whole country is in a state of great irritation on account of the severity of the burthens of taxation, and the rigid, coarse, and unfeeling manner in which the payment of taxes had been inforced. Popular individuals are continually changing. One is paramount in public estimation this year; another was paramount last year; and a third, now no more, was the paramount favourite with the populace the year preceding. This popularity, I have observed, was generally of very short duration, and was constantly fluctuating. But, the discontents of the nation have long been maturely, and are continually, growing into stability: their existence seems to be perpetuated, as may naturally be expected, with their cause and the root of their cause; viz. taxation, and the constant and perpetual growth of taxation, to an amount, which now forbids (under the system of the present ministers) all hope of diminution or relief for at least many generations to come, however industriously the nation may have been deluded to think otherwise, from the operations of the sinking fund. And this irritation to discontent is not a little strengthened and inforced, by the people having long been persuaded, and now knowing full well, that these taxes, thus exacted from them, have not been honestly applied to state purposes, but have been profligately and wantonly dissipated and abused, and that every public office and department of the state, from which a report has hitherto been laid on the table of the House, exhibits indubitable testimony in confirmation of these opinions. Be it as it may in point of extent, with such documents before the House and the public, it would be idle and false to assert, that the public opinion was without foundation. Hence, the manifest cause of the present discontents. These discontents I can only compare to a hidden or half smothered fire, ready to break out and rage, and attach itself to any kind of conductor; a match, a piece of paper, muslin, or any other tangible point of attraction coming within the possible reach of its impatient, indiscriminating, and devouring influence.—In this condition, I considered these discontents to be, when the late and extraordinary question, now likely to undergo discussion before one of the law tribunals of the kingdom, was hastily dragged forward, agitated, and decided by this House. And I feel that all the subsequent popular agitations and meetings in the metropolis, their resolutions, addresses, petitions, and remonstrances, have been nothing more than the consequences of the preexisting grievances, only suddenly bursting forth as to a convenient rallying point, which chance had thus unexpectedly presented to them. On this reasoning, and subscribing to the influence of it on my mind, I think it would have been wise and right to have received those petitions of the people; and on this additional ground, that if they had been attended with no better success than the popular harangues and debates in their behalf in this House, which from the bad promise and complexion of this night's debate, resisting the very moderate reform contended and petitioned for, would most indubitably have been their certain and devoted fate;—these alledged violent and alarming petitions, like the still more violent debates of this House, might by this time have become a dead letter, and the agitation of the public mind have subsided, at least, for this sessions: whereas, by rejecting them, and more especially in the scornful manner in which I feel they have been rejected, the public irritation has been furnished with additional provocation, and the rejection has excited such an additional degree of dissatisfaction, as the House must apprehend would keep the contest and the agitation of the country alive—such an agitation, as the rejection of the very reasonable proposition before the Committee, to abolish disgraceful sinecures, will not be calculated to dissipate. I again contend for the entire and instant abolition, and will not consent to any substitute or modification; which I repeat can only be felt by the country as a mockery of their very reasonable expectations."—Mr. Moore concluded by again imploring the Committee to be steady and faithful in performing their duty to their constituents by insisting on removing all unnatural obstruction to the dignified, honourable and constitutional intercourse, coeval with the existence of the constitution between the sovereign and the people. He reminded the Committee that the object and end of all governments and associated communities was the happiness of the governed; of the people at large; that the people of the united empire were anxiously looking to them as their trustees for relief—that the throne of every monarchy should be planted in the hearts of its subjects, an end easily obtained, as the people, always ready and willing to make every necessary and even generous sacrifice, conditioned only that they shall not be oppressed. Mr. Moore repeated his call upon the House to perform their duty to their sovereign—to support theft own dignity and integrity—faithfully to discharge their delegated trust to the people their constituents, and not silently and negligently suffer the country to be betrayed into its destruction. His only object was to preserve the whole, entirely in strength, in tranquillity and in prosperity.

A division then took place—

For Mr. Bankes's Resolution 93; Against it 99; Majority for ministers 6;

On the re-admission of strangers, we found Mr. Martin on his legs, declaring his readiness to suffer his Resolutions to be negatived without any discussion, and those of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be agreed to, on an understanding that it would be open to gentlemen to debate the latter on the Report. This proposition was assented to on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon which the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received on Tuesday next.