House of Lords.

On the division there appeared, for Mr. Brougham's motion 144, against it 216; majority 72.

The bill which had been carried respecting offices in reversion, though laudable in its principle, was evidently incapable of doing much towards the relief of the national burdens; its author, therefore, Mr. Bankes, with a view of striking a more effectual blow against the waste of public money, rose in the House of Commons on March 24, and moved the reading of the three first resolutions of the committee relative to public expenditure in May 1810. Their substance was to recommend the abolition of all offices which have revenue without employment, and' the regulation of those which have revenue extremely disproportiuate to employment (with the exception of those about the person of his Majesty and the royal family), and to reduce all eflective offices, the duties of which are discharged by deputy, to the salary and emoluments actually received for executing the business of those offices. These resolutions being read, the honourable member said, that there was nothing to which the country looked with more pleasure than to the salutary principles of regulation which ought to be applied to sinecure offices, He guarded, however, against the indulgence of too high expectations of relief from the burdens incurred during war from such a measure, or, indeed, of any immediate economical effect of the motion he meant to propose; but if the principle were once established, it could not fail of a sure though

slow effect. After some further observations, he concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for abolishing and regulating sinecures and offices executed by deputy, and for providing other means for recompensing the faithful discharge of high or effective civil offices, and for other economical purposes."

Leave was accordingly given; and Mr. Bankes, Mr. Wilberforce, and Mr. I. W. Ward, were ordered to prepare the same.

The bill thus framed did not come to a discussion till May 4, when, upon the order of the day for taking into consideration the report of the bill, Mr. W. Dundas rose, and objected to it as violating the articles of union with Scotland. He said, that the people of Scotland had stipulated at the union that their chief offices of state should be preserved, and he asked upon what ground it was that the very first offices of that country, in defiance of solemn treaty and national faith, were to be abolished?

The Lord Advocate of Scotland followed on the same side. He instanced particularly as an infringement of a stipulated right, the abolition of the office of keeper of the great seal of Scotland. The fact being denied by Mr. Bankes, he said the bill abolished the emolument of the office; and what remained of the office after the emolument? This was what induced responsible persons to undertake it; and the want of responsibility was what he attributed to the enactments of this bill. It gave up a place of high trust to obscure individuals who should act as de

puties,

puties, and by it the property of Scotland was therefore put into unsafe hands. He made other objections to the bill; and said, that if it should pass into a law, it would cause the greatest confusion in Scotland, and strike the whole people with immeasurable astonish

ment.

Mr. Lyttelton made some sarcastic observations on the attachment to emolument avowed by the last speaker, and said that he was fully convinced that the true reason why the influence of the aristocracy was so debased, was, because these places bad been continued. He gave his opinion that there was never a fitter time for wresting this power of augmenting influence from the hands of the crown, when it was known that there prevailed in the court a base system of unprincipled favouritism-when it was notorious that the Regent was surrounded and hemmed in with minions, among whom, if there was a man of note or talent, there certainly was not one of any character.

Mr. Courtenay attempted to shew that the proposed bill, instead of being a measure of economy, would be one of profuseness, and would tend to increase the improper influence of the crown. He objected to the whole principle upon which the pensions, which were to be substituted to the sinecures, were grounded. Under the bill, they would be given to those who ought not to have them, and withholden from those on whom they ought to be conferred. There would be no other test of merit in bestowing rewards, than having possessed a place. He observed,

also, that it was contrary to all parliamentary practice to interfere with offices appertaining to the hereditary revenue of the crown, without the consent of the crown previously signified.

Lord Á. Hamilton urged in support of the bill, the disappointment which would be felt by the people' at large, if, after the expectations held out to them, some measure of the kind were not adopted.

Mr. Bastard took the same ground, and dwelt upon the grievous burdens under which almost all classes were now suffering. He Could have wished that every separate office had been put to the vote, and a bill prepared conformably to that decision. It was at least incumbent on those who talked of the necessity of remuneration, to shew the reality of the service. He was convinced it would be difficult to point out ten in the whole list that partook of this character. The public money was too often given, rather as a consideration for accepting office, than for the services performed in it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he felt himself bound to state his objections to the bill, both in its details and principle. In considering the former, he mentioned several instances in which its provisions were either inconsistent or unjust. With respect to the principle, his opinion still was that it was perfectly wrong and mistaken. It went to say that the crown should not have the power of securing for its service men whom it might judge to be the most capable, if they happened not to be in a situation to resign all other pursuits in order to enter

into the public service. He put this case strongly, and not without a personal allusion. He then adverted to the influence of the crown, and appealed to the house whether it was too great; referring to the division upon Colonel M'Mahon's appointment: and desired them to consider whether the bill would not tend to a diminution of inflnence hazardous to the monarchy.

Mr. Bankes thought it somewhat extraordinary, and contrary to parliamentary usage, to suffer the bill to be read a second time, and pass the committee, without observations, and then come forward in this stage to condemn not only its principle, but those details which might have been altered in the committee. He then made replies to some of the particular objections which had been advanced; and desired that when the offices proposed to be abolished, and their responsibility were spoken of, it should be recollected that they were rather quasi offices with quasi responsibility, neither of which appeared to him too great to be confined to such men as would usually be appointed deputies. As to the power of the crown, he said it was impossible to look at the immense expenditure of the country, with all the establishments and patronage connected with it, without being convinced that dependence on the crown was extended to all parts to a degree quite unexampled in former times, It was also no light consideration that some of the greatest commercial and corporate bodies were in the habit of looking up to the ministers of the crown.

Mr. Canning made one of those balanced, indecisive speeches which had lately distinguished his manner of debate, but declared that he should support the bill, because he approved its principle.

That the general sense of the house was decidedly in its favour, was proved by the division, on which the numbers were,-for the motion 134, against it 123, majority 11.

The bill was then recommitted, when various amendments were proposed, some of which were carried, and others rejected. The report was then received, and the bill was ordered for a third reading. This took place on June 15th, when various objections were started against the bill, which, however was read without a division. Mr. Bankes then moved the additional clause, " Provided always, that nothing in this bill should be prejudicial to the rights and interests of those who are now chief justices;" which was agreed to. Various clauses of amendment were then put, most of which were rejected. A motion for omitting that clause in the bill which limited the pension list of Ireland to 40,000l. a year produced a division, for the motion 59, against it 60. The bill afterwards passed the house without further opposition.

The bill did not arrive to its second reading in the House of Lords till July 3. On that occasion the Lord Chancellor spoke of its provisions with great contempt, and said that such a bill never met the eye of a lawyer ever since the establishment of law. He pointed out some of its most objectionable parts, and concluded with the mo

tion, that it be read a second time that day three months. Some of the lords in its favour acknowledged that there were imperfections in it, but contended that no argument had been advanced against its principle, and that it might be

amended in its future stages. On a division, however, the Chancellor's motion was carried by 35 votes against 8; and thus the bill was lost, and with it, all the hopes of alleviation of the public burdens which it might have raised.

CHAPTER

A

The

FTER Colonel McMahon had been deprived of his place of pay-master of widows pensions, he was remunerated by the appointment of keeper of the privy purse and private secretary to the Prince Regent. This circumstance was noticed in the House of Commons on March 23, by the Hon. J. W. Ward, who desired to be informed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer what salary was attached to these places, and what were their duties, as he did not know till now that such a situation existed. right honourable gentleman, in reply, said, that he presumed the honourable member was not ignorant that Colonel Taylor had held the same offices under the King, and the same salary which he received was continued to Colonel M'Mahon; that the duties were various and important, although the offices would carry with them no official sanction, the home secretary of state being still the organ for receiving and communicating the pleasure of the Regent. Mr. Whitbread then inquired whether before the nomination of Colonel Taylor as private secretary to the King, in consequence of his infirmity of sight, any such place had existed; and also, whether Col. M'Mahon was to be paid out of the same fund that Col. Taylor

had been. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that no private secretary to the King had been appointed before his detect of sight; and upon being asked by Mr. Ward if he had any objection to name the adviser of the present appointment, he said that he had not the least difficulty in mentioning that it was himself.

On the 14th of April, Mr. C. W. Wynn rose in the house, pursuant to notice, to move for the production of the appointment of Colonel M'Mahon to the new office of private secretary to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent. He began with expressing his surprise at the intimation he had received that his motion was to be resisted, for surely the creation of a new office required as much as any thing to be submitted to the consideration of the House of Commons. With respect to the appointment of Col. Taylor, he denied that it formed any precedent for the present case, since it was only justified by the obvious necessity of the circumstances, of which nothing similar now existed. He alluded to former sovereigns who had dispatched a great variety of business without such an assistant, and especially the present King, who had paid a rigid attention to