tellers of the exchequer. He concluded by moving certain resolutions, of which the six first related to the facts of the grant of the offices of tellers (performed entirely by deputy) to the present possessors, and their past and present emoluments: the seventh was in the following terms: That it appears to this house, that parliament has at various times asserted and exercised a right of limitation and control over the fees payable to the tellers, by excepting specific sums of money from the payment of all such fees; and that it is the duty of parliament, in the present unparalleled state of national expenditure and public calamity, to exercise its right still further over the fees now paid out of the public money at the exchequer, so as to confine the profits of the Marquis of Buckingham and Lord Camden to some fixed and settled sum of money, more conformable in amount to the usual grants of public money for public services, and more suited to the present means and resources of the nation."

After the first resolution had been put and seconded, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that although the first six resolutions might be safely affirmed, yet as he could not assent to the practical effect intended to be derived from them, he should move the previous question upon them, and give his decided negative to the seventh. The tellerships of the exchequer were ancient offices, and legally within the gift of the crown. The right of those noblemen to them was a vested right which could not be touched, and he conceived the emoluments to be also vested interests which must be protected.

There would be much more danger and mischief from breaking down the barriers of private property in this instance, than in allowing the receipt of the 40 or 50 thousand a year which were now the emoluments of those offices. The conduct of parliament in 1782 in not disturbing those vested interests, while they regulated the emoluments of tellers to be subsequently appointed, was a clear parliamentary recognition of those rights.

Mr. Ponsonby spoke on the same side, and asserted that by the law of England no estate was better known, defined, and protected, than an estate in office. It was as much private property as any other species of property could be. He would not agree to the conclusions of the committee in 1782, "That the state, acting for the public good, might interfere with the emoluments of every office." The state had the power to do so, but the power was not the right. There was no knowing where that principle, if once admitted, might stop. Parliament might think it had a right to examine into the church, and consider what bishops had more than a suitable reward for their labours, or to take away the tythes from the clergy and lay proprietors.

Mr. Brand differed from the gentlemen who had already spoken. He admitted completely the legality of the grants, and the vested interests in their emoluments of those who held them. If, however, it should be found that parliament had been in the habit of limiting those fees from time to time, then it appeared to him that they who took those offices, took them subject to the controuling power of parliament.

parliament. He should, therefore, wish to vote for the first six resolutions, and that a committee be then appointed to examine how far parliament had in former times interfered in reducing the salaries of offices for life.

Lord A. Hamilton denied the similarity of this case to that of bishops, who had great and important duties to perform; whereas the offices in question had only grown and increased with the burdens and distresses of the country. He put suppositions of a future enormous addition to these emoluments; and said that if called upon to give his vote whether the house could or could not interfere in this matter, he must give it in behalf of the public.

Mr. Whitbread, while he ad mitted the legal and vested right in the fees of their office, contended that parliament was entitled to regulate and confine these emolu ments when they became exorbitant, and beyond any thing that could have been in contemplation when the office was created, or when the present possessors obtained their grants: and he instanced, with respect to the tellerships, the sums paid for the extinction of the national debt, and the income tax. There could not be a doubt that when the house voted additional supplies, they had the power to exempt them from the operation of these fees; and if the principle of vested right could be interfered with at all, it might to a greater extent.

Some other members spoke to the question, for the most part in favour of the rights of the tellers, but nothing additional was advanced in point of argument.

The six first resolutions of Mr. Creevey were then severally put, and the previous question was carried against each of them. Mr. Brand moved, as an amendment to the seventh, "That a committee be appointed to inquire into the precedents which exist as to the deduction from, or suppression of, any fees payable to the tellers of the exchequer for monies issued out of the same."

The house divided upon this amendment, for it 38, against it 146. The original resolution was then negatived without a division.

He

The subject of reform of parliament was again taken up in the House of Commons at this part of the session. On May 8th, Mr. Brand rose, pursuant to notice, to submit to the house a motion on the present defective state of the representation. began with some general remarks on the notorious existing corruptions prevalent in the elections of members of parliament, and on the dangers which threatened the constitution from the number of members 'returned by places now desolated, or which possessed so few inhabitants that it was a mockery to continue to them the elective franchise. He said, that it appeared from facts which he had collected, that 182 individuals returned by nomination, or otherwise, 326 members; that there were above 70 placemen in the house, and above 40 persons who were returned by compromise. How could that be called a full and free representation, in which there were 292 persons so brought in that they could not exercise a fair discretion on the subjects brought under their consideration? Having stated

some

some more of the evils attached to the present system, he proceeded to the remedies: generally, he said, the leading steps would be, first, granting to copyholders the right to vote; secondly, abolishing the right of nomination so as to generalize the right of voting, and thereby more fairly to proportion the number of representatives to the population of each place represented. Having opened and enforced his plan in various other observations, one of which was, "Give him seven or eight borough proprietors, and he had not the least doubt but that at all times he would be able to command a ma jority of the house;" he concluded with moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to repeal the act 31 Geo. 2, c. 14, for further explaining the laws touching the electors of knights of the shire to serve in parliament for that part of Great Britain called England, and to entitle copyholders to vote for knights of the shire."

The motion was seconded by the Marquis of Tavistock, who declared his intention, should it be carried, of moving the repeal of the septennial act.

In the copious debate which ensued, and which was maintained by many of the principal speakers, all the usual topics on both sides respecting reform of parliament were gone over, and every measure which had a tendency to that end was decidedly condemned, not only by the partizans of the actual ministry, but by several of those of the oppositionists who compose what is termed the whig party. It was contended by these speakers that all change in the mode of representation would be dangerous, ineffectual to cure any of the public evils, and was very little desired by the nation. The friends of reform on the other hand dwelt upon the obvious inadequacy of the representation, and the never-failing support given by the House of Commons to every minister; a proof of the influence regularly exerted over the majority. The particular merits of the measure proposed were scarcely at all touched upon, and the ground taken by its opposers was that of resistance in the outset to every attempt at alteration, The house at length divided on the motion, ayes 88, noes 215, majority 127.

CHAPTER

TH

HE public business was at this time interrupted by a very extraordinary and tragical event, the assassination of the prime minister As Mr. Perceval, on May 11th, was entering the lobby of the House of Commons at a quarter past five o'clock, a person of the name of Bellingham, who had placed himself at the side of the door for that purpose, fired a pistol at him, the ball of which entered his left breast. Mr. Perceval immediately staggered and fell. He was taken up by Mr, W. Smith, and with the assistance of other members was conveyed to the Speaker's apartments; but before he reached them, all signs of life were gone. The assassin had taken so sure an aim, that the ball passed through his heart at the centre.

As soon as the horror occasioned by this catastrophe had somewhat subsided, a person exclaimed, "Where is the villain who fired?" Bellingham stept forward and coolly replied, "I am the unfortunate man." He made no attempt to escape; and being interrogated as to his motive for the deed, he said, "My name is Bellingham; it is a private injury-I know what I have done-it was a denial of justice on the part of government." He was then searched, and carried to the

bar of the house, which had been sitting in committee on the orders in council. The Speaker resuming the chair, General Gascoyne said, “I think I know the villain," and on stepping up, called him by his name. The Speaker then proposed that he should be committed to the prison-room, not leading him back through the lobby, lest a rescue should be attempted by accomplices; for the first idea naturally seems to have been that the murder was perpetrated on a public ground, and in consequence of a conspiracy. All proper precautions being taken, both to prevent injury to others, and that the criminal might not destroy himself, and a committee being appointed to examine and give evidence on the facts, the house adjourned.

In the House of Lords, as soon as the rumour of the event arrived, the greatest agitation was manifested. At length, their lordships resuming their seats, the Lord Chancellor addressing them, said that he felt it his duty to apprise their lordships that he should take care to give orders that none should go out of the doors of this house till their lordships were fully satisfied that they had not the means of doing further mischief. This was understood as a determination that all below the bar should be searched

to see that they had no weapons; but the alarm of conspiracy having now probably subsided, this resolution was not persisted in. The fact of Mr. Perceval's death, and the adjournment of the commons being then ascertained, the Earl of Radnor moved, "That an humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, stating, that the house had heard with horror of the attack made upon, and the assassination of, the Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, one of his Majesty's most honourable privy council, and praying that his Royal Highness would be graciously pleased to direct such steps to be taken as he should deem expedient for the apprehension of the offender or offenders."

This motion was agreed to nem. diss. and the house adjourned.

The Prince Regent sent a correspondent answer to this address; and on the following day a message was received from him by both houses, recommending a provision for the numerous and afflicted family of Mr. Perceval. Lord Castlereagh opened the business in the House of Commons, and paid a very feeling tribute to the virtues and merits of the deceased minister. Amidst his distress on this occasion he was, however, happy to mention, that as far as they had been enabled to investigate the subject, government were of opinion that this was an insulated act, and confined to the individual by whom it was perpetrated. With respect to the extent of the provision, he doubted not that the house would be anxious to protect all who bore the name of his lamented friend from the danger of poverty. In conclusion, he moved an humble

address to the Prince Regent, expressing their participation in the severe loss sustained by his Royal Highness and the public, and their abhorrence of the crime committed, and assuring him of their ready compliance with his recommendation.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Ponsonby; who said, that although no one thought Mr. Perceval's political opinions more erroneous than he had done, yet he always entertained the highest idea of his honour, and the greatest affection for his person. He had known him in early life, and had never known a man of greater worth, or more exemplary in the domestic relations of life.

Mr. Canning and Mr. Whitbread joined in the same sentiments, and the address was agreed to nem. con, and ordered to be carried up by the whole house. On the suggestion of Lord Castlereagh, a committee of the whole house was ordered for the morrow, to consider the message; and it was determined that the house should be adjourned from day to day.

After the house had delivered its address to the Regent on May 13, it was resolved into a committee for considering the provision to be made for Mr. Perceval's family. Lord Castlereagh stated that the right honourable gentleman, besides a widow, had left twelve children to the protection of the public, and that the property he had left was so moderate as to afford no possibility of their living in a style suited to their rank. With respect to the nature of the grant, he thought it would be most eligible to vote a substantive sum of money in the first instance

for