ed by the noble baron, but thought it should be left to government to pursue the proper measures to explain and set forth the subject in its true light. Nor could he approve the conduct of the American executive, which, without demanding explanation, or making any notification to the British minister, had at once laid the papers before congress. Earl Grey thought the question was one of great importance, and wished that the charge of communicating with subjects of the United States who were desirous of with drawing themselves from the union, had been authoritatively denied. He dwelt much on the flagitiousness of such conduct, which he conceived would be unjustifiable even between states at war, still more in peace, whatever apprehensions there might be of impending war. The noble lord had admitted that the letters spoken of had afterwards been communicated to the secretary of state; but there was no evidence of any disapprobation being expressed by him; and the governor was only enjoined to be cautious in the employment of such agents "for fear of involving the country in a quarrel with America." Under such circumstances he thought the house was called upon explicitly to condemn the principle: if they did not so, they must for the future be silent with respect to any similar breach of good faith on the part of France, or any other government. Viscount Sidmouth said he had never known a case so greatly exaggerated. If it were even admitted that Sir J. Craig, in his anxiety to preserve the province committed to his care, had overstepped the limits of strict political discretion, there still existed no pretence to accuse ministers, who were completely ignorant of the transaction, Sir James, in fact, in a moment of danger, had employed a person to ascertain the dispositions of the inhabitants of the contiguous districts, who was not directed to excite discontents, but to observe any disposition that he might find favourable to the British cause. His lordship maintained that publishing the whole correspondence would be attended with a serious evil, as it would disclose the names of those Americans who were re presented as friendly to the British cause, or inclined to a change in their own government; and he intreated the house not to encroach on the functions of the executive government, but to leave the affair to be settled by mutual explana❤ tions between his Majesty's ministers and the American government, After some other lords had spoken on each side of the ques tion, Lord Holland rose again to make observations upon some points which had been urged by the lords opposite. He expressed indignation at the conduct of mi. nisters in not attempting any direct defence, but seeking to shelter themselves by throwing all the re sponsibility upon the memory of Sir J. Craig. He particularly ani madverted on the noble viscount's (Sidmouth) inconsistency, who had displayed so much sensibility respecting the Copenhagen expe dition, yet was disposed to palliate an act equally subversive of good faith and the law of nations. Upon the whole, he said, a public charge bad had been made, and it was the of these offices were of such a naduty of government that the refuture that they rose exactly in pro tation should be as public as the imputation; and nothing could clear the honour of the country unless it were ample and satisfactory. As to the objection that had been urged of the impolicy of such disclosures as the production of the papers would lead to, he wished for none that would unnecessarily affect the interests either of countries or individuals; and he was willing to narrow his motion in any way that would enable him to obtain the specific information he desired. The house then divided on the motion, contents 27, non-contents 73, majority 46. No further proceedings on this subject took place in the House of Commons during the present session. Another attempt to lessen the national expenditure, though of small magnitude in its object, and unsuccessful, deserves notice on account of the doctrine held on the occasion in the House of Com mons. On May 7th, Mr. Creevey rose to call the attention of the house to the two tellerships of the exchequer held by the Marquis of Buck ingham and Lord Camden. It was his intention to consider this as a mere question of private property between those individuals and the public. The places had been given as rewards for the services of the fathers of these noblemen, and he did not mean to find fault with their distribution; but his objections were that their emoluments were indefinite in their amount, and disproportioned to the circumstances of the nation. The fees portion to the distresses of the conntry. From the report of the commissioners of public accounts. it appeared that in 1782, when they were granted, which was a time of peace, they did not exceed 2500l. per annum, which sum, during the American war, was increased to 7000l. In 1808, such had been the public expenditure that the tellership had risen to 23,0001. per annum each, and there was no doubt that the emo ument must now be considerably more, This was a much greater sum than had been granted as rewards for all the splendid military services that had been performed for the country; and he could not bring himself to acknowledge the right of these two noblemen to derive such enormous emoluments from the public calamities. He would deny the principle so often contended for in that house, that a grant of an office by the crown was as sacred as any ancient grant of an estate, and could not be touched by parliament. When the crown formerly made grants of lands, or even of taxes, out of its hereditary revenue, it granted its own property; but now that the whole public expenditure was under the controul of parliament, he conceived that the crown could not make a grant which was not under the same controul. The honourable gentleman then read extracts from the report of the commissioners of public accounts in 1782, which went to the assertion of the right of controul above mentioned; and he gave instances of the present actual interference of parliament in the fees of the tellers 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 controul 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 emolu ments 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 to 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, night 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 perforin; whereas the offices in question had only grown and increased with the burdeus 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 emolunients 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. 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. He began with some general remarks on the notorious existing corrup tions 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 mea, sure 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. 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. The CHAPTER |