rejected the resolutions by a majority of 188 to 90.

On the 29th of March, a similar motion was made, by sir James Graham, with a similar result, for abolishing the office of lieutenantgeneral of the Ordnance, on the ground that it was unnecessary, as all the duties belonging to it could be perfectly well-performed by the master-general. This was said to be sufficiently proved by the report of the Finance Committee of 1828, who had recommended its abolition in time of peace-by the commission of military inquiry, who considered the office not essential to the constitution of the Ordnance department, and by the fact, that the person holding it had often been abroad without the slightest detriment to the public service. Thus sir W. Clinton continued to hold the office during the whole time that he was commanding the army in Portugal. On the other hand it was maintained, that the office was an efficient, a laborious, and a necessary office, and that the report of the committee on that point was contrary to the evidence which they had taken. Both the duke of Wellington, and sir Henry Hardinge had been examined; they were the most competent persons to judge of such a question; their evidence proved clearly the necessity of retaining the office; and it was no disrespect to the committee to postpone its opinion, on a military question, to that of practical and experienced military men-the more especially, when the Finance Committee of 1817 and 1818, with all its anxiety for retrenchment, had never thought of proposing the reduction of this office. On the division, there was a majority of

seventy-six in favour of ministers, the number for the motion being 124, and against it, 200.

The indefatigable member for Cumberland again forced ministers to a division on the 14th of May, on moving for an "account of all salaries, profits, pay, fees, and emoluments, whether civil or military, from the 5th of January, 1829, to the 5th of January, 1830, held and enjoyed by each of the members of his Majesty's most hon. Privy Council, specifying with each name the total amount received by each individual, and distinguishing the various services from which the same is derived." He gave the following analysis of the public money received by members of the Privy Council, exclusive of members of the royal family, which he professed to have framed from numerous returns and public documents on the Journals of the House. There were, as well as he could ascertain, 169 privy councillors, exclusive of the members of the royal family. Of these, there were 113 in receipt of public monies, annually amounting in their aggregate to 650,1647., the average amount to each individual being about 5,7837. Of this large round sum of 650,1647., 86,1037. were for actual sinecures, 442,000l. for what was termed tive service, and about 121,6501., for pensions. Thirty of these members, so receiving the public money, were pluralists, or persons who held more than one office, some in sinecures, some in actual service, military or civil, and others having retired allowances of different kinds. The amount held by these thirty pluralists was, in the aggregate, 221,1337. annually, or 7,3711. for each individual; there were twenty-nine members of

council who received, in full pay or pensions for diplomatic services, in the gross annual amount, 126,1767., or an individual average of 4,3471. The account, then, stood thus:-There were sixtynine privy councillors, ministers, or members, of that and the other House, receiving public money, of whom forty-seven were peers, who received 378,840l. a year, or 8,0691. each, and twenty-two were members of the House of Commons, receiving 90,8497., or 4,1301. a year each. There were twenty-nine other individuals likewise receiving pensions and allowances, who were not now members of parliament, but who had been so, when these emoluments and offices had been obtained by them. In this analysis there was no doubt some inaccuracy, because, framed as it was by an unofficial process, it could not be deemed authentic; still, he believed it as nearly accurate as any document could be made out from such materials. But if its accuracy were denied, if he were told he had mis-stated facts, -then his answer was, grant this motion and prove the error to the public satisfaction. He would state frankly and fairly what his objects

were.

First of all, the production of the information which he sought would be of great use in enabling the House to contrast the real services rendered by public servants with the actual amount of money paid in return, and then calmly and deliberately, to do equal justice to all, by seeing what reductions could be made consistently with the due performance of the public service: secondly, a question had been lately mooted with the view of applying the rule of merging half-pay, when the possessor was receiving a higher pay

ment for other service, to civil offices of full pay, and making the one abate in like manner with the other; and thirdly, the House would be enabled to ascertain why, under similar circumstances, sinecures and other allowances should not abate, as well as half and full-pay, when the individuals obtained higher civil employments. He never would consent that economy should be set to work upon the smaller and dependent salaries, while the greater officers, who, in most instances, were persons of large property, escaped scot-free: there was neither reason nor justice in such a course. "There is," said he, 66 a clerk of the Customs, for instance, superannuated with an allowance of 750l., and yet made agent for Ceylon, with a salary of 1,2007. a year. This is objectionable; but when I find lord Cathcart holding a pension of 2,000l. a year, together with a sinecure of vice-admiral of Scotland, worth from 2,000l. to 3,000l. a year, with all his military allowances as a general officer and colonel of a regiment, I cannot touch the Custom-house clerk's salary and emoluments, until I can first bring down lord Cathcart's. Then I find the name of an army accountant, with 1,2007. a year of civil emoluments, together with his half-pay as a retired commissary; this I object to as unsound in principle, and unjust to the public. But then, how can I touch it, while I see the vice-admiral sitting opposite (sir George Cockburn), enjoying, in his civil employment as a Lord of the Admiralty, 1,000l. a year, with his house and other domestic advantages; his full pay as a major-general of Marines; and, by special

warrant, likewise receiving his arrears of half-pay in the navy for three years, 3,000l., or 1,000l. a year from that source. And yet this is done by special warrant for a lord of the Admiralty and vice-admiral, while I can read an official order, signed 'John Wilson Croker, by order of the lords of the Admiralty,' which enjoins an oath to be taken by every unhappy half-pay lieutenant and subaltern officer, upon going to receive his pay, to the effect following:-"I do solemnly swear, that I am not in holy orders-that I have not had from (blank day) to (blank day) any employment, civil or military, under his majesty or the colonies, or in any place beyond sea, or under any other government, &c." This is the oath which the juniors must take, while the special exemptions are made for their superiors. Is this as it should be? Why should this oath be taken by the poor halfpay lieutenant, and not by the vice-admiral, who was besides a lord of the Admiralty, and majorgeneral of Marines? The vicepresident of the Board of Trade, whose case was argued the other night upon the impossibility of his being treasurer of the Navy, such were his redundant labours,nevertheless had 6007. a year in another office. But again, I say, how can I complain of this small sum for a working-officer, when I find that lord Melville, as First Lord of the Admiralty, has 5,000l. a year (a salary augmented, too, during the war prices), besides holding a large sinecure of 3,150l. a year, as keeper of the Privy Seal of Scotland?"

Government met the motion by proposing a return of a more limited kind, but which, they said,

would fully answer the object in view. They did not object to give the information wanted, but to give it in the particular form in which it was asked. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the whole difference between them was, that whilst the hon. baronet desired that the emoluments of the members of the Privy Council, as a body, should be laid before the House, he (the chancellor of the Exchequer) knew no precedent of the members of the Privy Council, as such, being called on for a return of their emoluments to the House. Thus to bring them forward, as privy councillors, before parliament, was not treating the council of the sovereign, nor the members of the highest judicial court in the realm, and as such entitled to respect, with proper decorum. It was bringing them forward in an invidious point of view; and, therefore, it was not expedient to depart from precedent in order to hold them up to scorn. The Privy Council consisted of the first judges of the land; yet they were brought in for their share of that obloquy which attached to sinecurists, and to swell the mass of emoluments. In the next place, the Privy Council contained men who were receiving the rewards of many years' service rendered to their country, the fruits of which were recorded on the page of our history; yet these men were likewise to be forced forward as objects of obloquy, and to be held up as receiving the public money unworthily. Instead of the return, therefore, required by the member for Cumberland, he proposed the following as an amendment upon the motion: ." That an humble address be presented to his majes

ty, praying that his majesty will be pleased to direct that there be laid before this House an account of all salaries, profits, pay, fees, and emoluments, whether civil or military, held and enjoyed by public officers, from the 5th of January, 1829, to the 5th of January, 1830, the amount of which shall not exceed (the sum he left blank, but he proposed to insert 2,000l.), specifying, with each name, the total amount received by each individual, and distinguishing the various sources from which the same is derived." He afterwards consented to insert the words all "persons" instead of public officers. Even when thus extended, it was objected to, as not meeting the end in view. Several members expressed their opinion, that the motion ought to be agreed to, though it were only to correct the popular errors which had gone abroad as to the uses made of the public money in the way now in question. Statements were circulated, unfounded, but vulgarly believed, that the taxes were squandered on the aristocracy, and not in rewarding service; and the affectation of mystery and concealment would only add to the mischief Mr. Portman, one of the members for Dorsetshire, said, he had himself laboured under the error of supposing that persons in high office received great emoluments; but he found, on investigation, that he was mistaken. The return, if granted, would remove any impression of a similar nature from the public mind.

Sir James Graham himself objected to the amendment, as giv

ing too much. He asked a return of the emoluments of 169 persons, and he was offered an account of those of 2,000 persons. This was something like giving a person who asked for a glass of wine, a glass diluted with a bottle of water. Suppose that he asked his land-agent for a return of the number of his household servants, and he gave him a return, including, not only the household servants, but husbandry servants, huntsmen, &c.: he would look upon such a proceeding with suspicion, and immediately dismiss his agent.

General Grosvenor told sir James, that he was the last man who should have made such a motion, as he had stated in the beginning of the session, that he differed from ministers only in one point, viz. the currency question. Sir James answered, that he had then differed from them only on that point; but they were not now at the beginning of the session. During the session he had watched the conduct of ministers, and had now a very different opinion. On the division, the amendment was carried by 231 against 147.-It was plain that the Whigs were becoming discontented at not receiving, in a participation of office, the reward of that support which they never allowed ministers to forget: and sir James Graham who, in the life-time of a high minded tory father, had condescended to become a dependent of the whig aristocracy, was the mouth-piece through which they announced their claims.

B

EFORE the meeting of parliament, the attention of the mercantile part of the community had been much engaged with the manner in which the trade between this country and the East Indies should be arranged, on the approaching expiry of the Company's charter. Public opinion had set it down, that the monopoly of this corporation imposed a most mischievous restraint on the trade of the country, without any reasonable cause, or counterbalancing advantage; and at a time when the universal voice spoke of nothing but distress, when every crude expedient and untried nostrum were viewed with favour, the evil report, in which exclusive privileges of that nature always stand, was naturally exaggerated and inflamed. One large portion of the community wished to have the renewal of the charter refused in toto, to any extent, or under any modification; another profess ed themselves willing to be satisfied with reducing the Company to the level of ordinary merchants in matters of trade, leaving to them their territorial possessions. The Company had remained prudently silent as to what it might be inclined to concede, or what it would struggle to maintain. The government had determined, where such powerful interests were op

posed, not to take the responsibility of proposing, in the first instance, any measure of its own, but had promised, at the end of the last session, that, in the present, a committee should be appointed to make the inquiries which ought to precede any arrangement affecting interests so varied and so important.

On the 9th of February, lord Ellenborough in the House of Lords, and Mr. Secretary Peel in the House of Commons, moved the appointment of this select committee. In doing so, they carefully abstained from stating any opinion which ministers might have formed on the subject, or whether they had laid out for themselves any intended plan of proceeding. Government, they said, was entirely free from all preconceived impressions; it approached the inquiry with an unbiassedmind, anxious to give and to receive all the information which was desirable and could be attained. Mr. Peel said, that he had no plan to submit for the future government of India-no opinion of ministers to state as to the renewal or modification of the charter. He was to propose a committee to examine the question in all its bearings, leaving the details for future consideration, when that committee should have formed its opinion.