especially in the allowance upon small beer; and concluded with saying that he waved opposing the taxes, but should in a few days make a motion respecting America.

Mr. Byng said the petitions ought to be complied with before more taxes were voted.

his wardrobe, his stables, and table; and which was to prevent him from eating, unless the very bread and meat he eat should be served by contract; in such a case he thought it behoved those, who for the sake of œconomy had determined upon such a reform, to clear themselves of all grounds of suspicion, or a possibility of imputation, that they had a wish to retain their own places and sinecures, and only meant to extend the reform to the places

Debate on Lord George Gordon's Motion, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Mr. Burke's Establishment Bill, to abolish the Offices of Auditor and Tellers of the Exchequer.] March 8. The order of the day being moved, for the House to resolve itself into a committee, on Mr. Burke's Establishment Bill,

Lord George Gordon observed, that the great drift and tendency of the petitions of the people was a recommendation to adopt an economical expenditure of the public money, and as it was the duty of every member, as far as his abilities might enable him, to offer some proposition framed or suggested from the subject matter of the petitions, he had thought of one which seemed to correspond with the general idea of economy held forth in them; or, indeed, with the very words of the petitions themselves. The abolition of sinecure places and exorbitant emoluments was one of the prime objects of every thing which had been hitherto done without doors: he thought, therefore, that now was the proper time to propose his motion before the House went into a committee on the Bill. He said, the places which he had immediately in contemplation were those of Auditor, and Teller of the Exchequer. If they were not sinecure places, they partook of the nature of sinecures; because the duty was performed by deputy; if they were not pensions, they were nearly the same, and as to the persons who held them, might be deemed unmerited; and that the profits and perquisites were exorbitant, required no better proof, than that they amounted to fifty times as much as the salary. He thought it behoved the gentlemen, who supported the going into a committee on the Bill, in which it was proposed, to new arrange and direct the whole of his Majesty's civil list revenue; which directed its attentien to the King's very bedchamber, to

litical opinion. The hon. gentleman, who proposed the Bill, had indeed evidently taken care of his friends. Their sinecures were to endure as long as the present possessors lived; all others were instantly to cease as soon as the Bill should pass into a law.

His lordship, after passing some very strong censures on the conduct of the author of the Bill and his friends, moved, "That it be an instruction to the committee, to consider how far the places of Auditor, and Tellers of the Exchequer are necessary for the public service; and to abolish, if possible, those places, or to lessen their exorbitant perquisites, that the produce may be applied to the exigencies of the state, with a view to alleviate, in part, the heavy burdens of the people."

He

Mr. Jolliffe seconded the motion. thought it contained matter well worthy the consideration of the House, and went directly in conformity with the prayers of the petitions; and could not be opposed with any degree of consistency by gentlemen on the other side. There was little or no duty annexed to the office pointed at, and when it was considered that the very first clause in the Bill proposed the abolition of the office of secretary of state for the colonies; and that the next clause proposed the abolition of the board of trade and plantations; the friends of the Bill must, if they meant to act consistently, readily adopt the motion.

Mr. Adam could not see the necessity of the motion. It would in his opinion be time enough to propose it in the committee.

Mr. Powys hoped the noble lord would withdraw his motion, as it might interrupt. the proper business of the day.

Mr. Sawbridge begged the noble lord would withdraw his motion. He believed the noble lord had not attended to the Bill; otherwise he must have seen that there was a clause in it for abolishing the very places alluded to; and if the clause as now worded, did not come up to his

Lord G. Gordon assured the hon. gentleman that he had carefully perused the Bill, and acknowledged that he had read the clause; but he believed that it was so far off, being in the 16th page, that it would never come under the consideration of the committee. The hon. gentleman who framed the Bill took particular merit with the House, that it proceeded upon the idea of the petitioners; yet, how had he acted? He had passed the sinecure places, and without any authority from the petitions had proposed to abolish the office of secretary of state for the colonies, which most clearly could not be deemed a sinecure place.

Lord North was of opinion, that the instruction to the committee was entirely unnecessary; for such a provision was already in the Bill, and the committee would be at liberty to retain or abolish the offices alluded to, as they might think fit; and if any places were to be abolished, most surely, those pointed out by the noble lord came within that description. They were offices of great emolument, and which called for very little attendance; by the abolishing of which, a considerable saving would arise to the public, which might be applied to the exigencies of the state: and he could not help acknowledging the justice of the noble lord's observation; that if we were to enter into his Majesty's retirements, into the inmost recesses of his palace; to make retrenchments in his private expences; there could be very little apology for rendering such offices, as those mentioned by the noble lord, too sacred to be touched: that is, we shall oblige our sovereign to contract for the expences of his table, but there are certain sinecures that must remain as they are, at least during the lives of the present possessors. If a reform were at all necessary, it should be general, and not a partial one. His Majesty had a grant for life made to him, at his accession, of the civil list revenue. He parted with what he must have held, had he not given it in lieu of a fixed revenue; namely, the duties appropriated for the service of the civil list; he thought, therefore, that there was an apparent incongruity in the hon. gentleman's Bill, where it went to take back that part of the revenue, which had been settled upon his Majesty for life; and at the same time proposed to continue the salaries and emoluments arising from sinecure places

t

lives. Great stress had been laid on this circumstance; that he and those who agreed with him were of opinion that the present Bill ought to be sent to a committee, and, therefore, that they could not oppose it there, as they had acceded to the principle. For his part, he was at a loss to say, what was the principle, but the result of the whole Bill taken together. That was his first opinion on the Bill being presented; it was his opinion still. How was it possible to enter into the consideration of any bill but in the committee? There the parts would be considered separate and distinct; then every gentleman could deliver his sentiments distinctly and clearly, agreeing to this clause, objecting to that, or altering or amending whatever appeared to him to require it.

The Speaker observed, that it was entirely needless to give the instruction moved by the noble lord.

Mr. Powys moved for the order of the day.

Mr. Burrell confessed he was a friend to the motion. Being on his legs, he begged leave to throw out a few general observations on the petitions. That the people of England had a right to petition parliament was a position, which he trusted no member would dare to dispute, for he held it as indisputable, that every subject had a right to speak his sentiments, unawed by power, uncontrouled by any set of men; yet he found very strange conclusions deduced from those premises, tending to intrench upon the inherent privileges of that House, for while the privilege was maintained without doors, it was denied within, and a language of a very extraordinary nature had prevailed, that although the people had a right to petition, the members of that House were precluded from exercising any opinion of their own, or discussing freely whether the prayers of the petitions ought or ought not to be granted. He for one approved of petitions; he was himself a petitioner, but he totally disapproved of committees and associations. Would not the liberty of debate be then at an end, if he was forbid to express his sentiments? He was however determined to deliver his sentiments unawed by power or great abilities. If the people had a right to petition, he as a member of that House had a right to judge not only the measures recommended by the petitioners, but likewise to deter

mine who the petitioners were, and how far the petitions did or did not express the sense of those to whom they were imputed. He knew of no way to collect the voice of the majority of the people, but by the majority of freeholders; and he was free to say, that in his conscience he believed that not above an eighth of that description of men had signed the petitions. -Sacred as he held the right of petitioning, he would not give his countenance to it, if exercised in a disrespectful manner. By what name then could he stile those petitions, which under the mask of humility, bore all the fire of memorials and remonstrances? They plainly aimed at the destruction of the independency of parliament, by tying down the members to certain measures; by taking away from them their own judgment, and their own will, and imposing on them the disgrace ful and unconstitutional yoke of sanctifying by their votes, those measures which their own understanding reprobated and condemned. The moment parliament should submit to such a shameful slavery, that moment he would pronounce to be the last of English liberty.-It afforded him matter of astonishment that men could be found hardy enough to deny the right of the people to recommend to parliament the strictest system of economy, at a time when the nation was plunged into a most formidable and expensive war. But he wished to know how far the petitioners had been right in advising their representatives to use all their endeavours to alle viate the public burdens. Could the most rigid œconomy lessen a single tax that now lay upon the shoulders of the people? Must not the interest of the national debt be paid? Was that to be done by an abolition of taxes? To recommend economy was right but to say that the present taxes can be lightened by that economy, was absurd.-Many persons had been in duced to sign the petitions from views which it was absolutely impossible ever to gratify. In many places, particularly in Kent, two petitions had been presented from the freeholders, the one moderate, proper, and respectful; the other absurd in its object, and impracticable in its operations. It had been a practice to say to the people, if you sign the latter, all your taxes will be abolished in a fortnight; if you sign the former you will not have a bed to lie on in a month. An inexperienced ignorant man had not the least ground for hesitation; his choice was soon made.

Thus by deception the numbers of subscribers to improper petitions had swelled. This he said not from a disapprobation of petitioning in general, but from a desire to check those who either designedly or ignorantly had mistaken the proper objects of petition.

General Conway said, that there was no occasion for the instruction moved by the noble lord, because there was already a particular provision in the Bill for that purpose, which besides had a special reference to the present mode of accompting at the exchequer; and what the noble lord, and the two hon. gentlemen said, as to the continuing the places, during the lives' of the possessors, the committee was the only proper place to consider that. The House might, if it were thought necessary, abolish those places at once, or lessen the fees or salaries, &c. but the real principle of the Bill was reform in general; in what manner, or to what extent that reform might be carried, was the proper business of that House, when the clause alluded to came under its consideration. The first clause in the Bill, which he presumed would make the subject of the present day's debate, made but a very small part of the Bill, that of abolishing the office of one of the three secretaries of state; and even the Bill itself formed but a part of the general plan of reformation. An hon. gentleman, (col. Barré) for instance, had proposed a reformation in the whole course of receiving, issuing the public monies, and passing the public accounts of the kingdom, which had been snatched out of his hands, by the noble lord in the blue ribbon, in what appeared to him a very indecent manner. The noble lord himself had proposed a commission of accounts, directed apparently to the same object. Another hon. gentleman (sir P. J. Clerke) brought in a Bill, which had gone through a second reading, for correcting the abuse of contracts, entered into by the Treasury, with members holding seats in that House. Other propositions might be made by other gentlemen, so that, on the whole, it was no less unfair than unfounded, to suppose, that a single clause of a single Bill was the great object, for which the friends of œconomy, and the promoters of it, were contending; for the nation at large was under high obligations to the hon. gentleman who proposed the Bill; his integrity, abilities, and indefatigable industry, shone forth on the present occasion; and what

clared, and likewise to determine afterwards, on the propriety and expediency of adopting the matter so proposed to their consideration.

ever might be the fate of the Bill, it would, it must be acknowledged, that he had, in a most commendable manner, endeavoured to discharge his duty. His Bill formed but a part of one great whole, and so far as it went, was strictly supported by the petitions; and he made no doubt, but if every member came to the House with the same disposition, that the great object the petitioners had in view, that of a general reform, would be soon accomplished.

Mr. Hussey rose with great warmth to reprobate an expression which fell from an hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell), that the voice of the people of England was only to be attended to, when it declared the sense of a majority of the freeholders. This was a language he would never suffer to pass unnoticed: what, were the people of England to be precluded all redress; excluded from all participation in the public interest, if a majority of the freeholders was not with them? He believed, in any possible sense the expression could be taken or received, it was founded in falsehood and error. Surely, the great body of electors of England were not to be bound by any partial opinion, of those who enjoyed in common with them, the constituent rights of freemen and Englishmen; and even independent of this, were the people, on whom the taxes were levied, in common with the rest of their fellow-subjects, to be debarred all means of redress? He took it to be a clear, indisputable right, vested in every Englishman, to petition, and most certainly, if entitled to it, they were likewise entitled to the consequence of it-relief; otherwise it would be to exercise a right they possessed, but to no manner of purpose.

Mr. Burrell assured the hon. gentleman, that nothing could be farther from his intention, than to treat Englishmen with contempt; all he meant to say was, that the petitions did not contain the voice of the majority of the freeholders, in the several counties which had presented them; that they were the sense only of such as subscribed their names, and of course, had no right to pass for the sentiments of any but the individual petitioners themselves. The sense of the people of England, in what manner soever it might be brought forward, would always have a due weight with him; but this he would say, that the House had a right, in the first instance, to be satisfied, that the sense of the people was fully and unequivocally de[VOL. XXI.]

Mr. Byng adverted to the assertion of the noble mover. He begged the noble lord would not say that all the sinecure places held for life were in the hands of opposition. Certainly the most lucrative office in this country, the auditorship of the exchequer, was not held by a man who voted against the minister. He was happy to hear the noble lord say that he had not any objection to the abolishing of places held for life, and in reversion, because, undoubtedly, after such a declaration, he could have no objection to the abolishing of places held during pleasure. An hon. gentleman who had spoke last but one, had said, that not an eighth part of the freeholders had signed the petitions. He could assure the House that a very great majority of those who had not signed the petitions were yet friendly to the measure of reform, and anxious to bring it about.

A short desultory conversation arose, in which, among other things, it was recommended to lord George Gordon to withdraw his motion. His lordship was informed from the chair, that there was a clause in the Bill, which would answer the purpose of the instruction. Lord George consented on that ground, though, he said, he meant to oppose the Bill in every stage. He had continued hitherto to act consistently, and ever would, as long as he had the honour of a seat in that House.

Mr. Rigby rose just as the Speaker was preparing to discharge the motion made by the noble lord, in order to make room for the order of the day; and said, he had a motion in his hand, the contents of which had yet been confined solely to his own breast. He had consulted no person on either side of the House. Whether right or wrong, it was all his own. He had informed the House, on a former day, that he had an opinion on the subject of the present Bill; that he would open it to the House in some one stage; and he knew no time so proper as the present to make it known, when the House was just on the point of going into the committee.

He would now repeat what he said on a former occasion, that there were some parts of the Bill of which he highly approved, and others which he could by no means give his assent to. An hon. gentleman (Mr. Fox) the last day, said, that those who voted that day for sending the [N]