the government, for placing him in that situation? If put in comparison with many officers whose merits would entitle them to rewards which they did not receive, the result would be, that he must sink. This was an instance of the manner in which those sinecure offices were abused. He would put it to the reformed House of Commons, whether, upon principle, they would not support the motion, unless they heard some very extraordinary reason why they should not? The governor of Berwick was a non-resident. The cannon had all been removed to Edinburgh Castle; there was not a single piece of artillery left, and there was no duty to be performed. It was, then, a perfect mockery to keep up the office. There were Blackness, Carlisle, Chester, the Leeward Islands, Montserrat, St. Kitt's, and other places, all of which had governors or lieutenant-governors, who were non-residents. He should be sorry to mention names, but those he had specified were connected with cases which it was the decided opinion of the House were gross abuses. If ministers were not strong enough to contend against the influence which sustained these abuses, let the House stand between them and that influence. If there were cases of merit, let them be brought before the House of Commons, and let not ministers want assistance.

To the first resolution, which merely affirmed a truism, ministers made no objection. To the second, they did not oppose a direct negative, but met it by moving the previous question. They argued, that it would be much better to wait till the estimates came under discussion, when the House would have an opportunity of expressing VOL. LXXV.

an opinion, by a separate and substantive motion, on every one of these offices, which were improperly called sinecures, as they came annually under the consideration of Parliament. It was said, that when any cases of officers deserving public reward were brought under the notice of Parliament, they would meet with due attention. But the thing to be feared was,

and it was a common fault of popular assemblies-that the house would grant a larger sum of money than the justice of the case required. In a constitutional point of view, too, there was an objection to allow the House to dispense rewards to officers of the Crown. It always had been considered, and always must be considered, in a mixed monarchical government, that the disposal of patronage of that kind rested with the king. It was true, that there used to exist a certain number of sinecure lieutenant-governorships in the WestIndia islands; but, by a new arrangement, one general-governor was appointed for several islands, and resident lieutenant-governors were nominated for the smaller islands. In this manner all the sinecure offices were abolished, and a saving of 17,000l. or 18,000l. effected to the public. In consequence of residence being now exacted from the lieutenant-governors of these islands, Sir James Bathurst, who was formerly one of those officers, was obliged to resign the situation. That gentleman had, for a long period, been in the performance of public duties, and his health had been impaired in the service. He had been military secretary and deputy quartermastergeneral in the campaign of the Peninsula; and it was impossible for the Crown to overlook his me [M]

rit. That was not a case which ministers could have brought before the House; yet it was a case which called for compensation, and his Majesty had therefore been advised, as a reward for his services, to appoint him to the governorship of Berwick, one of those situations which it was the object of the motion to extinguish. No doubt, these places might be improperly disposed of; but the House ought to bear in mind, that they could not be disposed of with out the annual consent of Parliament. These naval and military appointments were not sinecures, nor were the emoluments attached to them pensions; and they could not be discontinued without impairing the efficiency both of the army and navy. They differed from pensions, inasmuch as their emoluments did not attach to their offices, but passed annually under the revision of the House of Commons, which had the power of marking its dissatisfaction with the claims of those who held them, by withholding the salary usually paid for their support. In the navy there only remained two generals, and four colonels of marines, a vice-admiral, and a rear-admiral of England; and the whole amount of salary received by them was 4,7401. The vice-admirals of England appointed since the year 1781, when the office was first created, were, Lord Rodney, Lord Howe, Lord Bridport, Admiral Cornwallis, Admiral Sir W. Young, Lord de Saumarez, and Lord Exmouth, and Admiral Sir E. Thornborough. The last was a veteran who could boast of having spent 40 years in the naval service of his country, who was a lieutenant when his present Majesty first went to sea, and, what was more, was lieutenant in

the same ship in which his Majesty himself served. He next proceeded to read to the House the names of the rear-admirals of England within the same time. They were, Sir A. Hood, Lord Howe, Lord Bridport, Admiral Cornwallis, Sir W. Young, Lord de Saumarez, Lord Northesk, Sir T. Foley, and Sir George Martin. Both Lord Nelson and Lord Collingwood had been generals of marines; and, in the list of colonels of marines, were to be found some of the most gallant officers that had ever graced the British navy. The appointments complained of were proper rewards for services actually performed, and the true question raised by the motion, as explained, was, whether the control of the army and navy should be placed in the hands of the executive, acting through its responsible advisers, or in the House of Commons. It was not a question of pounds, shillings, and pence, or of confidence in one government or another: but whether the House of Commons should leave the distribution of military rewards in the hands of the responsible advisers of the Crown, subject, however, to its own annual revision, or take them all to itself without any immediate responsibility? The motion was rejected, and the previous question carried by a majority of 232 to 138.

On the 18th of April, Government agreed to two resolutions, proposed by Mr. Hume, 1. That, on all future vacancies of sinecure offices in the civil or colonial service of the country, no new appointment shall be made, nor any salary, allowances, or emoluments granted; and, 2ndly, that no person shall receive an appointment to any situation to which emolu_ ment is attached, the duties of

which are to be performed by deputy.

On the 16th of July, a resolution moved by Mr. Ruthven, "That the reduction of taxation and the diminution of the public burthens, by every attention to economy, are objects of paramount importance, and that in justice to the people who pay taxes, all sinecure places should be abolished throughout the British empire," was carried against ministers by a majority of 9.

On the 21st of May, Mr. Harvey moved for a return of all persons on the English, Irish, and Scotch pension lists, specifying the sums received by each individual, and the public grounds, or other consideration, as far as practicable, on account of which they had been granted. Lord Althorp had no objection to that part of the mo. tion which referred to pensions on the consolidated fund, but could not accede to its being extended to pensions on the civil list; for the latter, being guaranteed during the life of the monarch, could properly come under the cognizance of Parliament only at the commencement of a new reign, whereas the former were completely under the control of Parliament. The motion having been limited in this manner, the committee was granted.

On the estimates, Mr. Hume laboured in vain to reduce the number of seamen from 27,000 to 20,000, only 44 members voting for his motion, against 347. He was equally unsuccessful in attempting to procure a reduction of eight or nine thousand men in the army, and a reduction of one-half in the allowances to the yeomanry.

The annual motion to abolish flogging in the army was renewed by Mr. Hume, who reminded mi.

nisters, that many of themselves and their adherents, were bound, by previous votes, to support him. When he had submitted a similar proposition on March 25, 1824, it was seconded by the member for Nottingham (Sir R. Ferguson), and he now observed many gentlemen sitting on the ministerial benches, who supported him upon that occasion. Amongst the 47 members who voted for the proposition were, Lord Althorp, Mr. Baring, Mr. Denison, Lord Duncannon, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Lennard, Dr. Lushington, Colonel Maberly, Mr. Phillips, Sir M. W. Ridley, Lord Stanley, and Sir J. Wrottesley; and the tellers were, Joseph Hume and J. C. Hobhouse. Of course, he expected all those gentlemen to vote with him upon the present occasion. In 1827, Mr. (now Sir John) Hobhouse, said,

He had attentively listened to what had fallen from the gallant officers in the army on the subject; but the only reason they gave for defending flogging that he could discover was, that it ought to be continued because it had existed. He had heard an officer say, that in his regiment some of the men were brought out so frequently to be flogged, that they were known by the name of the flogging-blocks; and this circumstance demonstrated that, so far from flogging making them better soldiers, or men, no good could be derived from it; and as no benefit resulted from the revolting custom, it ought to be abolished, as being a national disgrace, and as placing our army, in its discipline and honour, second to that of France." And, in conclusion, he hoped, "that no session would be suffered to pass away, without some effort being made to relieve the soldier from this abo

minable punishment." He entirely concurred in the sentiments expressed by the right hon. baronet, and hoped that the time had now arrived when the soldiers of the British army, whose leading principle should be honour, would no longer be treated like brutes. The punishment of slaves in the colonies was restricted to fifteen lashes, whilst the British soldier was usually subjected to 300, 400, or 500 lashes. He could not believe, that the soldier was so much worse than the slave, as to justify that disproportion of punishment.

Lord Althorp expressed his surprise, that Mr. Hume should have read his name as one of a minority on this question. He did think that he had never voted on any one of the motions; he knew he had never voted against the question. He had thought, and he was sorry to say he still thought, that the weight of military authority was so great, that it would not be prudent to take away this punishment entirely from the officer. He admitted, that it was a punishment against which every one's best feelings must revolt; but he should feel, that it was taking upon himself a responsibility which he should not be justified in taking, if he acted in opposition to the whole body of officers of the army, and gave a vote for taking away a punishment which they said was necessary. If the punishment was abolished at home, and continued abroad, the experiment would be a dangerous one. If any process could be suggested by which the punishmentcould be safely removed, he was ready to give it his consideration; but, under present circumstances, however painful it was to him to vote against the proposition,

it would be quite inconsistent with his duty if he did not do his best to oppose it.

Sir R. Ferguson confessed, that the motion placed him in a very unpleasant situation; he could not vote for it, and he would not vote against it. The usual arguments were brought forward on both sides, and the motion was lost by only eleven votes, there being 140 for it, and 151 against it.

A still stronger opinion was expressed by the House, in relation to the impressment of seamen. On the 15th of August, Mr. Buckingham moved a resolution, "That the forcible impressment of seamen for his Majesty's navy is unjust, cruel, inefficient, and unnecessary, and that it is the duty of the House to avail itself of the present period of profound peace to provide some means of manning the ships of his Majesty, in time of war, without a violation of the liberties of any class of his Majesty's subjects." Several members having expressed themselves favourable to the spirit, but not satisfied with the form, of the motion, as going, in present circumstances, too far, it was altered to the following: "That it is the duty of this House to avail itself of the present period of profound peace, to institute an inqui ry, in order to ascertain whether some mode may not be devised of manning ships in time of war without having recourse to the practice of impressment." This resolution the ministry met, by moving the previous question, which, however, they carried only by a majority of five, fifty-four having voted for Mr. Buckingham's resolution, and fifty-nine against it.

TH

HE approaching expiry of the charter of the Bank of England, and the application of the Bank for a renewal, brought before parliament the question, whether, and on what terms, a renewal should be granted. After negotiation with the Bank, lord Althorp opened in the House of Commons, on the 31st of May, the terms on which government had determined to consent to a renewal of the charter. On the question, whether the issuing of the paper currency should depend on one bank, or on more than one, they had determined, though there were difficulties on both sides, that a single bank would be better than to have many banks rivalling each other, provided that single bank were placed under a proper check. This check was to be the regular publication of the Bank accounts. The principle on which the Bank had acted in the management of its affairs seemed to have been fully approved of; viz., to keep one-third of bullion in proportion to its liabilities-to allow the public to act on the currency, and not force it by any artificial means-to allow their circulation gradually to diminish when the exchanges were

against us, and the drain of bullion became great-and when the exchanges turned in our favour, and the bullion came back, to let the circulation gradually expand in proportion. There was reason and experience in favour of this principle; and the regular publication of the Bank accounts would always shew whether it was adhered to. The Bank, therefore, would be required to make a weekly return to the Treasury of the amount of bills and notes in circulation, and also of deposits, and that the average of such issues and deposits should be published quarterly. The monopoly was to extend to sixty-five miles from London; that is, no bank of issue, consisting of more than six partners, was to be permitted within that distance. smaller distance would, he thought, do just as well; but, in the communications he had had with the Bank, they seemed to lay some stress on the same distance being continued; and as the question was not one in which the public was much interested, he would allow it to continue as it was. ter was to be renewed for twentyone years, with power to the government, at the end of the tenth

A

The char