friend, the first secretary of the Admiralty (Mr. Croker) to state, that he had used no influence, nor made a suggestion of a wish, to obtain an increase of salary, and that the subject had been brought before government, by circumstances over which he exercised no control. The fact was, that the regulation which fixed the reduction of the salaries of the secretaries in time of peace at one-fourth, struck off from that of the clerks one-fifth. When the peace with America was concluded, the period of reduction was supposed to have arrived; but the re-appearance of Buonaparte almost immediately followed, on which, without declared war, there were vigorous preparations for hostilities. Were then the Admiralty clerks to have a deduction from their remuneration, when there was no diminution of their labour? Government taking the case into consideration, thought it would be better to continue the war salary in time of peace, than to increase the peace salary to the necessary extent, and to adhere to the principle of the two rates. The only thing next to be considered was, whether the hon. secretary should participate in the r. 2, or remain the only exception; and of this, for reasons stated by the noble lord, there could, he said, be scarcely any difference of opinion. The whole question would be open for discussion, when the estimates came before the House. Convinced that this was not the proper time, he should move, that the House proceed to the other orders of the day.

It could not be expected, that

this explanation of the noble lord would prove generally satisfactory; and the speeches of several members expressed a conviction, that the resolution first moved for was well founded. Mr. Brougham distinguished himself by the severity of his censures upon the noble lord and his coadjutors. In adverting to the statement of great reductions which had been made by the ministers, he said, that above 400,0001. of the sum saved, arose merely from the discharge of workmen for whom there was now no employment; and that many offices abolished, those particularly of the commissariat, were such as there was no pretext for retaining. On the whole, he did not scruple to denominate the affair in question a scandalous job, of which the object was to put money in the pocket of the secretary of the Admiralty. Mr. Tierney, in an entertaining speech, compounded of irony and sarcasm, represented the matter as part of a deliberate system in the administration, of resisting every thing that looked like economy, or the diminution of the salaries of persons who had now few or no duties to perform.

Much of the debate turned upon personal attacks and recriminations which may be passed over. The principal argument against the original motion was, that the proper time for discussing the subject would be subsequent to laying the estimates before the House; and this was concurred in by Mr. Bankes, though he declared it to be his decided opinion, that the increase of these salaries in time of peace was an [D 2] improper

improper act. In the division on Lord Castlereagh's amendment for proceeding to the orders of the day, it was carried by a majority of 29, the numbers being For the amendment, 159, Against it, 130.

The effect of this discussion was made apparent shortly after, when Sir G. Warrender informed the House that he did not intend to move, that the salaries of the two secretaries of the Admiralty should be voted upon the war establishment.

An attempt for the reduction of the public expenses, by abolishing a considerable state office, was made on April 3d, in a motion by Mr. Tierney, relative to the departments of the secretaries of state. The history of this matter was thus stated by the right hon. member. Up to the year 1768, there were only two secretaries of state; but on account of the situation of the country, during the war with America, a third was afterwards added. This appointment continued till 1782, when by Mr. Burke's bill the office of third secretary was abolished; and from that time to 1794, the business was conducted by two secretaries of state, under the name of secretary for the foreign, and for the home department. In 1794, Mr. Dundas, then home secretary, also carried on the business of what was then for the first time called the war department; but this business so much accumulated, that it was thought necessary to separate the two, and on that occasion, the office of secretary of state for the war department was created. For about

seven years longer, all business connected with the colonies was transacted by the secretary for the home department, but in 1801, it was transferred to the office of the secretary of war. It appeared, however, from one of the papers on the table, that Mr. King, one of the home secretaries, had stated the business of his office to be the carrying on of all correspondence relative to every part of the British empire, with the exception of the East Indies, and also every domestic matter, with the exception of the revenue, and those affairs which were under the management of the Lord Chancellor. It thus appearing (said Mr. T.) that the third secretaryship was created in 1794, solely to transact the business of the war, his conclusion was, that as the war was at an end, that office ought to he abolished. He then proceeded to the particulars of the charge at tending it, and calculated, that the plan he proposed as a substitute, would make a saving of 12 or 14,000l. After recapitulating and enlarging upon his statements, he concluded with moving, that an address be presented to the Prince Regent, humbly praying, that he would be pleased to give directions, that the division of the state offices in 1794, by which, in addition to the secretaries of state for the home and foreign departments, a secretary of state was constituted for the war department, be revived, and that the departments of the secretaries of state be, now that peace is happily resto: ed, again placed, with all convenient dispatch, upon the

footing

footing on which they stood in 1793."

Mr. Goulburn, in opposing the motion, chiefly argued upon the great importance of our colonial possessions, which rendered it necessary to have a responsible ininister of the crown to superintend them. It would not be sufficient to give to them half, or one-third of the attention of a minister, nor would the suggested increase of clerks answer the purpose. If a comparison was made between the manner in which the colonial business was transacted by the home department, and that when it was committed to a separate establishment, it would be found, that the latter was much more efficient.

Mr. Wynn, who had been appealed to, respecting the business of the home department, said, that when he was in that office, he found that the superintendence of the volunteers and militia was entrusted to one under-secretary, and the superintendence of police and aliens to another. The whole of the labour of the volunteers was now taken away, and that of the militia nearly so; and there was also a great diminution in the business of superintending aliens. Ou the whole, the business of the alien office was now very much diminished, and might admit of considerable reductions; and he was confident, that in consolidating it with the business of the colonies, neither of them would be neglected.

Mr. Addington, in his observations on the last speaker, said, that the business of the home department was so great, that his noble relation (Lord Sidmouth) had not been absent from his office

ten days in the course of any one year, and that the duties of it were quite sufficient to occupy his time.

Mr. Bathurst gave his opinion, that the business of the colonies was enough for the management of one person.

Mr. J. H. Smyth said, that having had an opportunity of being acquainted with the business in the offices of secretary of state, he did not wish to give a silent vote on this occasion. He believed, that the business which the third secretary had lost by the peace, was more than equal to the whole business of the home department at the present time; and if he were asked, if he thought one secretary enough for both offices, his answer would be, that in his conscience he thought it was.

The remainder of the debate, in which several members took part, was chiefly occupied in the recapitulation of arguments for and against the capability of two secretaries of state, for transacting at this time of peace the public business which had devolved upon three in time of war; in which the principal ground taken by the ministers, and their supporters, was the present state of our colonial possessions, which had augmented the superintending control of the colonial secretary of state, to a degree wholly unprecedented. After Mr. Tierney's concluding speech, in which he said, that the opposition made by the noble lord (Castlereagh) and his colleagues to this motion, would hold them up in their true colours to the country, the House divided, For the motion 100, Against it 182.

CHAPTER

I

T has been mentioned that Mr. Grenfell offered to the House of Commons a motion for the appointment of a select committee for inquiring into the engagements subsisting between the public and the Bank of England for the purpose of adopting a new arrangement, which was rejected. The hon. gentleman, on March 14th, after a preliminary address to the House, in which he declared himself satisfied that without any thing like an infraction of the public faith towards the Bank, they ought, particularly at this time of distress, to look to it as a resource for many millions which were now productive to them, not by way of loan, but as a matter of right; and being also convinced that the public ought to demand a considerable reduction of the şum charged for the management of the national debt; moved eight several resolutions. Of these, the seven first were merely affirmation of certain accounts relative to the Bank the eighth bound the House forthwith to take into consideration the advantages derived by the Bank from the management of the national debt, and from the balances remaining in their hands, with a view to a new arrangement.

The first resolution being put, the Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that these points might be

brought under the consideration of the House when the Bank Loan bill was before a committee of the whole House; and in consequence he moved, as an amendment, "That the other orders of the day be now read."

After some debate, this motion was agreed to; when the House having resolved itself into a committee on the Bank Loan bill, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to fill up the blank in the second clause, relative to the interest on the loan, by the words "four per cent." Mr. Grenfell then moved, as an amendment, the substitution of "free of all interest." This motion being given up, Mr. Bankes proposed filling up the blank with three per cent. which was negatived without a division. Mr. Grenfell then proposed his resolutions, for the purpose of putting them upon the Journals of the House, upon each of which, excepting the last, which was withdrawn, the previous question was carried.

Mr. Mellish then moved a number of resolutions, consisting of statements of accounts relative to the concerns between the Bank and the public, on which the previous question was put and carried.

On March 29th, the order of the day being for the third reading of the bill, empowering the

Bank

Bank of England to advance the sum of six millions towards the supply of the year 1816, Mr. Grenfell rose to declare his permanent opinion on the subject. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (he said) had culpably acquiesced in the extravagant demands of the Bank, and had sacrificed from 2 to 300,000l. a year for no other purpose than to swell the enormous treasures of this opulent corporation. The ingenuity of the defenders of this measure could not controvert the position that the state of the question was this "You, the public, have for the last eight years, and now have, deposited in the Bank a stationary and permanent sum of eight millions and a half, out of which you have received, free of interest, an advance of three millions and a half." Was it not absurd to talk of an advance under such a state of account between the Bank and the public? And now, when six millions were wanted, an interest of 240,000l. was required for the advance; and this was, by a misapplication of terms, called a loan! Parliamentary interference had already done much, and would do more on similar occasions. In the present bill a saving of 60,000l. a year had been effected, by borrowing at 4 instead of 5 per cent.; but why had not the pub. lic the benefit of this regulation in 1806, 1813, and 1814, when the Bank held the same public funds as now? At some future period the country might derive considerable advantage from the unclaimed dividends, to which the attention of parliament had been directed by an hon. friend of his (Mr. Bankes). Notwithstanding

the way in which the proposition had been received by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he should again press on that right hon. gentleman, should he extend to the Bank the term of restriction on their cash payments, the expediency of stipulating, on the part of the public, for a participation in the enormous profits arising to the Bank from the exclusive circulation of their paper as the currency of the country.

In the debate which followed the former, differences of opinion between the favourers and the opponents of the interests of the Bank were displayed. At length, the bill having been read a third time, the Chancellor of the Exchequer rose to move an amendment to the preamble of the bill, which preamble ran thus: "Whereas the Bank of England are possessed of divers sums of the public money, arising from balances of several public accounts, and are willing to advance," &c. The proposed amendment was to leave out all the words from "Bank of England," to are willing." In the discussion of this matter it appeared that the clause in question had been proposed by Mr. Grenfell, and at his suggestion had been incorporated in the preamble: that Mr. G. had been desired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consult the governor of the Bank on the subject, from whom he received an equivocal answer, and that this being regarded as an acquiescence, the clause was inserted.

Mr. Mellish (the governor of the Bank,) stated that when the hon. gentleman had given him a copy of the clause, he had ex

pressed