tJfi Notes of the Month OH [JAN. 



ministers do their duty in this point, will depend their existence for six 

 months to come. In the debate, on the 23d of December, " Mr. Guest 

 moved that there be laid before the House the warrant, dated 5th Janu- 

 ary, 1823, by which a pension of 1.200 per annum was granted to Mrs. 

 Harriett Arbuthnot. He conceived that the pension granted to Mrs. 

 Arbuthnot could not be defended. The next pension to which he should 

 call the attention of the House was that granted to Lady Hill, of 467 12s., 

 which made the total received by Sir George Hill and his lady amount 

 to '7,347 a-year. A pension was granted to Earl Minto in April, 1800, 

 of 938 8s. 9d., from which he had since received above 30,000 he 

 (Mr. G.) was ignorant for what public services. The pensions granted 

 to the family of the Grcnvilles were particularly deserving attention. Mr. 

 C. Grenville, as Comptroller of Cash in the Excise, was in receipt of 

 600 per annum ; he was allowed moreover 600 a-year as Receiver- 

 General of Taxes at Nottingham, and had also 350 a-year as Secretary 

 of the Island of Tobago. It was plain that some of these offices, if not 

 all of them, must be sinecures. There were several pensions granted to 

 the Cockburn family. The first bore date 1798, for 184 granted to Jean 

 Cockburn. Three other members of the family had pensions of 97 

 each, granted in 1791. There was also in the document laid on the 

 table, a pension to Mary Penelope Bankhead, in October, 1825, for 

 350 7s. 5d. What were the services for which such a pension was 

 granted ? The Countess of Mornington was in receipt of a pension of 

 600 a-year since 1813. He concluded by declaring, that whenever 

 pensions were to be voted and placed on the civil list, which were not 

 granted for some services performed to the State, he should feel it his 

 duty, even if he stood alone, to vote against such fgrants. He thought 

 members of that House obtaining pensions for any members of their 

 family, especially for their wives, virtually vacated their seats. Mr. 

 Alderman Waithman said that there were pensions granted to Jive persons 

 of the members of the family of Lord Bathurst, although that nobleman 

 had been long in office, holding two sinecure places, and receiving twelve 

 thousand a-year. Mr. Courtenay said Lord Bathurst was appointed to 

 one of his offices by his father, when Lord Chancellor !" 



Mr. Courtenay's excuse only aggravates the evil. It is the baseness of 

 providing, as it is called, for their families by lordly knaves, or impudent 

 beggars, that makes one of the grand sources of public plunder. Why 

 should not the Lord Chancellor Bathurst have provided for his son, 

 without feeding him out of the pockets of the people? We have those Bath- 

 ursts, a family absolutely undistinguished by any kind of talent, or any 

 kind of public service, placemen and pensioners for the last eighty years ! 

 How many tens of thousands of pounds have those persons drawn from, 

 the industry of the people in that time, that they forsooth might ride 

 in their coaches and call themselves noble ! How long ago would they 

 have been compelled to walk a foot, and perhaps take to some manual 

 trade, if they had not been thus fed. There must be an end, and a 

 speedy end of all this. 



The confessions of the Polignac ministers give a striking illustration 

 of the old maxim of Oxenstiern. Three fourths of the public wisdom 

 of the highest ranks are folly. In France the other fourth was a guilty 

 love of place. Every one of the ministers seems to have perfectly known 

 that he was acting contrary to his duty as an honest man. But then, 

 " he must obey his king," which means in all instances, tc he must 

 keep his place." If any one of those men had listened to the common 



