72] ANNUAL REGISTER, IS12. 



tellers of the exchequer. He con- 

 cluded bj' moving certain resolu- 

 tions, of w hich the six first related 

 to the facts of the giant of the 

 offices of tellers (performed entirely 

 by depnty) to the present posses- 

 sors, and their past and present 

 emoluments : the seventh was in 

 the following terms : — " That it 

 appears to this house, that parlia- 

 ment has at various times asserted 

 and exercised a right of iimilation 

 and controul over the fees payable 

 to the tellers, by excepting specific 

 sums of money from the payment 

 of all such fees ; and that it is the 

 duty of parliament, in the present 

 unparalleled state of national ex- 

 penditure and public calamity, to 

 exercise its right still further over 

 the fees now paid out of the public 

 money at the exchequer, so as to 

 confine the profits of the Marquis 

 of Buckingham and Lord Camden 

 to some fixed and settled s^um of 

 money, more conformable in 

 amount to the usual grants of public 

 money for public services, and 

 more suited to the present means 

 and resources of the nation." 



After the first resolution had 

 been put and seconded, the Chan- 

 cellor of the Exchequer said, that 

 although the first six resolutions 

 might be safely affirmed, yet as he 

 could not assent to the practical 

 effect intended to be derived from 

 them, he should move the previous 

 question upon them, and give his 

 decided negative to the seventh. 

 The tellerships of the exchequer 

 were ancient offices, and legally 

 within the gift of the crown. The 

 right of those noblemen to them 

 was a vested right which could not 

 be touched, and he conceived the 

 emoluments to be also vested inter- 

 ests which must be protected. 



There would be much more danger 

 and mischief from breaking down 

 the barriers of private property in 

 this instance, than in allowing the 

 receipt of the 40 or 50 thousand a 

 year, which were now the emolu- 

 ments of those offices. The con- 

 duct of parliament in 1782 in not 

 disturbing those vested interests, 

 while they regulated the emolu- 

 ments of tellers to be subsequently 

 appointed, was a clear fiarliamen- 

 tary recognition of those rights. 



Mr. Ponsonby spoke on the same 

 side, and asserted that by the law 

 of England no estate was better 

 known, defined, and protected, 

 than an estate in office. It was as 

 much private property as any other 

 species of property could be. He 

 would not agree to the conclusions 

 of the committee in 1782, " That 

 the state, acting for the public 

 good, miglit interfere with the 

 emoluments of every office." The 

 state had the power to do so, but 

 the power was not the right. There 

 was no knowing where that prin- 

 ciple, if once admitted, might stop. 

 Parliament might think it had a 

 right to examine into the church, 

 and consider what bishops had 

 more than a suitable reward for 

 their labours, or to take away the 

 tithes from the clergy and lay 

 proprietors. 



Mr. Brand differed from the 

 gentlemen who had already spoken. 

 He admitted completely the legal- 

 ity of the grants, and the vested in- 

 terests in their emoluments of those 

 who held them. If, however, it 

 should be found that parliament 

 had been in the habit of limiting 

 those fees from time to time, then 

 it appeared to him that they who 

 took those offices, took them sub- 

 ject to the contiolling power of 



parliament. 



