LON 
fkk 5 , a pub’ic charge had been made, and it was the duty 
of government that the refutation ihould be as public as 
the imputation ; and nothing could clear the honour of 
the country, unl’efs it were ample and fatisfatfory. As 
to the objection that had been urged of the impolicy of 
fuch dilclofures as the production of the papers would 
lead to, he wifhed for none that would unneceflariiy affeft 
the interests either of countries or individuals ; and he was 
willing to narrow his motion in any way that would ena¬ 
ble him to obtain the fpecific information he defired.—The 
•houfe then divided on the motion 5 contents 27, non-con¬ 
tents 73. 
Another attempt to leften the national expenditure, 
though of fmall magnitude in its object, and unluccel'sful, 
deferves notice on account of the doctrine held on the 
accafion in the houfe of commons.—On the 7th of May, 
Mr. Creevey rofe to call the attention of the houfe to the 
two tellerfhips of the exchequer held by the marquis of 
Buckingham and lord Camden. It was bis intention 
to confider this as a mere queltion of private property be¬ 
tween thofe individuals and the public. The places had 
been given as rewards for the fervices of the fathers of 
thefe noblemen, and lie did not mean to find fault with 
their diffribution ; but his obje£lions were, that their emo¬ 
luments were indefinite in their amount, and difpropor- 
tfened to the circumftances of the nation. The fees of 
tiiefe offices were of fuch a nature, that they rofe exafftly 
in proportion to the diftreffes of the country. From the 
report of the commifiioners of public accounts it appeared, 
that in 1782, when they were granted, which was a time 
of peace, they did not exceed 2500I. per annum ; which 
fum, during the American war, was increafed to 7000I. 
In 1808, fuch had been the public expenditure, that the 
tellerfhips had rifen to 23,000b per annum each ; and there 
was no doubt that the emoluments mutt now be confider- 
ably more. He could not bring himfelf to acknowledge 
the right of thefe two noblemen to derive fuch enormous 
emoluments from the public calamities. He would deny 
the principle fo often contended for in that houfe, that a 
grant of an office by the crown was as facred as any an¬ 
cient grant of an eftate, and could not be touched by par¬ 
liament. When the crown formerly made grants of lands, 
or even of taxes, out of its hereditary revenue, it granted 
its own property; but now, that the whole public expen¬ 
diture was under the controul of parliament, he conceived 
that the crown could not make a grant which was not 
under the fame controul. The honourable gentleman 
then read extracts from the report of the commifiioners of 
public accounts in 1782, which went to the affertion of 
the right of controul above-mentioned ; and he gave in- 
ftances of the prefent aftual interference of parliament 
in the fees of the tellers of the exchequer. He con¬ 
cluded by moving certain refolutions, of which the fix 
firft related to the fails of the grant of the offices of 
tellers, performed entirely by deputy, to the prefent pofief- 
fors, and their paft and prefent emoluments; the fe¬ 
venth was in the following terms :—“ That it appears to 
this houfe, that parliament has at various times aflerted 
and exercifed a right of limitation and controul over the 
fees payable to the tellers, by excepting fpecific fums of 
money from the payment of all fuch fees; and that it is 
the duty of parliament, in the prefent unparalleled fiate 
of national expenditure and public calamity, to exercife its 
right Hill further over the fees now paid out of the public 
money at the exchequer, fo as to confine the profits of 
the marquis of Buckingham and lord Camden to feme 
fixed and fettled fum of money, more conformable in 
amount to the ufual grants of public money for public 
fervices,and more luited to the prefent means and refources 
of the nation.” 
After tiie firft refolution had been put and feconded, 
the Chancellor of the Exchequer laid, that, although the 
firft fix refolutions might be fafely affirmed, yet, as he 
could not affent to the practical eft'eft intended to be de¬ 
rived from them, he fhould move the previous queltion 
D O N. Q$7 
upon them, and give his decided negative to the feventh. 
The tellerfhips of the exchequer were ancient offices, and 
legally within the gift of the crovin. The right of thofe 
noblemen to them was a vefted right which could not be 
touched, and he conceived the emoluments to be alfe 
vefted interefts which mud be protected. There would 
be much more danger and mifehief from breaking down 
the barriers of private property in this inftance, than in 
allowing the receipt of the forty or fifty thousand a-year 
which were now the emoluments of thofe offices. The con¬ 
duct of parliament in 1782 in not difturbing thofe vefted 
interefts, while they regulated the emoluments of tellers 
to be fubfequently appointed, was a clear parliamentary 
recognition of thofe rights. 
Mr. Brand admitted the legality of the grants, and the 
vefted interefts in their emoluments of thofe who held 
them. If, however, it fhould be found that parliament 
had been in the habit of limiting thofe fees from time 
to time, then it appeared to him, that they who took 
thofe offices took them Aibjeft to the controuling power of 
parliament. He fhould, therefore, wiffi to vote for the firft 
fix refolutions ; and that a committee be then appointed to 
examine how far parliament had in former times interfered 
in reducing the falaries of offices for life. 
Mr. Whitbread, while he admitted the legal and vefted 
right in the fees of their office, contended that parliament 
was entitled to regulate and confine thefe emoluments 
when they became exorbitant, and beyond any thing that 
could have been in contemplation when the office was 
created, or when the prefent poiieffors obtained their 
grants. There could not be a doubt, that, when the houfe 
voted additional fupplies, they had the power to exempt 
them from the operation of thefe fees; and, if the prin¬ 
ciple of vefted right could be interfered with at all, it 
might to a greater extent. 
The fix firft refolutions of Mr. Creevey were then fe- 
verally put, and the previous queltion was carried againlt 
each of them. Mr. Brand moved, as an amendment to 
the feventh, “That a committee be appointed to inquire 
into the precedents which exift as to the deduction from, 
or fuppreflion of, any fees payable to the tellers of the ex¬ 
chequer for moneys ifi'ued out of the fame.” The houfe 
divided upon this amendment: for it 38, againft it 146. The 
original refolution was then negatived without a divifion. 
It was probably in confequence of this motion, though 
unfuccefsful, that the above noblemen, in a letter dated 
Nov. 21, expreffed their intention-of contributing to the 
public fervice one-third of the net profits aiding from 
their refpeftive tellerfhips; and farther, Dec. 11, if the 
faid net profits fhould in the enfuing year 1813 exceed 
thofe of the prefent year 181a, to contribute the whole of 
fuch increase, in addition to the laid one-third.—The lords 
of the treafury, in confequence of their offers, requefted 
them to pay their refpeftive fums into the Bank of Eng¬ 
land, as voluntary contributions. 
The fubject of reform of parliament was again taken up 
in the houfe of commons at this part of the fefiion. On 
May 8th, Mr. Brand role, purfiunt to notice, to lubmit to 
the houfe a motion on the prefent defective ftate of the 
reprefentation. He began with feme general remarks on 
the notorious exilting corruptions prevalent in the elec¬ 
tions of members of parliament, and on the dangers which 
threatened the conftitution from the-number of members 
returned by places now defeated, or which pofl'effed fo 
few inhabitants that it was a mockery to continue to them 
the elective franchife. He laid, that it appeared from 
fafts which lie had collected, that 182 individuals returned 
by nomination, or otherwiie, 326 members; that there 
were above feventy placemen in the houfe, and above forty 
perfens who were returned by compromiie. How could 
that be called a full and free reprefentation, in which there 
were 252 perfens fe brought in that they could not exercife 
a fair diferetion on the fubjeits which came under their 
confederation ? Having itated feme more of the evils at¬ 
tached to the prefent fyfteni; he proceeded to the remedies* 
3 Generally, 
