ments of those persons had been put into instructions to representatives. Something like the system pursued at these meetings seemed to be followed in the House. Motions were made for repealing this and that tax, apparently to reduce the revenue to inefficiency, and the same sort of attack was made on the institutions of the country. One day there was a motion to reduce two lords of the Admiralty; another day to reduce a postmaster-general. Where it would stop he could form no judgment. Though, therefore, a reduction proposed might be proper, it would not be made in a proper manner under the influence of such a spirit, and on that ground, and not on the consideration of the individual case, he gave his vote. He should do it with the more satisfaction, after the pledge of the chancellor of the exchequer, that the postoffice should come under the revision of a commission. Mr. Bright contended, that the House was perfectly competent to decide on the subject, and ought not, therefore, to delegate their power to any commission. They were bound to show the people, by a strict performance of their duty, that they really were the guardian of those interests which were committed to their care. Mr. Tremayne said, a pledge had been given, on the passing of the pension bill, to reduce all sinecures a pledge which he should never consider redeemed, while the two postmasters-general remained. Mr. Stuart Wortley said, he had, on a former occasion, given his vote on this subject with considerable hesitation. If it had been a simple question, whether the situation of second postmaster-general should be abolished, he would have given up the point. But, when he saw that the House had the day before addressed the Crown to remove two public officers; when he observed that a motion, attack. ing an entire board, stood for a succeeding day, and when he coupled these circumstances with the tone and temper of the country, which laboured under the delusion that these alterations would afford relief, he considered it his duty to negative that motion. The Crown, to perform its duties properly, must have influence; and the only question was, what portion of influence was necessary for the efficient execution of those duties? He asked for no more than what he conceived to be the due proportion of influence which the Crown ought to possess in the state; but he never would consent to strip it of its just attributes. Admitting this, and perceiving that circumstances, as far as regarded the mind of the country, were considerably changed; he thought, taking the present as a single question, that the House ought to give way to that extent. The people were very much disabused as to the idea that relief should be sought by the removal of a vast portion of taxa. tion. They felt that the business of the country could not go on, unless a competent revenue were preserved. This was a great change; and as the House was not called on, in a headlong manner, to con sider the present motion, he was ready to vote for it. If, however, it were understood, that a parliamentary commission would inquire faithfully into the nature of this office-that their report would be laid before the House-and that they would afterwards have an opportunity of de ciding on it he would be content to wait for that report. But if the question was now, ay or no, whether there should be one postmaster-general instead of two, he would give his vote in the affirmative. The Marquis of Londonderry said, he had heard nothing that evening which had in any degree altered the view he had previously taken of the subject. Whether he looked at it in an administrative, a financial, or a constitutional view, his original opinion remained unchanged. The question was, in what course ought this subject to be put, to ensure a just and sound consideration of it? If this point were fairly argued, the hon. member for Corte-castle would find, that those who opposed him stood on the 'vantage ground. Ought the office to be continued or not? The authority of his hon. friend (and surely he could not object to his own opinion) was in favour of continuing the office. It was true, in the parliament of 1813, he expressed a different opinion; but that opinion was reversed by a subsequent parliament: he participated in the sentiment, and therefore it was fair to infer that his calmer and more matured judg ment was in favour of the office. Except that one objection of his hon. friend, which was afterwards removed, the whole stream of parliamentary proceeding was in favour of those who urged the necessity of keeping up the office. His hon. friend stated, that this, amongst other offices, was last year included in the address to the Crown. The question then was, had that address had no effect? It had pro duced a Treasury minute, directing the | for considering the subject, with reference necessary inquiry to be made. The hon. to the consequences that might follow member for Yorkshire was of opinion, that from the principles on which it was sup this point should be conceded, because ported; and, to support the office on the the ferment of the public mind had sub- ground that it was necessary to the insided. But, he could not conceive where fluence of the Crown, seemed calculated that hon. member saw the signs of this to produce a bad impression on the pubabated fervour, when a second motion lic. These were times in which attacks was made on this subject in the same ses- on the constitution were made through sion. He would ask his hon. friend the House of Commons. What could whether the House was likely to look tend more to countenance such attacks into the office of joint-postmaster-general than to decide upon keeping up the with the same dispassionate coolness which situation from the motive adduced in supwould distinguish a parliamentary com- port of it? He should support the momission, acting on oath? The hon. mem- tion, because he felt it to be peculiarly ber for Yorkshire was willing to let the incumbent upon the House, in the prequestion rest for the present, provided it sent times, to be careful of its character, was understood that the report of the and to endeavour, by all just and honourcommissioners would be submitted to able means, to secure the respect and parliament. How could that step be affection of the people. prevented? It must come before parliament; and he felt that the report of five commissioners, acting on oath, would be a greater mill-stone about his neck than the bill of his hon. friend in 1813. He could not at all partake of the conviction which had so suddenly burst on the hon: member for Yorkshire, that the public mind had subsided into a state of quietude. He had no reason for believing that the gentlemen opposite would not go on attacking office after office. He could, however, assure the House, that if the motion were negatived, the subject of the post-office should be referred to the commissioners with as little delay as possible. After this plain declaration, he trusted the motion would be met by a negative. He must reprobate the idea, that men of exalted rank could be base enough to accept of such an office merely as a job. Mr. Wilberforce agreed with an hon. baronet, that this motion became of far greater importance in consequence of the arguments by which it was resisted. It was alleged, that the office was necessary for the influence of the Crown. What! Preserve offices for the exclusive purpose of influence? What was this but what was called in plainer terms corruption? Avowedly, the ground of continuing the office was to induce members of parlia ment to support government, right or wrong. He admitted the distinction be tween accepting office because a person agreed with ministers in their views, and supporting those views because they obtained office; but the public were not always ready to make that distinction. This appeared to him to be a proper time Sir F. Blake would cordially support this motion, and after it should be carried, he would maintain, that a great deal more remained to be done. If the House understood the state of the country, they would pass such motions by acclamations. His real opinion was, that the hon. member for Montrose did as much good as all his majesty's ministers put together. The hon. member had made those see who could not see before; or, if they could see, would not see. Like the weight of a clock, the hon. member had made ministers go better and better by winding them up. He had not heard one single reason for continuing two postmasters. It was said, that the two postmasters must be continued in order to preserve the influence of the Crown. Against whom? Against themselves; and not only against the present, but against every future House of Commons. Was it not preposterous to call upon them to commit suicide on themselves? Mr. R. Martin condemned the conduct of the opposition, which, he contended, was rather dictated by a desire to annoy the government, than by any consideration of the abstract merits of the question. Even if it could be demonstrated on ab stract principles, that one postmastergeneral was enough, he would oppose the motion, if it had a tendency to shake the present administration. Mr. James Macdonald congratulated his noble friend on having returned to the charge with a spirit, perseverance and talent which augured well for the public cause. Now that ministers had had leisure for reflection, and an opportunity of col lecting the opinion of their country friends, he had felt some curiosity to see what new shifting course they would adopt; and that curiosity had been amply gratified by the turn which the debate had taken to night. With the exception of the member for Surrey, there was not a single unofficial person who had ventured to justify the vote which he intended to give against the motion. The tone of the noble marquis was indeed considerably subdued, quantum mutatus ab illo Hec. tore!" How were the mighty fallen since the last debate on this question! Humble and beaten, and retiring from his former ground, this champion of the influence of the Crown, who had once declared, that without this office it would be impossible to carry on the government of the country, was now ready to refer to certain commissioners a question which had been already twice decided in that House. It had been said, that the office was a part of the necessary patronage of the Crown, and therefore, ought not to be touched; but it was for the House to determine, whether that argument ought to have weight with them. He would ask the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Robinson), who had made so strong an appeal on a former occasion, in favour of the inferior clerks of his own department, whether he could stand up in his place and say, that a second postmaster-general was necessary? Whether he could say to those clerks, that they must be sent adrift, but that a duplicate postmaster-general must be retained? He wished also to know from the noble marquis what he meant by a very favourite phrase, which he had used upon that and many other occasions, "a well understood economy." It reminded him of what Hudibras said of pain ""Tis neither bad, simpliciter, nor good, But merely as 'tis understood." The hon. member then entered into a statement, to show the various sources of influence possessed by the Crown, and concluded with cautioning the House against giving their sanction to the continuance of unnecessary places, with a view to extend that influence. Mr. Money defended the office of jointpostmaster-general. When he found that, within the last year, 2,000 reports had been referred to them, on each of which they gave their opinion, he could not think the office without considerable duties and great responsibility. When he like wise considered the immense patronage connected with the office, he did not think that it should rest in the hands of one person. Lord A. Hamilton wished to ask the hon. gentleman, what length of time one of the postmasters, lord Clancarty, had been absent from the country? He believed he was away about two years; and this was a complete answer to the hon. gentleman's speech. Mr. Mansfield said, he would rather give 10,000l. a-year to two such persons as now filled the office, than 2,500 to one. After a short reply, the House divided: Ayes, 216. Noes 201. Majority for the motion, 15. List of the Majority. Allen, J. H. Beaumont, T. P. Patten, sir John Rice, T. S. Scott, James SCOTS REPRESENTATIVE PEERS.] The Earl of Rosebery reminded their lordships, that he had last session introduced a bill for regulating the election of the representative peers of Scotland, which had gone through two of its stages. It was proposed to be enacted by that bill, that no person claiming to be a peer of Scotland, except the son or lineal descendant of a deceased peer, should vote at the election of the sixteen representative peers. This proposition was received with approbation by their lordships in general. Only one noble lord urged any objection to the measure, and that noble lord suggested that it would be better to attain the object in view by a resolution of their lordships' house, than by a legislative enactment. It was also thought advisable that a communication should be made to every individual peer of Scotland, in order to obtain his opinion. In consequence of Tavistock, marquis of these suggestions, the bill had been with Smith, J. Knatchbull, sir E. Keck, G. A. L. Scott, J. Smith, R. Langston, J. H. Lennard, T. B. Lushington, S. Leycester, R. Sykes, D. Lockhart, W. E. Scourfield, W. Lucy, G. Sebright, sir J. Lester, B. L. Shelley, sir J. Lawley, F. Sotheron, Frank Lethbridge, sir T. Maberly, J. Taylor, C. Maberly, W. L. Macdonald, J. Taylor, M. A. Tulk, C. A. Talbot, R. W. Tremayne, J. H. Western, C. C. Williams, Owen Williams, T. P. Williams, W. Newport, rt. hon. sir J. Williams, John Nugent, lord O'Callaghan, J. Ord, W. Osborne, lord F. Ossulston, lord O'Brien, sir E. Palmer, col. Wilson, sir R. TELLERS. Duncannon, visct. PAIRED Off. Abercromby, hon. J. drawn, and a communication of the kind referred to had been made. The result of the correspondence had confirmed him that it was necessary for parliament to interpose its authority on this subject. Nearly all the peers of Scotland had expressed their complete approbation of the proposed measure, and none had objected to it. One had thought it not necessary. Another had qualified his assent by observing, that he apprehended such an arrangement might not be the wish of all the peers. Another, again, was of opinion, that a resolution of the House would be preferable to an act of parliament. The evil of which the Scotch peers had to complain was, that from the Union down to the present time, it had been in the power of any person claiming to be a peer, though he possessed no right to such dignity, to vote at the election for the sixteen peers to sit in parliament; there being no provision in the act of Union requiring that the right of the claimant to a title should be proved before he was allowed to vote. That any body of men should be subject to such an intrusion, must appear very extraordinary; but to the peers of Scotland it was a particular hardship; for, excluded as they were from becoming members of the House of "The king having been attended with the address of the House of Commons of yesterday, acquaints the House that he will give directions that the salary of one of the postmasters-general shall forthwith be discontinued:-His majesty only postpones the abolition of the office of one of the postmasters-general, until he shall have had the opportunity of considering what permanent arrangement may be advisable for the conduct of the business of that department." NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS.] On the order of the day for receiving the report of the committee on the payment of the Naval and Military Pensions, Commons, they were besides, by the irre gularity of their election, liable to be kept out of their seats in that House. He could refer to cases which would show that the system was as bad in fact as in theory. One case of injustice, he believed, would be all that he need state. At the election of 1790, only 13 peers out of the 16 were returned. Six others had an equality of votes, and it remained to be ascertained which three of those six were entitled to sit. After three years of laborious investigation, it was determined by their lordships' House to which the majority of the legal votes belonged. It might be said, there was another question mixed up with this; namely, whether British peers, who were also peers of Scotland, were entitled to vote: but this was a question of so narrow a compass, that it was capable of being settled, as indeed it was settled, by one deliberation of the House. Its discussion, in fact, occupied only one day of the three years during which three peers had been excluded from their seats. The next question to which he had to call their attention was the best means of removing the evil. After consulting with persons best qualified to give an opinion on this subject, he thought it advisable to propose two resolutions to be referred to a committee of privilege. The purport of the first resolution was, that, upon the decease of any peer, no person except the son, grandson, or other lineal descendant, or the brother of such peer, should be permitted to vote at the election of the sixteen representative peers of Scotland, until his claim to the peerage be made good before a committee of privilege. The object of the second was merely to provide, that the first resolution should be no obstacle to claimants challenging the right of persons who now held peerages. If the committee should agree to these resolutions, he wished still to reserve the question, whether or not they ought to be made the subject of a legis-gible, and the perplexity spread over a lative act. The resolutions were referred to the committee of privilege. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 3. POSTMASTER GENERAL.] The Marquiss of Londonderry reported his Majesty's answer to the Address of yesterday, as follows: Mr. Bernal said, he considered the proposition simply as a loan; but was at a loss to understand how the same security could be obtained from the contractors for the performance of the conditions of such a loan as for those of a fixed loan. If no such security could be afforded, in what a situation of loss might the country be placed. Some contingency might render the contract so oppressively bur thensome, that the contractors would abandon it. There were contingencies also that might give the contractors an undue advantage. If a war should occur in the course of four or five years, many of the officers at present on half-pay would immediately be put on full-pay; and that full-pay would be charged on another fund. In that event the terms of the contract would be unduly improved to the benefit of the contractor. The report was brought up, and the four first resolutions agreed to. On the fifth resolution being put, The Mr. Hume said, that to this resolution he should move an amendment. object of it was to burthen posterity and to relieve ourselves-a direct violation of the principle of the sinking fund. But, besides other objections, the operation was so complex that it was almost unintelli period of 45 years. The project was so novel, and the amount so large, that it would be found very difficult to find contractors. For sixteen years they would not receive a single shilling, and would be paying many millions in advance. It was clear, also, that the public must be losers by the transaction, if private parties entered into the speculation with government; but if the loan (for it was nothing else) were taken by the com |