are voting away the public money, of those Members who are most entitled to be ranked among the number of the true representatives of the people-I mean the Members for the counties and large towns-the numbers are two to one in favour of reduction of the public burthens; while the large majority of those who always vote in favour of the Estimates is formed of Members for boroughs. We are told this year, as a sort of consolation for the present state of things, that we are better than our ancestors of the times of George I. and George II. In the Parliaments of the former it is stated that there were 270 placemen; and in the first Parliament of George II. it is stated that 257 placemen had seats in this House. Sir, I have had the curiosity to look at their proceedings, to see if their votes bore out what might be expected from such a formation of the House; whether I could find that constant majority of 250 voting in favour of every item of expenditure, and in opposition to every proposition for Reform. The result is not at all what I might have expected. In 1717 the proposition of the Minister for the number of land forces was 16,000 men. That proposition, so far from being treated as a moderate establishment, was opposed by a very large party in this House: and on the motion to reduce the number, the reduction was supported by 125 votes, the original estimate by only 175. The ministerial majority was not therefore very considerable. Two other resolutions were then recommended as a consequence of the former. A sum of 681,000l. was proposed for the army. The Opposition moved to reduce it to 620,000l., and on the original question being put, the ayes were only 172, while the noes were as high as 158. I do not say that such a proposition was either just or generous; but such was in fact the conduct of that corrupt and place-holding Parliament. Our conduct is so different from that, in the present days of purity,

that we never think of making such a proposition. Indeed, so far are we from imitating such conduct, that when an hon. Member proposed that general military officers should not at the same time receive their military pay and hold civil offices, the hon. Member for Westminster, whom none will accuse of favouring corruption, said that not only the general officers ought not thus to be reduced, but that inferior officers ought also to be allowed to receive pay for civil services. At the period to which I am now alluding, 130,000l. was proposed as the vote for the half pay; the proposition was opposed, and the Minister offered to reduce it to 115,000l., but his offer was not accepted, and it was moved to reduce it to 94,000l. In this year, when we are so much improved, the vote for the full pay of retired officers was 104,000l., and for the half-pay of retired officers 720,000l. There is, I must say, considerable difference in the burthens of the people, and it is true there is also a considerable difference in their ability to bear them; but it certainly was better for the people to live under a corrupt Parliament, with small burthens, than under this pure Parliament, which breaks their backs with its weight of taxation. At that period too, the House passed a resolution, that all the vacancies in the establishments should be filled up by officers taken from the half-pay list; but a similar motion made a short time since by the hon. Member for Aberdeen was unsuccessful. I do not know how to vote for the Motion of the hon. and learned Member; and yet I must say that I wish success to its object, for the Parliament of this day is not so steady a guardian of the public purse as it is the fashion to represent it. It may be said, perhaps, that the times to which I have referred were times of great opposition; but I can support my argument by going into the corrupt times of Sir R. Walpole. In the first Parliament of George II. everything is said to have been most corrupt. In the

year 1730 we shall see the course that Parliament adopted. The army then cost 651,000l., and the forces for our colonies and plantations 160,000l.; and let it not be supposed, Sir, that at the time we had no colonies: New York, Carolina, Bermuda, and Jamaica were then in our possession, and required vigilant guardianship to preserve them. So far from that sum being now sufficient to defend our colonial possessions, it is little more than sufficient to keep the Ionian Islands, which can hardly be connected with any agreeable recollections in the minds of the people of this country. The army now costs us 7,300,000l. a year. In 1729, the whole supply for the defensive establishment, voted when we had subsidies to pay to foreign Powers, was 3,600,000l.; in 1829, when we were under less disadvantages, the supply voted for the same purpose was 17,620,000l. I think, Sir, I have shown pretty well that, much as we boast of the times in which we live, yet, as faithful guardians of the public purse, we are not entitled to all the praise we so abundantly claim for ourselves. It has been contended that in those days the influence of Government was far greater than it is at present; but this was so much the reverse, that on a favourite measure of the then Opposition,-a measure to disable those from sitting in Parliament who had any pensions or offices held in trust for them,-the Minister was defeated by a majority of seventy-four to sixty-four; and even the most reasonable propositions then brought forward by Ministers were defeated. I ask, then, what became of the 270 placemen who supported the Government? I will not go farther with the votes of the House for the last few years. I have done it on former occasions; it is now unnecessary-for I will not rest my cause on anything but the declarations of the noble Duke at the head of affairs, and the right hon. Secretary. They have told us that the estimates have been reduced by two

millions. Why is it that this sum of two millions has not been saved to the country until it pleased the Duke of Wellington and the right hon. Secretary to reduce it? Sir, I say that if the House of Commons had done its duty it would not have waited until his Grace came into office, but would, of its own authority, have revised the Estimates, and compelled the Ministers, by refusing the supplies, to reduce the sum more than two millions. And now, Sir, on what do I rest my hopes of reduction and Reform ?-on this House ? No; but on his Majesty's Ministers, and on the effect of public opinion out of doors, which, somehow or other, has greater influence on them than even majorities in this House. Sir, I have now nearly finished what is to me an extremely disagreeable task. My present position I consider an unfortunate one. I think I am pledged to do what I am now doing, from the part I formerly took on this measure. I know my propositions make me liable to be accused, on the one hand of rashness and desire of innovation, and of hesitation and change of opinion on the other. I know I stand in the situation of a butt for attack upon both sides— attacks from those who wish to push Reform farther than I wish, and from those who do not wish for Reform at all. But, Sir, the object of my proposition is to improve the representation without doing injury to the Constitution. I wish to preserve the fundamentals of the Constitution, while I give to every individual his just rights. I consider my propositions are calculated to produce this effect, and whatever imputations may be cast upon me by the antireformers in this House, or by the violent reformers out of this House, I shall submit them as soon as the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman has been disposed of -a Motion which, I am bound to say, he brought forward with great temper and ability. But as I believe his views to be erroneous, and as I think his propositions injurious,

I cannot adopt them, and know no course I could pursue except that upon which I have decided.

SUPPLY: VARIOUS PLACES.

December 13, 1830.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said it was a gross error to suppose that the diplomatic expenditure of England exceeded that of other countries. He did not, however, mean to state that the salary alluded to should not be reduced; but the question required consideration. He declared that although he had not recorded any vote upon the subject, in his opinion the keeping up the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not consistent with a just economy. But it did not follow that because he entertained this opinion he should approve of the removal of this officer in the present state of Ireland. It did not follow that Government, even if entertaining similar sentiments, was to say: 'We will maintain our consistency— we will brave the danger-we will charge the Secretary for the Home Department with the burthen of Irish affairs, notwithstanding the abundant occupation he receives from the present state of England-we will take our chance for all the mischief which may arise from the removal of the Lord Lieutenant, rather than sacrifice one iota of our consistency.' For his part he considered it would be much the better course to appoint a Lord Lieutenant for the present, looking forward to a time when, tranquillity being restored and confidence reestablished in Ireland, they might safely and securely dispense with that part of the establishment. He admitted that in the last Administration there was economy and less corruption than in any which preceded it; it was far, however, from understanding the temper