"the total amount received by each individual, and distinguishing the various sources from which the same is "derived."

66

26. In support of this motion Sir James made a speech, and, in the course of that speech, the following statement, founded on documents already in his possession; and no part of which statement was contradicted.

27. He had divided the Privy-Councillors into classes. It was here the place to say, that in all his calculations upon these subjects, he had always omitted the royal family, because they having a certain income under the assignment of Acts of Parliament, there was nothing mysterious about them, and in many cases these assignments had been made under the sanction of Bills, which had themselves undergone long and anxious discussion in the House. He therefore excluded them altogether from his calculations upon this occasion. The total number of Privy-Councillors was 169; of whom 113 received public money. The whole sum distributed annually amongst these 113 was 650,1647., and the average proportion of that sum paid to each yearly was 5,7521.-(hear.) Of this total of 650,164l., 86,1037. were for sinecures (loud cries of hear); 442,411. for active services, and 121,6501. for pensions, making together the total which he had stated. Of the 113 Privy Councillors, who were thus receivers of the public money, 30 were pluralists, or persons holding more offices than one, whether, as sinecurists, or civil and military officers. The amount received by the pluralists was 221,1337. annually amongst them all, or 7,3217. upon an average to each annually. The number of Privy Councillors who enjoyed full or half-pay, or were pensioned as diplomatists, was 29, and the gross amount of their income from the public purse was 126,1751., or upon an average a yearly income to each indivi-' dual of 4,3471. a year. The whole number of Privy Councillors who were members of both Houses of Parliament was 69, and of those 17 were Peers, whose gross income from the public purse was 378,8461.-(hear, hear), or, upon an average to each, 8,0657. a year. -(loud cries of "hear.") The remaining 22 were of the House of Commons, and the gross amount of their receipts was 90,8491., or upon an average to each individual, 4,1301. a year-(hear.) It appeared then that there were 113 Privy Councillors receiving the public money, of whom 69 were members of either house of Parliament. He had already stated that 29 were in the receipt of pub lic money by way of salary; the total number of Privy Councillors in the House of Commons was 31, and of these 22 were charged upon the public purse.

28. The whole of the revenue, including expense of collecting, amounts to about 60 millions a year; the collection to about 5 millions; so that these 113 men take out of the public money an eighty-eighth part of the amount of the whole of the net revenue! Well, was the motion agreed to

by the noblest assembly?" Oh, no! It was rejected by a large majority. And, as you see, Sir JAMES stated, that 69 members of the two houses received amongst them 378,8461. out of the public money, 69 of them being members of the House of Commons, and 17 of them peers!

29. I shall, in the next Number, have to show you, that 37 years ago, the taxes amounted to 15 millions a year instead of 60 millions; but, let me now proceed to another motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM, relative to the expenditure of our money on CONSULS in South America. He made a motion, on the 11th June, to reduce the sums paid to these people; and, in the course of his speech, made the following statement, every word of which I beseech you to read with great attention.

30. He would begin with the case of Mr. Ricketts, the Consul to Peru. He went to his post in 1825, and passed that year in preparations, and in his voyage out, and he received for outfit and salary that year the sum of 3,8551. In 1826, being at his post, he received for salary 2,500l.; for house rent, 5107.; for a clerk, 2501., for extras, 5031. Making in the year 1826, the sum of 3,7631. In 1827 he was on his voyage home, having left his post early in April, and that year he received 2,8127. His Honourable Friend was very testy about any charges being adverted to, previously to the year 1828; but his Honourable Friend should recollect that most of the Members now on the Treasury Benches are all his Majesty's Ministers. Though they might disclaim the expenses of that period, all formed a part of Mr. Canning's administration. But passing from the year previous to 1828, he came to that year and 1829, and these two years Mr. Ricketts was in England, and received 1,6007. a year. This gentleman, therefore, had been, under Lord Aberdeen's government, allowed to spend two years in England doing nothing, at this large salary; he had passed one year in his voyage out and home, he had been the rest of his time at his post, and for that period, not quite two years, he had received the sum of 13,6007. (hear, hear!) What he charged as the most flagrant part of the case was, the two years he had been in England at 1,6007. a year, and for these two years the present Foreign Minister was wholly responsible. He then came to the case of Mr. Nugent, who was one of those whose services were not accurately stated in the return, as he might possibly make a mistake. This gentleman went in 1825 to Chili, and received the first year 3,0507. In 1826 he was at his post, and received 2,500. In 1827,, as early as June, or he believed he must now say, as the return was not correct, in June 1828, he returned to England, and received his 2,500. His Honourable Friend described the two years, 1828 and 1829, as years of economy.. These two years constituted the golden reign of the Earl of Aberdeen-they were the economical age not

deserving of those sarcasms which his Honourable Friend charged him with using, and entreated him to abandon in bringing forward his motion. His Honourable Friend had stated, that henceforth the Consuls, when away from their posts, were to have only half their salaries, but had that not yet been the case, as he had already! stated with regard to the Consul of Peru, who had received his : salary of 1,600, during the two years he had been in England; and it had not been the case with the Consul of Chili, who had received his salary under similar circumstances, one of whom had received in four years, the sum of 13,6007., and the other had received 13,050. The next case he would mention was that of Mr. Mackenzie, who in 1826 was appointed Consul to Hayti. He received 5007. for his outfit, 1,500. for his salary, and 2151. for his voyage out, in all 2,2157. In 1826 he was at his post, and received 2,7107.; but he begged to call the particular attention of the House: to the year 1827. He received in that year, his salary, 1,5001.; fora journey into the interior of the island he charged 1,2907.; his house rent and extras amounted to 1,0707. The Honourable Baronet mentioned another sum of 1471. and for his voyage to England, 1927., making a total of 4,1797. In 1828 he was in England, and in 1828, when England was under the economic administration of Lord Aberdeen, he received his salary of 1,1257. He was little more than one year at his post, and for that he received a sum of upwards of 8,0007. He then came to the case of Mr. Shenley, who was one of those whose services were mis-stated in the Return. He begged to call the attention of the House to Mr. Shenley in particular. This gentleman had been sent as Vice-Consul to Guatemala. In 1825 he received for his outfit 3007., and for his salary 7001.; but he did not go, if he understood the return correctly, that year. He went out in 1826. He was at Guatemala that year and in 1827, and received his salary of 7007., but before the end of 1827 he left Guatemala: and in 1828 he came to England on his full salary. In 1829, under Lord Aberdeen's Foreign administration, when the public expense had been so much reduced, this gentleman was appointed Consul at Hayti, and received 5007. for his outfit. Unless the returns were erroneous, this was in January; and between January 1829 and January 1830, he received 1,2001. as his salary. The House would be surprised to learn, that he was in England yet; that he had not attempted to go out to Hayti. He remained in England up to that time, and the reason for which he remained, the members of that House would be well able to ap preciate. The reason on which he remained in England was urgent private business (a laugh). This was a species of reason which would be very intelligible to the Members of that House. In 1829, then, this gentleman received 1,7001. and never left England ; in all, this gentleman had received 4,8591. The pressure of business at Hayti, the House would imagine, could not be very great; but he found in the year 1829, that there was a charge for two Vice Consuls at Hayti. As the Consul was not present, the House would naturally suppose that the Vice Consuls were there attending to his duty. But he found by the return, that Mr. Fisher, the Vice

Consul, was detained in England on urgent private business. He was in England the whole of 1828, receiving a salary of 5501.; and was in England the greater part of 1829. The Consul was then in England; the Vice Consul also, Mr. Fisher, was in England; and the second Vice Consul, the one who was on the spot, and did all the business, Mr. Thompson, received 5001. a year (hear, hear!). He was at a loss to know what to say, to carry conviction to the minds of Members, if this failed.

31. In order to enforce his arguments in favour of economy, he cited the example of the government of the UNITED STATES; and made the following true and most interesting statement, the like of which I have made, and in print too, oyer and over again!

32. He knew that any allusion to the United States of America was not generally very palatable to the House, and he for one did, not like to institute comparisons between that country and this; but he held in his hand (showing a small slip of paper), on that simple piece of paper, the account of all the expenses of the Civil Government of the United States, including its diplomatic expenses, obtained from an authentic source, and with the permission of the House he would read it: The whole charge then for the Civil ; Government of the United States was

For the President, a salary of 25,000 dollars per year.

A Vice President

5,000

Six Judges

Making, in the whole, 92,500 dollars, for the entire charge of the Civil Government of the United States, or, in English money, 20,8127. There were, besides, three Commissioners of the Navy with 3000 dollars, with a sum, which we did not catch, for the Major-General, making the whole charge for the Civil and Military Government of the United States, 24,2991.

3

33. There! And this, too, the government of a nation now become our rival on the seas; whose maritime power now braves ours; who has, in 40 years, under this cheap i government, risen from a population of 3 millions to a popu lation of 12 millions; a nation whose government does not cost more than two-thirds as much in a year as has recently been expended on the carvework on one gateway of one, of our King's palaces! Well, surely, after all this, the

"noblest assembly" agreed to this motion! No; but set it aside by one of its usual majorities! No commentary is necessary. As Sir James said, "If this do not carry conviction, nothing will."

"EQUAL LAWS."

34. THE French, in their Revolution, having taken the word EQUALITY as a sort of watch-word, our rulers, and guides inveighed against it, as meaning that all men ought to be equal in point of property, and that the idler and drunkard should share in the property of the industrious and the sober. "Equality in laws," they said, was good. The other day, Lord John Russell was reported to have said, that the LATE MR. Fox, in opposing universal suffrage, used to say, that he did not like equality of rights, ap plied to unequal things; that is to say, that a man, who had no house or land, should not have as much right to vote as a man who had house or land. Now, then, let us see how Fox's rule has been observed in the laying of taxes upon us. The tradesman or farmer pays upon the windows in his house more than 2s. a window, if he have only 8; but any one, who has more than 180 windows, pays for that more only 1s. 6d. a window. A receipt in full of all demands, has a stamp of 10s. if the sum received be only forty-one shillings; and, if it be a hundred thousand pounds, the stamp is the same. The turnpike toll for the poor man's ass is the same as for the hunter or the racer, or carriage horse of the lord. If a tradesman, merchant, or manufacturer, sell his goods by auction, though the produce of his own hands, he has to pay an auction duty; but, if the lord sell his timber, his underwood, or the stock ou his tenant for rent, he pays no auction duty. The postage of letters amounts to about two millions a year; the lord and members in t' other place pay none of this; even the soldiers are excused; but all the rest, from the merchant down to the half-starved labouring man, pay an