the name and on the behalf of his majesty." The
bill framed upon these resolutions encountered some opposition, but they
passed triumphantly. A large addition was also subsequently made to
the income of the princesses; and it was in vain that some honourable
members pleaded internal distress, and urged that such demands were not
needed: the courtly zeal of parliament prevailed.

BILL FOR PROHIBITING THE GRANT OF OFFICES IN REVERSION, ETC.

As the bill for prohibiting the grant of offices in reversion was now
about to expire, Mr. Bankes introduced a new bill in order to render
the measure permanent. This was opposed on the second reading by Mr.
Perceval, and thrown out; and then Mr. Bankes proposed a bill for the
same purpose, but limited to two years. This met with no opposition in
the commons, and it was carried through the lords after the rejection of
an amendment proposed by Earl Grosvenor for continuing its operation
to 1840. At a later date Mr. Bankes brought in a bill for utterly
abolishing many sinecure places, and this was carried against ministers
by a majority of one hundred and thirty-four against one hundred and
twenty-three. On the 7th of May Mr. Creevey also called the serious
attention to the tellerships of the exchequer, now held by the Marquess
of Buckingham and Lord Camden, which offices were as old as the
exchequer itself, and conferred a vested right, with which it was held
parliament could not interfere. He moved a series of resolutions, the
last of which declared:--"That it is the duty of parliament in the
present unparalleled state of national expenditure and public calamity,
to exercise its rights still further over the fees now paid out of the
public money at the exchequer, so as to confine the profits of the
two tellers to some fixed and settled sum of money more conformable in
amount to the usual grants of public money for public services, etc."
Ministers opposed this motion, and it was lost without a division. An
amendment, likewise, proposed by Mr. Brand, for appointing a committee
to inquire into precedents, was rejected by a large majority. In these
debates the greater part of the opposition took the part of ministers,
but in the minority were Whitbread, General Fergusson, Lord Tavistock,
Lord Archibald Hamilton, and Mr. Brougham. But though parliament would
not interfere in these vested rights, in November of this year the two
noble tellers intimated their intention of appropriating