asses were under the
influence of the crown, and that the departments of the revenue were
becoming so numerous as to render that influence incompatible with a
free constitution. There was no attempt, however, to prove corruption,
and the motion was rejected, as unfair in its attempt to deprive
individuals of the rights of British subjects, on the mere presumption
of venality. An act at the same time was passed for altering the law
of privilege, so far as it extended to the effects and domestics of
the members of either house. In the house of lords this bill was warmly
supported by Lord Mansfield, and as warmly opposed by Lord Sandwich, who
argued, that it was an encroachment upon the privileges of the peers. An
inquiry into the accounts of the civil list, during the year 1769, was a
popular subject in both houses about the same time. The expenses having
greatly increased, it was inferred that the money was employed in the
corruption of electors. Ministers opposed this inquiry, arguing, that
as the civil list was solely the revenue of the crown, the crown had a
right to expend it as it pleased; and that if an additional grant had
been asked, then, and not till then, the expenditure might have been
investigated, for the purpose of ascertaining the necessity of the
grant, and how the money was spent. The motion was negatived, and other
attempts to interfere with the management of the king's revenue met with
a similar fate.

The debate in the house of lords on this question is rendered remarkable
by the eloquent speech uttered by the Earl of Chatham. In the course of
this speech he asserted that the minister who was bold enough to spend
the money of the people before it was granted, though it might not
be used for the purpose of corrupting their representatives, deserved
death. Fie was reminded that he, too, when in office, had granted
pensions, to which he replied, "It is true, and here is a list of them:
you will find there the names of General Amherst, Sir Edward Hawke, and
several others of the same nature--they were given as rewards for real
services, and as encouragements to other gallant heroes. They were
honourably earned in a different sort of campaign than those at
Westminster; they were gained by actions full of danger to themselves,
of glory and of benefit to this nation--not by corrupt votes of baseness
and of destruction to their country. You will find no secret service
there; and you will find that, when the