the other principalities annexed to the crown; with
the crown-lands, a great portion of which he proposed
to sell; with the offices of the royal household,
a sufficient specimen of the abuses on which was furnished
by the statement, that the turnspit in the King’s
kitchen was a member of Parliament; and with many
departments of state, such as the Board of Works and
the Pay-office,
etc. He was studiously cautious
in his language, urging, indeed, that his scheme of
reform would “extinguish secret corruption almost
to the possibility of its existence, and would destroy
direct and visible influence equal to the offices of
at least fifty members of Parliament,” but carefully
guarding against any expressions imputing this secret
corruption, this influence which it was so desirable
to destroy, to the crown. But his supporters were
less moderate; and Mr. Thomas Townsend declared that
facts which he mentioned “contained the most
unquestionable presumptive evidence of the influence
of the crown; he meant the diverting of its revenues
to purposes which dared not be avowed, in corrupting
and influencing the members of both Houses of Parliament;”
and he asserted that “the principle and objects
of the bill were the reduction of the influence of
the crown.” The bill was not opposed by
the ministers on its principle; but Lord North, even
while consenting to its introduction, “did not
pledge himself not to oppose it in some or other of
its subsequent stages;” and, in fact, his supporters
resisted it in almost every detail, some of them utterly
denying the right of the House to interfere at all
with the expenditure of the civil list; others contesting
the propriety of alienating the crown-lands; and a
still greater number objecting to the abolition of
some of the offices which it was proposed to sweep
away, such as that of the “third Secretary of
State, or Secretary for the Colonies,” that of
“Treasurer of the Chamber,” and others
of a similar character. And, as the minister
succeeded in defeating him on several, though by no
means all, of these points, Burke at last gave up
the bill, Fox warning the House at the same time that
it should be renewed session after session, and boasting
that even the scanty success which it had met with
had been worth the struggle.
The other direct attack was made by Mr. Dunning, who,
perhaps, did not then foresee that he himself was
destined soon to fill one of the offices which had
come under the lash of Burke’s sarcasm, and who
a few days afterward, in moving that it was necessary
to declare “that the influence of the crown
had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished”
rested no small portion of his argument on the treatment
that Burke’s bill had received. He affirmed
that, though Lord North had declared that “the
influence of the crown was not too great,” the
divisions on that bill, and on many other measures
which had been under discussion, were irrefragable
proofs of the contrary. He quoted Hume and Judge