MR. PALMER'S CLAIM. (Hansard, 20 May 1808)

§ Mr. Bankes
wished to know from the hon. gent. whether the present Bill was to embrace all the compensation? If it was not so, he confessed he should be disposed to object to any plan that would take from the other, house its right of inter- 474 ference; for if this was not to be the only measure, and if another was to be comprehended in a mere Grant of that house, the other branch of the legislature would be, he thought, unfairly deprived of their right of deciding upon the merits of that Agreement, he was of opinion, therefore, that it would be desirable that the entire amount of Mr. Palmer's Claims should not be divided, but comprehended in one bill. He wished to know from the hon. gent, how far he concurred with him in the view he had taken of the subject.

§ Mr. Lethbridge
replied, that it certainly was not his intention to incorporate the arrears due to Mr. Palmer with the grant of per-centage, to be authorized by the Bill for which he had moved. He conceived, that the proper way of providing for the arrears of the per-centage would be by a vote of the house in the committee of supply.

§ Mr. Bankes
wished to know out of what fund it was proposed to take these arrears.

§ Mr. Lethbridge
replied, that that would be for the house itself to determine whenever it should regularly come before it; but if he might hazard a conjecture, he should be inclined to think, that the Post Office Revenues, which had been so considerably benefited by Mr. Palmer's invention, would be the fittest source to draw upon, for whatever further compensation it might be deemed necessary to remunerate him with.

§ Mr. Bankes
then said, that certainly if the house still considered the original Agreement as valid and binding, the Arrears could only be taken out of that revenue: now, that revenue was yearly carried to the Consolidated Fund, and therefore out of that fund the arrears must in fact be taken. But he believed that that could only be done by an act of parliament, and not by a vote of the house. He might quote many precedents in support of this opinion, and indeed there was even one in the present session, namely, the pension to lord Lake, which was granted both retrospectively and prospectively, and part of which was in fact for the payment of a debt or arrears from 1803. This mode, then, was not only supported by precedent, but was also important in another point of view, as affording the other house of parliament, possessed of coordinate powers, an opportunity of investigating the whole Claims of Mr. Palmer, and thus reviewing the subject, and per- 475 haps correcting the opinions of this house. This he conceived was much preferable to a simple vote of the Arrears in this house; and upon looking back to the Journals, he had observed that the lords had in a variety of instances corrected the too profuse liberality of the commons in granting to individuals on the score of discoveries. Here the hon. member mentioned several instances of this sort, and concluded by moving, that the word "future" be left out in the motion, for the purpose of having the whole Claims submitted to the lords.

Mr. Marryat
opposed the remuneration altogether. He thought Mr. Palmer, by his own misconduct, had violated the principles of his Agreement, and forfeited his claim to the remuneration. Justice was always represented with a scale in one hand and a sword in the other. He never could divest that goddess of her attributes, or think that reward should take the place of punishment.

For the original Motion	63
For Mr. Bankes's Amendment	21
Majority for the original Motion	—42