§ Colonel Palmerrose and said, that he should not think it necessary to go at any length into a statement of those claims, which had already been very folly discussed. In the year 1808, after a very ample discussion, the House had recognized the claims of Mr. Palmer (his father), to the per centage originally granted him on the improve- 256 ement of the revenues of the Post-office. A resolution had been actually passed in the Committee, for a grant to him of 54,702l. on account of this claim. But at the close of the session, the Chancellor of the Exchequer prevailed upon the House to withdraw that grant from the Appropriation Act. In the following session an Address was voted to the crown, praying that the claim might be tried, as a question of law, on its own merits. This was a course with which Mr. Palmer would have been perfectly contented; but he was informed by his counsel, that there were difficulties in the case, and that the Address of the House was not binding on the court of law so as to have the claim tried entirely on its merits. Under these circumstances he was obliged again to appeal to the House, to carry its own Resolutions into effect. The course that he should now take would be to move for an humble Address to the Prince Regent, praying him to grant the said sum of 54,702l. pursuant to the resolution of the Committee, and assuring him that the House would make, good the same He was aware that there might be some objection to this in point of form. It was usual in applications for money to present a petition, which required the consent of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the part of the Crown. The present case was, however, differently circumstanced. This was not a first application, but it was an appeal to the House to carry their own resolution into effect. When the House resolved on paying the debts of Mr. Pitt this was the course taken by them. They addressed his Majesty to grant the money, and promised to make it good. If the House judged that a proper course, in order to get the debts of another individual paid, he thought they could have no objection to taking the same course, in order to pay a debt recognized by themselves to be due from the country to Mr. Palmer. He concluded by moving," That an humble Ad-dress be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, humbly to beseech his royal highness to advance to John Palmer, esq. the sum of £. 54,702. 0s. 7d. being the balance due to him on the net revenue of the Post Office, from the 5th day of April 1793 to the 5th day of January 1808, and to assure his royal highness that this House will make good the same."
Mr. Rosesaid, that before he entered-into the subject, he must free himself from the imputation of having been always disinclined to the claims of Mr. Palmer. In 257 the year 1784, he thought it his duty to give every assistance to the plan, and was at that time in the habits of friendship with Mr. Palmer. Mr. Pitt was so far from wishing to deal harshly with Mr. Palmer, that when the dispute first broke out between the Postmaster-general, and him, the Postmaster-general (lord Walsingham) actually conceived for three days, that he himself was removed from office. It was perfectly understood at the time, that the 2½ per cent. was given to Mr. Palmer, not merely as a reward for his invention, but as a retainer for future services. Mr. Pitt was never disinclined to Mr. Palmer, until it was fully disclosed to him, that instead of checking, and controlling the accounts, as it was his duty to have done, he not only neglected that duty, but instructed the officers under him to violate their duties also, for the purpose of counteracting the Postmaster-General. Instead of accelerating the delivery of letters, it appeared in evidence, that he had purposely retarded the delivery. All this appeared in letters in Mt. Palmer's own hand-writing, directed to Mr. Bonner, and by other incontestible evidence. It was clearly proved, that instead of doing his duty of controlling the accounts he had been instrumental in the passing of fabricated accounts. Under such circumstances, he believed that there was not a lawyer in the House who would not say, that if his situation of comptroller to the Post-office had been a patent place and for life, the patent might have been set aside on a scire facias, when such instances of gross misconduct in his office had been fully proved. The evidence of Mr. Pitt was clear upon the point of the reward being given, as well for the control and super intendance that was expected from Mr. Palmer, as from the merit of the invention. In this part of what was expected of him, Mr. Palmer had completely failed in his duty. It was on those grounds principally that he fell it his duty to oppose the address.
§ Mr. P. Mooreobserved, that, if it were necessary to follow the right hon. gent. into his different objections to the motion, it would be easy to refute them; but there would be no use in dwelling upon such objections, as they had been already disposed of by the resolution of that House. Mr. Palmer, was, in his opinion, very hardly dealt with; and, as the House had solemnly recognized his claims, he called upon them to fulfil the public faith pledged by parliament. He could 258 not on this occasion but call to mind the flourishing representation of the revenne of the Post-office, made last night by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had taken down his words, and if he should have mistaken him, he should be happy to be corrected. All this improvement in the Post-office re-venue was owing to Mr. Palmer's plan. Before that plan was put in execution, the communication between London and the out-ports, by letter, took place but twice or three times a week, and by a way circuitous, precarious, and perilous. Without the benefit of this plan even the telegraph in time of war might be sometimes useless. It would be disgraceful to the House to dishonour its own resolution, Mr. Pitt estimated the improvement of the revenue of the post-office under the plan at 200,000l.; it had actually produced, according to the statement of the right hon. gent. last night, 1,276,000l. He knew he might be told that part of the increase arose from other causes; but he would answer, that they must have been all abortive, had not Mr. Palmer communicated his original plan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed giving relief to Scotland, from a part of the encreased revenues of the Post-office, and yet he refused to remunerate the man who supplied him with the means! Besides the obvious ad-vantages attending the present mode of conveying letters, there were many in-direct ones, which raised the revenue to a height which could not be calculated. In short, when he considered the time, labour, and fortune which Mr. Palmer had expended in bringing his scheme to maturity, and the benefits which arose from it, he was surprized to see one member refuse him an equivalent pecuniary, compensation which he had been originally promised, and which was confirmed by that House. He should certainly support it in every stage.
§ Mr. W. Dundasstated, that be had been Chairman of the Committee appointed to investigate this claim, and his opinion clearly was, that Mr. Palmer had no right to any compensation beyond what he had received. Gentlemen were disposed, to rate higher than it deserved the improvement introduced into the Post-office by Mr. Palmer, although he was ready to admit that Mr. Palmer's plan much good. The increase in the Post-office revenue, however, was not to be ascribed solely to this. The improvement of the 259 country was also to be taken into account. But the question was, what had Mr. Palmer contracted for? The claim had been brought forward in 1797, and a decision given against it. It had afterwards been brought forward ten years after, when Mr. Pitt was no more. From the evidence of Mr. Pitt, however, it clearly appeared that the situation in the Post-office had been given to Mr. Palmer in lieu of his claim; that he was to have a salary, and a certain percentage if he did his duty in the office. Upon these terms the bargain had been concluded. Mr. palmer had not done his duty, and had been removed; and under these circumstances he did not think he had any claim to remuneration. He had engaged to accelerate the delivery of the letters, and instead of doing that, he had conspired to retard their delivery. It might be said that Mr. Palmer had been unfortunate in a deputy; but however that might be, it was impossible for him (Mr. Dundas) to refuse credit to the evidence contained in Mr. Palmer's own letters.
Mr. C. W. Wynn,in addition to the grounds of objection stated by the right hon. gent. opposite, felt an objection of an earlier date to this motion. If the resolution of 1808 decided this question, he would allow that they ought not now to be discussing it. But though an act blight have passed that House: yet, if thrown out by the Lords, it would be a fair subject of discussion, on being in another session brought in again. The objection he felt was as to the legality of the original contract under which Mr. Palmer claimed. He doubted whether any minister of the crown had the power to mortgage any part of the public revenue in such a way during the life of the person to whom he might think proper to grant it. The minister, no doubt, had the command of the public purse, but he should have the sanction of parliament for such a grant in reward even of merit. He denied that all the increase of the revenue of the post-office was to be attributed to Mr. Palmer's plan. If the House would but look to the number of canals and docks, and other public works, which had taken place all over the kingdom, they would perceive the necessary increase of that revenue from the correspondence that grew out of them. If even the agreement had been valid in the first Instance, which he denied: the conduct of Mr. Palmer had been such as to set it aside, though his 260 claim had been derived from a patent Such was his notion of the conduct of Mr. Palmer that he thought he might have been indicted for a conspiracy; when he looked around the House, he was sure that many members were absent, who, in the expectation of a future stage of the business, intended to deliver their opinions; he therefore recommended that the consideration of the subject should be adjourned to another period.
§ Sir Thomas Turtonstated most decidedly, that new facts, leading to new inferences, had come out before the Committee in 1807. But the hon. and learned member who had just sat down had, he confessed, given quite a new view of the case. That hon. and learned member objected to the legality of the original agreement: but if a minister should dare to disavow such an agreement, that House, while the public was deriving the benefit of it, would not fail to give the individual compensation. The hon. and learned gent., too, had said that Mr. Palmer might have been indicted for a conspiracy for his conduct. Indicted? yes, upon garbled extracts; and yet he would defy the ingenuity of that hon. and learned gent., or any of the learned gentlemen opposite, to frame an indictment for a conspiracy that would apply to this case. A misdemeanor it might be construed to be, but no conspiracy. The question was, whether the Resolution of the House was not binding upon it to satisfy this claim. He contended it was, whilst it remained on the Journal"; though he was ready to admit that it might be discussed. It appeared throughout the whole of the correspondence, that Mr. Palmer's great complaint was, that he was constantly thwarted in carrying his plan into execution. He had undertaken to cleanse the Augean stable—that Herculean task, which, if he could have effected, would have put a stop to the practice" which prevailed in the department, and left the persons employed in it to be content with their bare salaries. It was they, then, who had combined against him. It was they who had been guilty of a conspiracy against him. Was it, then, for the House of Commons to refuse a just claim, because the viper who had been taken to Mr. Palmer's bosom had stung his benefactor? It was to be recollected that this viper had got his place. If Mr. Palmer had been guilty of indiscretion, he had been punished: he had been dismissed from his office: but 261 his contract could not be got rid of. He trusted when it was considered that the public enjoyed the great benefits of the plan, that that House would give effect to its former Resolution by agreeing to the motion.
§ Mr. Longsaid, that whenever the subject came before the House, he considered himself called on to state all the circum-stances with which he was acquainted. He did not think that the merits of the case were completely decided. In 1799, the House was of opinion that Mr. Palmer had not fulfilled his part of the contract. There was nothing more said of it till 1807, when Mr. Pitt was no more; it then appeared from the documents, that no contract had been made which did not include on the part of Mr. Palmer a fulfillment of official duties. These duties were not faithfully discharged. Mr. Palmer was suspended for disobeying the commands of the Post Master General. Did the hon. bart. call that a trifling misconduct, which went to retard the delivery of letters, and to throw the blame of it on the Post Master General? He defied the hon. bart. to prove from the evidence, that the 1,500l. per annum, and the two and half percent, did not stand on the same footing. Every body knew, that when Mr. Palmer first introduced the plan, he was much thwarted; but at the same time, he was cordially supported by Mr. Pitt, who felt a great partiality for him, and with the utmost reluctance was obliged to adopt the line of conduct he did, when the letters were put into his hands. The House of Lords had already decided against the application. Did, therefore, the hon. gent. think that this House should address the Prince Regent to deprive the House of Lords of their power of judgment. This was a most objectionable mode of proceeding. He must therefore oppose the motion.
§ Mr. Whitbreadwished to state shortly his opinion upon Mr. Palmer's claim, which opinion remained precisely the same as when he last addressed the House upon the subject. He was confident that the arguments of the right hon. gent. opposite were not such as to persuade the House to depart from the decision which it had, come to three years ago, and which it had-been attempted to carry into effect last year. This decision had been founded, not upon compassion but upon the justice, of the case. He besought the House to consider what had been the merits of Mr. 262 Palmer, when it was owing to his plan that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been able to make so triumphant a statement of the flourishing condition of the Post-office revenue without any addition to the duties on postage. Without the benefit of that plan it was impossible to obtain such a revenue. He agreed with his learned friend, that the exemption of the mail coaches from toll, was a fraud upon the turnpike trusts; and he was glad to find the right hon. gent., whatever might have induced him to alter his opinion, admit, that some relief might be given to the petitioners whose petition the noble lord (Binning) had presented, provided the report of the Committee should recommend that measure. It had been at first intended that Mr. Palmer should have had a patent; but then it was found that an act of parliament stood in the way, and no patent was issued. But if he had a patent, it was the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, of lord Erskine, of his Majesty's Attorney-general, and of his hon. and learned friend Mr. Adam, that the patent could not have been disturbed. This was the opinion of those learned persons; and he should abide by their opinion, rather than by the legal opinion of the right hon. George Rose. Gentlemen talked of an indictment for a conspiracy, but be would not take upon him to decide whether it would or would not lie. Some learned gentlemen were of one opinion, and some of another. One thing, however, he would mention, that a Mr. Wilson had given in a voluntary affidavit, stating that he had been instructed by Mr. Palmer to insert false items in his accounts. Upon his cross-examination, however, he said, that he had received the directions from Mr. Bonner, and that he considered Mr. Palmer and Mr. Bonner as one and the same in that respect. He was ready to stand, and to stand only, on the justice of Mr. Palmer's claims, who called upon the House of Commons that night to make good their repeated decisions. There was no man in that House who would venture to say that Mr. Palmer had been sufficiently remunerated. Was there any man on any side who could say so? If, however, there were those who thought that the sum proposed was too large, let them propose a smaller one; but let this claim not go from the House of Commons without that justice which it demanded.
§ Mr. Giddyconceived that the pension 263 of 3,000l. a year, which Mr. Palmer had accepted, was a fall discharge of all his claims. It would be inconsistent and improper to take away from the House of Lords the check which they possessed over the grants made by that House. For this reason he was decidedly against the mode of the question, with this qualification however, namely, that whenever Mr. Palmer should come forward, and laying aside his claim of right, throw himself on the liberality of the House, he would not be hostile to the application.
§ Mr. Fullerwas disposed to think that the claims of Mr. Palmer were founded on the strictest justice. He had, by the simplest proposition, contributed to the benefit of the stale; nevertheless, those who professed the most foolish and idle friendship for Mr. Pitt, because he was against those claims, forsooth, were afraid to give him his due. Why, Mr. Pitt was a man who always acted for the public good, poor man! and he died poor! The government had given Mr. Palmer a salary for life; but he had a family of children dependent on him for support, and for being set out in life, who expected when he died, property, or else they would not go off! and yet, when he died, he could not (having lived like a gentleman), leave them any thing when he was therefore gone, like the snuff of a candle, and nothing left, why then his family were to be deprived of support if the House refused them justice the best way would be to refer the claims to the decision of three masters in chancery, who would decide equitably and fairly. The government were pledged to Mr. Palmer, and the pledges of former ministers were as binding on the country as if sanctioned by Lords and Commons; besides, the policy was a narrow and a foolish one. By narrow views of policy we were plunged into the present war; for if the proposition made some years ago for employing light artillery had been attended to by ministers, we should not have been now engaged; and Dumourier would have been deprived of the means of annoying us, which means were afforded him in consequence of our refusal to employ light artillery. He condemned the refusal. Perhaps a friend of his, who had invented shells for annoying the enemy, and by which the late battles had been gained, (for they had dispersed the French armies in such line style,) might, if he asked for it, be refused remuneration. It was a niggardly policy 264 which did no good, but much harm. It was losing a hog for a halfpenny worth of tar! He should, therefore, support Mr. Palmer's claims.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was obliged to risk even the good opinion of the hon. bart. opposite (Sir T. Turton), in defence of what he considered right. If he had to reproach himself with any thing, it would be with having allowed this question to come on as he had done; a concession, however, which he had made after the example of his predecessor. The conduct of Mr. Palmer, when in office, was such, that even had he held his place under a patent, he ought to have been deprived of it. When he first made his claims, in Mr. Pitt's life-time, and near the period of his bargain, they were rejected; and after that rejection, he lay quiet till after Mr. Pitt's death, a period of eight or nine years. With what face, then, could he now appear before the House, at a distance of time in which they must be much less competent to decide the justice of his demand, than they were at a time when they judged it ought to be rejected after full investigation and living evidence? He saw some gentlemen opposite very ardently supporting this claim, which, convinced in his conscience he was, had it been brought forward by government, they would without hesitation have pronounced to be one of the most flagrant and abominable jobs that ever originated with a minister. The case was this: Mr. Palmer had for his invention received an office, connected with the faithful discharge of which he was to have a pecuniary remuneration. He had by gross misconduct proved himself unworthy of his office, and of course his emolument ceased. Yet on his dismissal he had received 3,000l. a year; and with this, in his opinion, he ought to be content and grateful. The right hon. gent. here read the correspondence of Mr. Palmer to prove his misconduct when in office; and from a review of this, he had no hesitation in pronouncing him guilty of a conspiracy with those beneath him, for the purpose of frustrating the object for which he was appointed; namely, the acceleration of the distribution of letters. Having gone through the matter of the claim, be must now refer to the manner in which it was attempted to be carried; and this he must call most unconstitutional. They were to address the Prince Regent to advance the money, and to promise that parliament 265 would make it good. From what was he to advance it, or what right had they to promise that parliament would make it good? Why should they promise for the House of Lords, and that in a matter in which they were doing all they could to frustrate their decision? In his opinion, neither the merits nor mode of this claim could be justly supported.
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, he was particularly desirous to make a few observations on what had fallen from the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, for a more unconstitutional doctrine he had never heard delivered in that House. He believed the right hon. gent. was the first Chancellor of the Exchequer who had ever thought it necessary to appeal to the House of Lords in a case which related to the disposal of the public money. If his doctrine were true, how came it that the land and malt tax was always voted, and the money advanced upon it, long before a Bill was brought in to that House; and where had been the instance in which the Lords had signified any opposition to it: If such a thing could be supposed, the Bank would act very idly in advancing the money before the Bill had passed both Houses. With respect to the argument of not renewing the application after the year 1797, during the life time of Mr. Pitt, he thought there was a very good reason to be given; Mr. Pitt was as persevering a man as Mr. Palmer, with rather more power at his command; but though Mr. Palmer did not actually bring forward his case before parliament, he never ceased to keep up his claim in the memory of his friends, and to apply to them for advice how to act; and they were all of opinion that to bring it forward again during Mr. Pitt's administration, would be at least fruitless. Mr. Sheridan said, he had it in his power to speak very decidedly on this subject, because the plan had first been shewn to him when Secretary to the Treasury during the administration of the duke of Portland; and when that administration went out, he told Mr. Pitt what had been the intention of that noble duke and lord John Cavendish; which was to give a salary of a certain sum for life, and a percentage. He knew before this the numerous cabals and plots that were hatched against Mr. Palmer by those who; were interested in opposing this reform; and he was convinced in his own mind, that Mr. Palmer would stand but a poor chance if he were not permitted to clear 266 the office of all those private opposers of what they called innovation. This was what Mr. Palmer wished to effect, and this was the cause of his acting as he then did. To suppose that he had the most distant intention to diminish the revenue of the office was evidently ridiculous. His own per centage was a sufficient security against that, for he could not lessen the one without in an equal degree injuring the other. If Mr. Palmer had been guilty of the foul and abominable conspiracy with which the right hon. gent. charged him, how came Mr. Pitt to give him three thousand pounds a year? Had he been a conspirator, this would have been an act of great injustice to the public in Mr. Pitt. He thought Mr. Palmer was right in accepting this 3,000l. a year while he could get it, though to his knowledge, Mr. Pitt had always protested against if, as a breach of the original contract. He hoped the honourable officer, the relative of Mr. Palmer, who brought forward the present motion, would not take the advice given to him to withdraw it; but that he would depend on the honour and justice of the House, rather than its charity which the giver of the advice had promised to procure in his favour. He thought Mr. Palmer a most injured man. He now offered to give up 50,000l. a year, which his percentage would have amounted to, and only asked for 50,000l. in the whole. This was an act of justice which he hoped the House would this night render him.
§ Mr. Crokeradmitted that Mr. Palmer had a right to the percentage, but condemned the mode in which it was proposed to allow his claim.
Mr. Secretary Ryderconcurred with his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and complained of the misrepresentation given to his argument respecting the offence that the proceeding would give to the Lords. The land and malt tax was understood as a matter of course, and was a subject on which no heat or difference of opinion had ever existed between the two Houses. He argued, that instances could be adduced in which the House had adopted a similar proceeding. They were calling, if this motion was carried, on the Prince Regent, to do that which he must know would not be agreeable to the other House.
§ Mr. Jekyllapologised for trespassing on the House at that late hour of the discussion, but from what had fallen from the right hon. gent. who had just sat down, he 267 felt himself compelled to tack another Ryder to the debate (a laugh.) He vindicated the conduct of Mr. Palmer, and pointed out the advantage the public had derived from the arrangement that had been adopted with respect to the Post-office, pursuant to his suggestion. It was unjust that such services should go unrewarded. They had only to recollect what had bean promised, and the present remuneration would appear but small. The whole country, he had no doubt, would approve of this vote, who had found their correspondence in all parts of the empire so much more safe and expeditious. He was surprised that an hon. lawyer opposite, who had been consulted on the subject, (the Solicitor General) should remain silent on the present occasion. He complained of the obloquy that had been thrown out against Mr. Palmer in the course of this debate, and referred to the conduct of Mr. Pitt on the subject, though equally hostile to the claimant, as very different. In referring to the nature of the evidence, he inveighed against the low means that had been employed in the Committee against the claimant. The gaols had been searched to find out accusers against him, and the principal one was a fellow that had been taken from the King's Bench, who had been fed by Mr. Palmer's bounty, and, like a viper, had turned against him. In a former discussion on this subject, he and an hon. friend of his had called him a viper, and a man of the worst description. These speeches had been published by a morning paper, he believed the Morning Herald, the proprietors of which were prosecuted for a libel by this same person, for the expression made use of respecting him. He and his friend had acknowledged that they had used the expression, and were ready to come forward in evidence, but first consulted the Speaker, who was of opinion that they could not appear in any court, on questions that had originated in that House, without first obtaining permission from the House. But though they did not appear in evidence, yet to shew the weight of the character of this man, when the question came to the jury, they found a verdict of only sixpence. In the heat of his feelings, there might have been some irregularities on the part of Mr. Palmer, but he did not believe that there now existed a more aggrieved man, or one to whom the public generally was more indebted.
The Solicitor Generalhaving been so pointedly referred to, justified his conduct and the opinion he had uniformly given on the question. It was necessary that an agreement should be fulfilled on both, sides; and Mr. Palmer, he contended, had violated his engagement by the conduct of which he had been guilty. He thought this must be obvious to any man who had read the evidence. Both the two and a half percent, and the 1,500l. a year, he contended, were granted for services only which required the fulfilment of certain duties; and if these were unperformed" the stipulations on the other side might be withdrawn, without any injustice. He contended that upon the evidence of Mr. Palmer's letters that gentleman had no such claim; and that if a scire facias had been brought, the letters patent would have been cancelled. The question, however, on the whole, he conceived, was not whether Mr. Palmer had been properly and fairly dismissed, but what the House ought now to do with these letters of Mr. Palmer's before them.
§ A division then took place:
| For the Address | 107 |
| Against it | 42 |
| Majority in favour of Mr. Palmer's Claims | 65 |