HC Deb 09 January 1812 vol 21 cc112-24

On the motion, That a Supply be granted to his Majesty,

Mr. Creevey

rose and insisted upon the necessity imposed upon the House of examining into several subjects connected with the public revenue, before they entered into the consideration of the Supply which should be granted to the crown. He complained that no step had been taken to put in practice the recommendations contained in the reports respecting the abolition of sinecures and places. It would be impossible for the House to remove the scandal which attached to it in consequence of the number of placemen on the benches, until they took the reports to which he alluded into due consideration. Not only had no attempt been made to deorease the number of placemen who were members of that House, but the evil had even been aggravated. Since the last session, three new offices, the Clerk of the Council, the Marshal of the Admiralty, and the Paymaster of the Widows' Pensions, had been given to members of Parliament. The situation of a Master in Chancery had also been conferred on another member, evidently for no reason, but for his political conduct. There was also an old member of that House, (sir John Sinclair), long known as an indefatigable agriculturist, who had suddenly been made a Collector of the Excise. Could it be believed, that the office of Marshal of the Admiralty was conferred on the individual who enjoyed it, for any thing but his vote in that House? Could it be believed, that the offices of Master in Chancery, and Collector of the Excise, were conferred on the individuals who enjoyed them, for any thing but their votes in that House? Was all this right, amidst the distresses in which the country was involved? The motion with which he meant to conclude would be a general one, that he might not be accused of taking any member by surprise; but he felt the imperious duty, surrounded as they were by the influence of the crown; an influence continually increasing, and exercised in defiance of all decency—to endeavour to call the attention of Parliament to this important subject. One of the places to which he had alluded, he should wish to speak of with a great delicacy. He meant the office bellowed on colonel M'Mahon. He had the good fortune to be well acquainted with that gentleman, and he sincerely believed that a more honest and faithful servant never lived in the court of any prince whatever. Any reward that might be given colonel M'Mahon by his royal master was an act not of grace, but of justice. But he insisted that those who had advised his royal highness the Prince Regent to do what he had done, had been guilty of gross injustice to colonel M'Mahon, and gross injustice to the people of England. They had placed col. M'Mahon in a most invidious situation, and they had advised the Prince Regent to commit a great outrage on the House of Commons. Twenty-nine years ago it was stated in the 10th Report of the Commissioners for Public Accounts, that the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions was a perfect sinecure, that it was useless, and that it ought to be abolished. In one of the Reports of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry presented to the House four years ago; the Commissioners referred to the former report of the Commissioners of Public Accounts, confirmed the opinion therein given, and stated, that on the decease of the patentee, general Fox, they presumed that the office would be abolished. Since the last session general Fox had died, and in the face of the two reports which he had mentioned, the ministers of the crown had advised his royal highness the Prince Regent to confer the office on colonel M'Mahon. Where was the use of naming commissioners, of placing gentlemen in an invidious situation, and of involving them in a multiplicity of fatigues, if the crown continued to give places in spite of the opinions which those commissioners declared? In his opinion, Parliament ought to offer to the Prince Regent, with respect and humility, their sentiments on the advice which he had received. At present, he called upon the House to pledge themselves, and he would move it as an Amendment to the motion before them, that they would take into their earliest consideration, the various offices of emolument recently granted by the crown to several of their members.

The Speaker

was of opinion, that no Amendment could be made to the motion before the House. The proper course appeared to him to be, to move the postponement of the motion, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

Mr. Creevey

acquiesced, and moved as an Amendment, that the House would tomorrow se'nnight resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, in order to give an opportunity in the interim, for the consideration which he had suggested.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought that, though there were sufficient grounds for opposing the motion, from the nature of the proposition which is involved, it was not sufficient merely to oppose it, without taking some notice of the statements which had been made. In the selection which had been made of persons to fill public offices, since the last session of parliament, the hon. gent. thought he discovered a something that justified him in concluding that there was a great abuse and a great impropriety in appointing to those offices persons who were members of that House. He had to oppose what the hon. gent. had advanced on two distinct grounds. In the first place, it was obvious that where a member had been appointed to a situation which rendered him incapable of sitting in parliament, he could not come under the description of those of which he complained, and as the accepting of any office under government rendered it necessary for the party to vacate his seat, and for his constituents to determine whether or not he should again fill it, the hon. gent. ought, at all events, to have waited till such persons were again returned, before he came forward as he had done on the present occasion. But did the hon. gent. really think that the circumstance of a gentleman being a member of that House disqualified him from serving the public in an official situation? Did he think that if a barrister, for instance, had an opportunity of displaying great powers, and extraordinary talents, combined with extensive judicial knowledge, that all these should not be sufficient to recommend him to a public situation, because he was a member of parliament? Were they to understand that it was improper to appoint a member of parliament to an office under government, for no other reason, than that he was a member of parliament? To this it was that the hon. gentleman's reasoning came; for on every one of the appointments he admitted that the individual selected was not in other respects improperly chosen. Nothing was alleged against any one of the persons alluded to; no want of honour or of capacity to fill the situation to which he had been appointed, had been charged against either; and therefore if to the appointments made there was any objection, it arose solely from the circumstance of those on whom they were conferred having been thought worthy to sit in that House by a body of constituents who had chosen them to be their representatives. This was the first time he had ever heard such an objection called forth by any appointment that might have taken place. One of the persons mentioned in particular by the hon. gent. on this occasion, namely col. M'Mahon, he had not only been silent with respect to casting any thing like blame or discredit on his character, but he had done him the justice to bestow a very high eulogium on his uniform conduct. In doing this, the hon. gent. had done that distinguished individual justice, and no more than justice. As to the truth of all that the hon. gent. had advanced in his praise, he, as far as he had any knowledge of col. M'Mahon, was ready to bear his individual testimony. Notwithstanding all this had been fairly admitted, to propose such a person to the Prince Regent as a person peculiarly entitled to a public reward was characterised as disgraceful to the individual. This was the hon. gentleman's statement, and the appointment of col. M'Mahon was described as one as derogatory to the Prince Regent as it was insulting to parliament. As such it had been arraigned by the hon. gent., because the abolition of the office to which he was appointed, had been recommended by a Committee of that House. The hon. gent. farther supposed that the office had been given to col. M'Mahon by patent for life. Now really he thought that before the hon. gent. came forward with such statements as those which they had heard from him that night, he ought at least to have given himself the trouble of enquiring into the nature of the office to which the individual alluded to had been appointed. Had be done this he would have found, that the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions had never been granted for life, and was not held by such a tenure even by the late general Fox. If, then, it were held by colonel M'Mahon even as it had been held by general Fox, still it would not be held as the hon. gent. had supposed. So far was this from being the case, and so far was this appointment from being any thing that could throw discredit on the Prince Regent, or be felt as insulting to parliament, or even to a Committee of that House (which, however, was by no means the same thing) that even in its being given, a marked intention to observe their Resolution was to be traced. Far from being against its being renewed by parliament, and disposed of as to them should seem best, it had been distinctly communicated to col. M'Mahon, by his Royal Highness's command, that considering the circumstances, under which the office stood, he was to hold it as subject to any view that parliament might take of it. (Hear, hear!) He was surprised at the effect which this part of his speech seemed to have. Things appeared differently to different understandings. There might be some very great absurdity in what he had just uttered, but he was not aware that any thing had fallen from him to justify the triumphant cheers of the hon. gentlemen opposite. When the appointment of col. M'Mahon took place, it had been distinctly intimated to him, that he was not to consider that he had any hold on the office in question, that could prevent any adjudication of it which parliament might think proper to make. (Hear, hear!) It seemed from the conduct of the hon. gentlemen, that what he bad just stated had only the effect of confirming the hon. gentlemen's objections to the appointment, and that they considered the office thus given, to furnish stronger grounds for complaint than if it had been granted to col. M'Mahon by patent for life. If such was the opinion of the hon. gentlemen, he was content to leave them in the full possession of it. With respect to that or any other sinecure, the House however would recollect the course of its own proceedings. It had been resolved that no sinecures ought to be abolished till some other provision was made for accommodating public servants. The case of col. M'Mahon was that of an individual whose services merited a public remuneration. The power of giving pensions, instead of bestowing sinecures, had not been granted to the sovereign, and under those circumstances, the office in question falling vacant, it had been given to as worthy and as honourable an individual as the country could select, or the world afford. This however had been said to be disgraceful to the individual so appointed, derogatory to the Prince, and insulting to parliament. These observations it had been attempted to support, on the most futile grounds that could be well conceived, and on these it had been proposed to postpone the supplies called for by the country. The right hon. gent. concluded with expressing his hope that the proposition would not be acceded to, and that the amendment of the hon. gent. would be thrown out.

Mr. Brougham

fully subscribed to all that had been said in praise of colonel M'Mahon, but was not the more satisfied with the manner in which the official situation to which he had been appointed, had been bestowed. Far from thinking that the high character of the individual justified the appointment and that consequently it ought not to be looked in to, he was of opinion that the more deserving the man, the more ought the appointment to be watched, as one fraught with danger and deserving reprehension. When a job was to be done, if a person generally obnoxious was selected to enjoy its profits, there was less reason to fear that men would forget their duty, and be cheated into silence, then when a man deservedly high in public estimation was so selected to enjoy a sinecure. The appointment, he contended, was insulting to parliament. It flew directly in the face of their resolutions. The abolition of the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions, had been recommended not merely by the commissioners of 1783, but that recommendation had been confirmed by the commissioners of military inquiry in 1808, in the strongest manner possible. The House itself in 1810, after no very mild debate, had given its sanction to the recommendation he had mentioned. In that year, after a great debate on the 31st of May and the 1st of June, and after one division, the House came to two resolutions which he would then read. The first he would call their attention to was of a very general nature, as it merely resolved, "That the utmost attention to economy is at all times the duty of parliament." The second resolved, "That it was the opinion of that Committee, that, in addition to the useful and effective measures already adopted for the abolition of sinecure offices, it was expedient to extend them to others, the duties of which were performed by deputy;" and a farther, amended resolution, after a long debate, resolved, "That for this purpose, in addition to the useful and effective measures already adopted for the abolition of sinecures and of offices, the duties of which were executed by deputy, it was expedient to enable his majesty to reward in a different way those who had filled the high effective civil offices." He had the greatest respect for the high office held by colonel M'Mahon in the Prince's household, but he contended that this did not bring him within the meaning of the last resolution. It was only understood to mean those who held high effective situations in the courts of justice, in the army and navy, and in the public, offices of state. With, this feeling it appeared to him a mere jest to talk of the situation held by colonel M'Mahon as coming within the purview of the Resolution. The Resolution recommended the abolition of all offices which produced revenue without employment, and the regulation of those where the revenue and employment were disproportionate, with the exception of certain officers in attendance on the king, and having a respect for the situation of persons at present interested therein. The reports both of the Commissioners of 1783, and of 1808, recommended the abolition of the two offices of Paymaster and deputy Paymaster of Widows Pensions, as being unnecessary, the one having very little to do, the other nothing at all. The office of Paymaster had in particular been recommended to be done away on the demise of general Fox. Now, what had been done by ministers when that event took place? Why, at a time when the House was not sitting, and parliament had no opportunity of addressing the Prince Regent on the subject, they had advised it to be given to colonel M'Mahon? But then, said the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was distinctly communicated to him, that he was to hold it subject to any future act of parliament. What was there in this? why, colonel M'Mahon held his own private estate subject to any future act of parliament. That he must so hold his sinecure was known to him before, and his having been told so then, only proved that they were conscious they were flying in the teeth of those principles which had been recognized by the House and its Commissioners. It had been said that it was not granted to general Fox for life, any more than to colonel M'Mahon; but if they turned to the report of 1783, they would see that no reason had been given for not immediately abolishing it, but that it was then held by general Fox. If, then, they had acted consistently with that recommendation, on his death it would have been abolished. That the grant of it to colonel M'Mahon did not prevent its being subject to a future act of parliament, was certain, but it threw an obstacle in the way of its abolition, and on this ground he could not but object to the appointment; With respect to what had been said on the subject of making an hon. gentleman a Master of Chancery, he could have wished it spared, and he regretted that his hon. friend had not confined himself to the appointments to offices which were purely sinecures. He censured the grant of Cashier of the Excise to aright hon. baronet, at a time when the Committee were debating on the expediency of its being abolished. He could not but condemn that conduct which threw an impediment in the way of relieving the public from the intolerable weight of sinecures; and, with the exception he had mentioned, fully concurred in the observations made by his hon. friend. When he considered what pains government had taken to fly in the face of the Resolutions of that House, he thought it extremely proper for them to pause before they granted the supplies.

Mr. Croker

observed, that the last speaker had wished one of the late appointments had not been noticed, and he also could have wished that one bad been omitted—that of the Clerk of the Council. That office was not a new grant. It had been given to the hon. gentleman 25 years ago, and he had succeeded to it by the death of its late holder, instead of obtaining it by a new grant. Perhaps the hon. gentleman was not aware that a new writ had that day been moved for in the room of that gentleman, on account of his receiving that office. He was surprised to hear the last speaker say that the communication made to colonel M'Mahon on his appointment, only proved that government were conscious they were acting wrong, and then go on to state that the only reason for its not being abolished in the time of general Fox, was that he held it by a tenure, of which it was thought he could not with justice be divested. It was because ministers were aware that such was the impression on general Fox's mind, and foresaw that one similar might have been made on that of colonel M'Mahon, if notice were not given that such an objection would stand no longer. The hon. gent. opposite bad omitted to read part of the Resolution produced, which went to suggest the regulation of sinecures. It was necessary that it should be stated that that resolution had not been forgotten, and that colonel M'Mahon had only received the grant subject to such regulation as parliament might hereafter think proper to make.

Mr. Creevey

observed, he had not, said that the situations of clerk of the council, and master in chancery, were-sinecures but he had complained that two new placemen, the one holding a situation of 1,000l. per ann. the other of 3,000l Were thus brought into parliament.

Mr. Brougham

, in explanation, said he had read the whole of the resolution, but contended that the office of Paymaster of Widows' Pensions, was one which it was not proposed to regulate, but to abolish.

Mr. Croker

remarked, that if the House were disposed to deal with that office at all, it was still open for them to do so, without injustice.

Mr. Stephen

rose to address the House under evident feelings of agitation. He said he did not expect that he should have had to defend himself on an occasion like the present. He had, indeed, been appointed one of the Masters in Chancery, and he hoped his vigilant and conscientious discharge of the duties of that office would prove, at least, the sincerity of his wish to justify the preference that had been shewn. He could not, however, but consider it as somewhat unkind, that a motion like the present should have been made, and no previous notice of it given, that those who were to be attacked might be, at least, allowed time to prepare their justification. For himself, he was not present when the hon. gent. made the motion; and he had been able to collect its import only from the various explanations that had been entered into. He could not, however, sufficiently express his disapprobation of that system which was now becoming so prevalent, of inferring the impossibility that a member of parliament, holding a place under government, should be able to discharge his parliamentary duties conscientiously and with integrity. This was a morality not very much to be admired, and it was a gratuitous supposition very little honourable to the human character. For himself, without any offensive egotism or arrogance, he believed that he was as capable of feeling and acting independently at the present moment, as he was before he accepted the appointment alluded to. He would be bold to say, indeed, that no situation, no prospective, no actual reward, could influence him in his conduct as a member of parliament—nor did he mean to assume to himself a degree of virtue which he was unwilling to suppose in others. He had no doubt that when the hon. mover himself was Secretary to the Board of Controul, he discharged his parliamentary functions as uprightly and as honestly as he now did. He wished to think so, at least, and he was willing to hope it was so. But why did the hon. gent. inveigh with so much bitterness against those who held situations under government? Why did he consider it as a thing so beyond the probabilities of life that the same man could be an independent member of that House and a possessor of a place under government? Was he prepared to act in conformity to his principles? Had he renounced all hope of political and official preferment? Did he wish to be understood as expressing this? He could not conceive, indeed, why a faithful servant of the crown might not be likewise a faithful representative of his constituents. He saw nothing incompatible in the two stations; but if every one who occupied them was to be exposed to malignant insinuations, if he was to be immediately the object of suspicious rancour, honourable men would soon cease to accept such appointments, lest they should be forthwith regarded as having necessarily bartered their integrity for their places.

Mr. Whitbread

observed, that the hon. and learned gent. who had just sat down, had displayed rather more warmth than the occasion seemed exactly to demand. He agreed, however, with his hon. friend (Mr. Brougham) that it would have been better if the hon. mover had adverted to the situation of the Master in Chancery earlier, or not at all. No appointment had taken place with more publicity at the time, or had been more before the public: and if any thing was to be objected to, the proper lime for bringing forward such objection would have been at a less recent period than the present. He was happy, however, to admit the, great fitness of the hon. and learned gent. for the station which he filled, and which he was far from regarding as a sinecure, He conceived, indeed, that the intention of the hon. mover was not to censure the appointment, individually, but generally the practice of rewarding political votes by such appointments. In adverting to the case of colonel M'Mahon he was not of opinion that the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Croker) had entirely removed all its objectionable qualities. The principal feature of blame in the transaction was, that of appointing him, during the recess of parliament, to a situation which every one must know to be a sinecure, and therefore an incumbrance upon the public purse, and fit only to be abolished. Ministers, he thought, might, with more decency, have waited till, parliament met, for there were no duties attached to the situation which called so imperiously for performance, that the omission of them would have, been injurious to the public service. The intimation of his provisional nomination which had been made to col. M'Mahon, and upon which so much stress was laid by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, appeared to him extremely futile and nugatory. The same might be said to any man receiving any species of appointment. To what did it amount? What actual efficacy had it as far as regarded the resumption of the appointment? Could it now be taken from colonel M'Mahon without some other remuneration being given in its place? He did not wish to be considered as having any personal hostility towards colonel M'Mahon. He was a man of whom he never heard an evil report in his life, so blameless was his conduct, both public and private. He was a faithful servant of his royal master. But he thought ministers had acted with great impropriety in advising the Prince Regent to reward his services by such an appointment. If they had studied to bring the Prince Regent into contempt, he thought they could not have hit on a better expedient for accomplishing their design. With regard to the appointment of Mr. Buller, as Clerk of the Council, he had no other objection to it than as it was the means of bringing another placeman into parliament. He had even said, that the presence of the hon. Secretary to the Admiralty might be dispensed with, as the first lord and another lord were there to give the House any information it might want on naval subjects. The sum of all was, that ministers had not only ill-advised their Prince, but had treated with studied contempt the resolutions of that House.

Mr. Secretary Ryder

repeated what had been previously stated, that the grant of the situation of Clerk of the Council was not a grant of the present day. With respect to the appointment of colonel M'Mahon, he could not discover that the arguments of the first speaker had been at all advanced by those who followed on the opposite side. As to the question which the hon. gent. had asked, What inconvenience could be expected to arise from the situation of Paymaster of the Widows' Pensions being left vacant till the meeting of parliament? He certainly could not take upon himself to say that inconvenience was to be apprehended. He would however, answer that question, by asking the hon. gent. another: What inconvenience could be anticipated from its being given as it had been given, leaving it open to parliament' to abolish, to regulate, or to mollify it, as might to them appear proper?

Mr. Whitbread

replied, that the objection was, that the appointment recognised a principle which he regarded as highly dangerous and reprehensible, that of bestowing public money without adequate service for it.

Mr. Matthew Montague

professed himself to be one whose opinion it was that public services should be rewarded by places and sinecures; he did not wish to see government abolish all sinecure appointments until a sufficient sum was provided in order to remunerate those who would be thus dispossessed of what they now held.

The House then divided. For Mr. Creevey's Amendment, 11. For the original question 54.

List of the Minority.
Bennet, Hon. R. H. A. Martin, H.
Brougham, H. Osborne, Lord F.
Folkestone, Viscount Tracey, H.
Hutchinson, C. H. Whitbread, S.
Herbert, Hon. W. Tellers.
Knight, Mr. Creevey, T.
Lamb, Hon. W. Westerne, C. C.