HC Deb 10 June 1817 vol 36 cc933-8

The report of this bill being brought up,

Mr. Tierney

thought that a compensation ought to be granted to the Crown for those means of rewarding public services of which it would be deprived by the abolition of sinecures: the only question was, as to the mode and amount of such compensations. He would strongly object to that part of the measure which made length of service a criterion of merit. If so, did any body suppose that three years were sufficient to be spent in a cabinet office to entitle the individual to a cabinet pension? Besides what reason was there for making a difference between the period of their service, and that of those who held inferior situations? This measure was spoken of as one of economy; but its economy to the nation would not be considerable. In the first place, it might create a greater expenditure. At the end of two years government would have at its disposal pensions to the amount of 11,000l., while, perhaps, not one of the sinecures would fall in to the public relief. At the end of four years, 18,000l. of pensions might be given away without any proportionate compensation to the country in the abolition of useless places. The whole saving that would accrue to the public at the death of the present holders of the sinecures abolished by the bills before parliament was calculated to amount only to 95,000l., and against that, at the end of 12 years, there might be placed 42,000l. of pensions, granted to the Crown in compensation. This saving might at first sight appear considerable, but it would upon examination be found much less than had now been stated. Besides, it would not be realized for many years: while, during some time to come, the system of pensions would create a positive Joss to the country This bill, with these objections against it, had passed through the House without much opposition, precisely because confidence was placed in that committee from which it originated; and which, from the little attention it bestow, ed upon the subject of its inquiry, did not deserve any. There was no evidence in the report to show the policy of the measures it recommended, or to point out the saving that would accrue to the public. He could not but regard this measure, therefore, as a gross delusion practised upon the public; from which the country, would gain, nothing, and whose only re- suit would be, an increase of the national burthens and ministerial patronage. The cabinet would in 4 years nave the power of engrossing for their own behoof 9,000l.: and if the ministers had the good fortune to stick to their places for 4 years, they would have at their disposal 18,000l. They made no question about the falling in of sinecures: they only thought of the increase of their patronage. He was of opinion, that no pension should be conferred till the consolidated fund had the benefit of the falling in of an equivalent sinecure salary. The bill, he thought, ought to be sent back to the committee to be amended. He stated these objections; he would ground no motion upon them. A triumphant answer to them might be expected from the noble lord; but he could not disprove figures. He had no reluctance to remunerate meritorious civil officers, but the measure should be carried into effect in a way that, under the pretence of economy and of a saving to the public, should not increase the public burthens or the ministerial patronage.

Lord Castlereagh

said, it was rather strange that the right hon. gentleman should have been so long silent, if he really relied on the deductions of his own reasoning; and that he had suffered two bills to pass, and to be carried up to the Lords, without opposition, which were much more objectionable, in every point of view, than the present. The right hon. gentleman had acted unfairly in leaving out the savings that would fall in from the abolition of the offices in Ireland. This was a most important omission when calculating the amount of the future balance to the public from the present measures. The compensation was given in lieu of all the offices, and the right hon. gentleman had compared its amount with the aggregate salaries of only a part. The right hon. gentleman had said, that in two years 11,000l. of pensions would accrue to the Crown from this bill, and in four years 18,000l. This statement he (lord C.) denied. Without including the supernumerary pensions which would be placed at the disposal of the Crown, only 5,500l. would be placed in the power of government at the end of the first two years; and, at the end of four years, only 13,000l. There was no probability that the 42,000l. which was the amount of the pension list created by this bill, would ever be in complete operation at the same time. The discharge of 30,000l. was probably as high as it would go. The right hon. gentleman had, however, taken the pensions at the highest, and the sinecures at the lowest estimate, exaggerating in the one case, and omitting in the other. The noble lord seeing no reason to alter his opinion, would give this measure his full support. He could conceive no other object which the right hon. gentleman had in view, by disgusting the House and the country with the observations he had stated, but to make a speech; as he proposed no amendment, and concluded with no motion. Why did he not oppose the proceeding in the committee? Why did he not state his opinions earlier? or, why did he now state them at all? Had he turned his back on his old friends, and was he prepared to disgust the country by opposing a measure less exceptionable than the one he formerly supported? His opposition, he hoped, would have no effect against the adoption of a measure of undeniable economy; manifesting a sincere desire to meet the reasonable wishes of the people by a great sacrifice of patronage, and an important retrenchment of expenditure.

Mr. Calcraft

contended, that by this measure the public would be a gainer by the difference between 100,000l. and 42,000l. besides they would be getting rid of offices odious to the country. Further reductions might also be made in the pension list, which could be applied towards the pensions created by this bill.

The report was then ordered to be brought up. Mr. D. Gilbert moved several clauses, which were agreed to. Mr. Calcraft moved a clause, "That any person who may accept a pension under this act, shall vacate his seat in parliament.

Mr. Canning

objected to the clause. The acceptance of a place caused the seat of a member to be vacated, because the member was supposed to be thereby more under the influence of the Crown, and; was therefore sent back to his constituents, to determine how far he was still worthy of their confidence; but in the acceptance of a pension the case was quite different, for the pension was received on retiring from office, and at a time when the person ceased to be under the influence of government.

Lord Milton

contended, that the pensions were a substitution for offices, on receiving which members were obliged to vacate their seats.

Mr. Robinson

said, the pensions under this bill were given as positive rewards for service done, while the sinecure offices were bestowed as a mere matter of favour. After some further discussion, the House divided on the clause:—Ayes, 27; Noes, 64.

List of the Minority.
Barnett, James Newman, R. W.
Browne, Anthony Newport, sir John
Calvert, C. Neville, hon. R.
Duncannon, visc. Ponsonby, rt hon. G.
Douglas, W. R. K. Rashleigh, Wm.
Finlay, Kirkman Sharp, Rd.
Fergusson, sir R. C. Smith, Robt.
Gordon, Robert Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hammersley, H. Teed, John
Heron, sir R. Vyse, R. W. H.
Lewis, T. F. Webb, Ed.
Lefevre, C. Shaw Wilder, general
Martin, Henry TELLERS.
Martin, John Calcraft, John
Milton, visc. Ridley, sir M. W.

On the motion, that the bill be read a third time to-mrrow.

Lord Milton

repeated his objections to the principle of the bill, considering it a principle wholly new in the government of this country, and calculated to degrade; the character of public men.

Mr. Robinson

was surprised that gentlemen should have kept back their constitutional objections to this late stage of the bill. As to any man looking towards this remote pension as a bribe, he did not believe that there would be much competition for such a prize. It must be, as indeed it ought to be, a hopeless speculation in a pecuniary point of view.

Mr. Gordon

differed from the right hon. gentleman: he thought that the very limitation of the rewards would excite a keener competition. Any person at all acquainted with commercial speculations knew well, that a great prize or two awakened a keener appetite than many small ones. This bill would, for the first time, make politics a trade; a circumstance the more to be regretted at a moment when the public were not disposed to look with peculiar favour on official men of whatever party. As to the argument about the necessity of remunerating men who left lucrative professions, he conceived that it would be better if such persons remained in their profession, if gain was their object, and if they could not be contented with the higher honour of being called to assist the sovereign with advice for the benefit of the people. Much had been said about the services rendered to the country by the labours of ministers. For his own part, he thought that instances might arise when ministers might do much more good by resigning than by keeping their places. But the paltry temptations of the present bill would tend to keep ministers in till they had carried their pension by length of service. Thus, it was possible to imagine (he was of course merely putting a supposed case), that at some future time there might be serious divisions in the cabinet on some question of even vital importance, and that some particular minister might be subjected to some disagreeable slight on that account; and such a man might by the present bill, be induced to cling to the office which he would otherwise reject. He might say "Well, this is very unpleasant; but let me wait a little longer, and then I shall have a pension to console these indignities. Meantime, let "bear and forbear" be my maxim: Quicquil erit: superanda omnis fortuna ferendcest.

Mr. Hanmersley

said, that the power of the House of Commons was at an end, if it could rot take away any unnecessary and hurtful prerogative from the Crown without supplying an indemnification.

Sir R. Heron

thought the bill highly objectionable in the present bankrupt state of the country. He conceived that the Crown had sufficient means of rewarding its servants cut of the old pension list; and if the bill should unfortunately survive so long as a thid reading, he should move a rider to that effect.

The House divided:

Yeas 75
Noes 20

Lit of the Minority.
Boswell, Alexnder Milton, visc.
Barnett, Jame Newman, R. W.
Calvert, Charls Newport, sir J.
Carter, John Neville, hon. R.
Duncannon, vic. Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Douglas, W. R K. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Fergusson, sir C. Teed, John
Gordon, Robt. Webb, Ed.
Hammersley, P. TELLERS.
Lefevre, C. Sha Heron, sir R.
Martin, Henry Ridley, sir M. W.
Martin, John