HC Deb 08 May 1817 vol 36 cc273-94
Mr. Bennet

rose, in pursuance of notice, to bring under the consideration of parliament certain places of emolument and half pay, which the right hon. gentleman opposite and his colleagues had bestowed on the late commissary in chief. He could assure the House that he brought forward this motion on motives solely of a public nature, not having any acquaintance whatever with the person on whom these appointments had been bestowed. This gentleman had entered the public service in 179S, as a clerk in the treasury. In 1806, he was appointed private secretary to Mr. Perceval, early in 1S11 a controller of army accounts, and on the 1st of October of that year commissary-in-chief. In order to estimate fairly the services of this gentleman it would be necessary to state of what nature they were. It was well known, that from 1793 to 1809, the commissariat department had been carried on in a way so very injurious to the public service as to produce remonstrances and complaints from those distinguished generals, sir John Moore and the duke of Wellington, of the inefficacy of the system then pursued; and government, wishing to put the service on the best footing, had consulted with colonel, now sir William, Gordon on the best means of remedying the evil. That officer was then selected to remodel the office; a duty of the most difficult and laborious description, which he performed in a manner highly creditable to himself, and eminently serviceable to the country; though the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had, on a former night, in panegyrizing the conduct of the late commissary-in-chief, attempted to give him more credit than he had bestowed on sir W. Gordon: but he (Mr. 13.) thought it was clear; even from the minute of the Treasury as well as from the testimony of the commander in chief, and the commission of inquiry, that all the advantages derived from the separate establishment of the commissary-in-chief's office were to be attributed to the arrangements made by sir W. Gordon. However, that gentleman, who was appointed in 1809, remained in the office only two years, and was removed in 1811. In 1811 Mr. Herries received his appointment. He found the office established, the arrangements made, and all the complicated machinery of the business in the most exact order. A child might keep in motion machinery the most gigantic, when all its parts were completed and in order; and all Mr. Herries had to do was, to keep at work the engine he found ready to his hands. Now, what reward had sir W. Gordon received? and what reward had Mr. Herries received? Sir W. Gordon, who established the system of the commissariat, had quitted the office of commissary in chief, and the salary of 2,555l. a year, for that of quarter master general, a most laborious office, at a salary of 2,000l. now reduced to 1,800l. a year. When Mr. Herries retired from the office of commissary general, he had half-pay given to him of 1,355l. a year, to which was superadded an office of 1,500l. a year the auditorship of the civil list; all which, after taking into consideration the deduction made from his half-pay by the Treasury minute of the 16th of August, left him a clear income of 2,700l. a year, for the small service of five years as commissary general, and 13 years as a clerk. He had 1,200l. for doing nothing, and 1,500l. for doing very little. He knew it would be contended, that the office held by Mr. Herries was of a civil nature, and that a compensation should be made for services on the loss of a situation of that description. He knew there were plenty of precedents for such a course of proceeding; and that there was no end to the antiquity of such expensive remuneration; but he begged that this question might not be tried by the precedents of extravagance, devolving by lineal descent, from treasury to treasury, but by the amount of the service itself, and the merits of the individual by whom it had been performed. But he denied, in the first place, that the office in question was of a civil nature; and he rested this denial on a statement made by Mr. Herries himself, who, when on his examination before the commission of military inquiry, he was asked whether his office was of a civil nature, replied "no." Besides this, he was considered as belonging to the war department, and his office a branch of the war office; he was gazetted in the other staff appointments; he was enjoined to obey orders from the commander in chief and lastly, he was subject to the operation of the mutiny act. As a military officer then, he would have been entitled to his half-pay; and what was the amount of that? What pay was given to commissaries in chief on actual service in all parts of the globe, serving in distant and unhealthy climates, exposed to all the perils of sea and land, sharing all the fatigues of the duty of soldiers, and by whose exertions our brave troops, were enabled to perform such prodigies of valour, and to overcome difficulties apparently insurmountable? The half-pay of Mr. Berg- man, and the other commissaries in chief, was 600l. a-year; men whose services were not those of the Treasury, who did not pass their time safely in a warm room, and by the fire side; but were exposed to various climates, sent out to distant regions, encountering perils by sea and perils by land; sharing the fatigues of the troops, for whom they found the necessary sustenance; and who were enabled under their care, to perform those achievements that had astonished the worlds The chancellor of the exchequer had estimated the service of these men, exposed to toil and perils, at 600l. per annum; but this gentleman, sitting the whole time in the Treasury chamber, in the very sunshine of patronage, was to receive 2,700l. a year for services of so light a nature—for sitting five years in the Treasury chamber; his half-pay being twice the amount of that of a general in the army, who had reached his rank by hard service, fighting our battles perhaps all over the world. It appeared by the Treasury minute to have been resolved, that 1,350l. should be allowed for a reward for the services of Mr. Herries; but if he received any other appointment by which his salary should, in the whole, amount to more than 2,700l. a-year, so much was to be deducted from his half-pay as would reduce the total receipt to that sum. One would suppose that all this had been said in contemplation of some appointment at a future day; bat not so; for that very same day, the very day on which the Treasury minute announced the abolition of the office of commissary in chief, Mr. Herries received the situation of auditor of the civil list; so that after having been thirteen years a clerk and five years a commissary-in-chief, he retired with a salary of 2,700l. a year. As to the office of auditor of the civil list, if it was not a sinecure, at least there was little to do; and persons might be found perfectly responsible and able, and who would be very ready to fill the situation for 500l. a year. But he had other objections to the office; for by it the auditing and controlling of the civil list was taken out of the hands of industrious individuals; it was taken from honest hard working men, and transferred from the servants of the public to the servants of administration. Besides, here was a gentleman holding his half-pay, with other offices of civil emolument, by the acceptance of which, in the ordinary course of the service, he would have been liable to forfeit his half-pay; a rule which, with respect to the lower branches of the service (with respect to men whose reward was so hardly earned), was always most rigidly enforced. He held in his hand a letter from the war department, which, in calling for the names of officers on half-pay, enjoined the statement of any offices, civil or military, which disqualified them from receiving their half-pay; so that if a poor lieutenant held an office of above 100l. a year emolument, sufficient if added to his half-pay, to give him a few of the comforts of existence, he was obliged to give up his half-pay, and content himself with that miserable pittance, while this gentleman, with 1,350l. a year half-pay received an appointment amounting to 1,500l. a year more! At the time of this appointment, too, August last, there was a universal cry of distress through the land; meetings were held in this town to aid the poor-rates, and afford a scanty relief to thousands who had no resource; the rich were compelled to give their superfluities, and others their necessaries of life, to the relief of their poorer brethren. At that time the chancellor of the exchequer thought fit to give this individual the enormous sum of 2,700l. a year an act insulting to the public exigence, and public calamity. He did not say that this gentleman had not some claim on his majesty's government; but, contrasting this appointment with the promises of economy and retrenchment, that had been so continually held forth, it did seem as if the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues had employed their time and ingenuity, not in contriving how to save, but how to increase the public expenditure, and squander the money wrung from penury on their friends and favourites. He should therefore move, that the House do resolve, "That the allowing the late Commissary in chief, upon the abolition of his office, to retain half his salary of 2,700l. per annum, as a retiring pension, was an excessive remuneration, regard being had to the length of his service in the Commissariat department; and that the permitting him to hold an office of 1,500l. per annum in addition to the same, is an improvident expenditure of the public money, and establishes a precedent which this House conceives to be injurious to the public interest."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that he was willing to allow the hon. gentleman all possible credit for the inde- pendency of his motives in bringing forward this question; but he trusted what he had to say would satisfy every impartial gentleman who heard him, that in the arrangements that had taken place with respect to Mr. Herries, nothing but strict and rigid justice had been done that gentleman, if indeed the full measure of justice had been attained. The hon. gentleman had, indeed, stated what appeared in the papers before the House, but he had not fairly stated the whole. Mr. Herries had been appointed a clerk to the Treasury in 1798. Some time afterwards, when he (the chancellor of the exchequer) was appointed secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Herries had been appointed, his private secretary, and remained in that situation till the year 1804; after that, he became private secretary to Mr. Perceval. The hon. gentleman could know little of public business, if he thought the situation of private secretary to a first lord of the Treasury was one of an ordinary nature; or that any person was capable of filling. It was indeed a situation of the highest confidence, and attended with the greatest degree of labour, and as such it usually and deservedly led to very high, promotion; and if Mr. Herries had filled no other office than this, his services here alone were such as to entitle him to the remuneration he now enjoyed. Without entering into any comparisons of the rewards which other persons had obtained at other periods, who had executed such important duties, he should only say, that it did not appear to him that this gentleman was at all overpaid by what had been done for him. Mr. Herries, as he had said, had been fixed on by the discernment of Mr. Perceval, to be his private secretary. But his services were not confined to that situation. From the office of private secretary to Mr. Perceval, he was removed to the controllership of army accounts; a patent place, which he held for life at an annual salary of 1,500l. In 1811 he was in possession of this office, which he resigned to take on himself the office of commissary-in-chief, not on account of the removal of colonel Gordon for the purpose, as the hon. gentleman insinuated, but because that gallant officer chose to relinquish the appointment, in order that he might resume his military career, which was more congenial with his wishes, and which he had quitted with regret when the situation of commissary was proposed to him by Mr. Perceval. When the situation of commissary-in-chief had been first established by Mr. Perceval, the office was of a very different description from what it had been when consolidated with another department. He (the chancellor of the exchequer) was very far from wishing to depreciate the merits of colonel Gordon, whose situation was very different from that which had been held by sir Brooke Watson: that gentleman had held the appointment for Great Britain alone, and was not connected with foreign stations; but colonel Gordon had the charge of the foreign department, in addition to that of Great Britain; which entailed upon him a more enlarged responsibility. Mr. Herries came to the office, with, all its arduous labours and responsibility in 1811, and he held it till 1816, when it was thought that a more economical arrangement might be made by re-uniting the commissariat as it stood at the beginning of the war, in the annexation of a part of it to the Treasury. That this measure had been productive of, real economy, any person who looked into the accounts would clearly see. By the suppression of the separate department of commissary-in-chief, forty-two persons had been dismissed whose united salaries amounted to 11,000l. a-year. Besides, it was always the case, that when a department was separated, it incurred more contingent expenses than when it was consolidated with some other branch of public service. With respect to the cause of Mr. Herries's promotion, if he the chancellor of the exchequer had been first acquainted with that gentleman, he had not contributed to his advancement; the whole of that was attributable to the favourable opinion conceived of him by Mr. Perceval. Besides which, Mr. Herries had a sort of hereditary claim to promotion, from the circumstance of his father having been almost the author of the volunteer system, from which the country had derived that universal military spirit that had enabled us to bid defiance to the threats of invasion, and had, not very remotely, led to those great results by which our prowess had been signalised all over the world. However, he would estimate only the services he had himself performed, and would state what they were. Mr. Herries, holding an office for life of 1,500l. a year, had relinquished that to succeed colonel Gordon. He had entered on the office, remodelled by that gentleman, at a time and under circumstances the most important and critical in which this country had ever been placed. In that situation he found him. Although holding a situation of a military nature, he had been excluded from the benefit of halt-pay by a measure of Mr. Perceval so who thought that the commissary-in-chief should not be entitled to half pay; because if he were, after a short period he might retire from service and enjoy a salary for life. For services of that duration he considered it better, that the recompense for the service, instead of being fixed, like half-pay, should be left to the discretion of government, and proportioned to the service performed. But in cither case Mr. Herries was entitled to some provision; and not being entitled to half-pay for the civil appointment he held previously to his situation of commissary-in-chief, it was requisite that some proportionate recompense should be afforded him for his services in the latter department. By the 50th of the king, persons who had served in civil appointments for any period between ten and twenty years, were entitled to a recompense proportioned to the length of their services. By that act persons who had been in the service ten years were entitled to half the salary of their office; those who had been 20 to 2-3ds. Mr. Herries had been 18 years in the service, or within 2 years of the time, which would have entitled him to 2-3ds. The allowance of one-half was therefore, surely not extravagant; and when he was allowed half pay by the Treasury minute that abolished his office, it was with the express exception, that if he were appointed to any office, the emolument of which joined to his half salary, should exceed the amount of 2,700l., such a deduction was to be made from the half salary as would bring his whole receipt down to that sum. The office of auditor of the civil list, to which Mr. Herries was appointed, was the result of parliamentary enact went; from a conviction that it was the only way in which the expenditure Of the civil list could be controlled; and the use of it might be gathered from this.—that whereas under the former arrangements there had been a constant excess above the income, now there was no excess at all. Though this result operated rather in praise of Parliament for instituting such an office, than as the peculiar panegyric of the person who filled it, yet he must say that nobody was better qualified for that situation from character, from manners, from ability, and from extensive acquaintance with men and things. This gentleman, when at the ordnance, had exerted himself with much success, and the country had considerably benefited by his labours; but when the question as to what remuneration he ought to receive was under consideration, he thought it necessary to bring his services more distinctly before the House than he had yet done. The hon. mover had stated, that the situations filled, by colonel Gordon and by Mr. Herries were precisely similar: nominally they certainly were, but when the labour, and the weight of responsibility in each case were taken into consideration, it would be found that the two cases were materially different. In order to show this, he would state what were the sums for which former commissaries general had had to account, and what those were which were to be accounted for in Mr. H.'s time. For instance, he would refer to the amount of the sums passed through the hands of the chief commissary in the three years preceding the appointment of Mr. Herries. In the first of these years the sum passed was 1,037,000l.,; in the second it was 1,069,000l.,; in the third, and during sir W. Gordon's, management, it amounted to 1,192,000l., being an excess of more than a hundred thousand above the two previous years: but this was but trifling, compared to the sums passed as soon as Mr. Herries was put into that situation: for in 1814, the sums were 10,173,000l., and in the year 1815, the moneys for which the commissary general had to account, rose to the sum of 15,873,000l. When the situations of colonel Gordon and Mr. Herries were compared in this point of view, he thought it must be seen, that though there was no difference between them in their rank of office, it was not just that their remuneration should be the same, when the disparity between the duties great which they had to perform was so when there was such an excess of trouble and responsibility in one case over the other, it was fit that a proportionable compensation should be given. It would be allowed, that to pass accounts to the amount of 20,000,000l. in one year (as had been the case with Mr. Herries) was not to be looked upon as an ordinary exertion, and as deserving merely an ordinary recompense. Not only had he to procure vouchers from persons acting on their own responsibility to prove the application of the sums of which he had to give an ac- count, but he was personally much, employed in the laborious duties of his situation. Towards the close of the year 1812, and in the year 1813, when the war assumed a new character, in consequence of the failure of the French expedition to Russia, and when a prospect of better times was daily opening, it was felt to be the duty of this country to make a great and gigantic effort, in order to take advantage of the rising opportunity. It became necessary not only to provide military, but also pecuniary means for an almost unlimited exertion. He (the chancellor of the exchequer), at the period to which he referred, had had the honour to propose measures to that House, which had been carried into effect (as he thought with great advantage to the country), and which had provided for unlimited exertions, and for a very considerable time. All these boundless resources, however, would have been useless, unless they had been judiciously extended and applied to the different points of action: and here he would ask any hon. members who recollected the discussions which took place five years ago, whether it was then thought possible that this country could furnish in one year 20,000,000l. of metallic currency for the uses of the war, and this too at a time when the exchanges were greatly against us under circumstances unparalleled in history—when it was the object of England to unite the armies of all Europe against France. Mr. Herries succeeded in contriving the machine by which this great object was triumphantly accomplished. He sent proper persons to the several parts of Europe to make the necessary arrangements, and these were so well adjusted, that in no instance had any of the military operations, then in progress, been retarded by a want of specie. With what success he performed his important and arduous commission might appear from this, that the demands of the allies were answered as soon as made; the wants of the army were supplied as soon as declared; and, in one word, there was a continual accession of means to meet each difficulty as fast as it rose. Wherever the armies of our allies advanced, there the resources of England were to be found; and wherever our own army or navy was directed to proceed, abundant supplies were provided. None of our warlike operations, extensive as was their theatre, had failed for want of pecuniary means. If the exertions that were made, and the success that followed, were fairly to be ascribed to the ability and enterprise of Mr. Herries (and that they were so, no man could dispute), then he would ask, should there not be a reward proportionable to such meritorious service? Millions upon millions of the country's money had been trusted to Mr. Herries, and he had applied them with integrity and honour. A future minister, however, would hesitate to trust such millions to any man, if it should be seen, by the case of Mr. Herries, that penury and neglect were the reward of such distinguished and confidential service. Under these circumstances he thought that the House would feel that the remuneration now in question was only a fair and moderate reward: at any rate he was satisfied, that, whatever their decision might be, what he had done in the case of Mr. Herries, would ever stand justified to his own conscience and his own heart.

Mr. Tierney

allowed that all he had heard about Mr. Herries was in his favour: his merits were great and indisputable: he had discharged the duties of the important office intrusted to him ably and faithfully. The question however was, whether the remuneration which he had received was not totally disproportioned to the services he had performed. This, in his opinion, was the fact. He would not call the transaction a job, because he was anxious not to apply any unsuitable term to Mr. Herries; but he would say, that either Mr. Herries had been grossly overpaid, or other persons in the same or similar situations had been grossly underpaid. While he had been allowed to withdraw with an egregious sum, other most deserving officers have been left with a half pay, scarcely removed from penury and want. The right hon. gentleman had fairly stated the progress of the official life of Mr. Herries. It was true, that he began as a clerk in the Treasury: it was true that his abilities alone had recommended him to the notice of the right hon. gentleman who had appointed him to be his private secretary; it was equally true, that for his abilities alone, he afterwards was made private secretary to Mr. Perceval; it was true, that persons so situated had always been held worthy of some provision; but none had ever received so great reward as Mr. Herries; none had received 2,700l. a year. Besides, Mr. Herries had received his reward already: he had been appointed comptroller of the army, for which he was to receive 1,500l. a year for life. Surely, such a promotion was in itself a sufficient remuneration. Mr. Herries, however, chose to relinquish this situation in order to be commissary-in-chief, in the room of sir Willoughby Gordon. Now, he (Mr. Tierney) was happy in being able to call sir W. Gordon his particular friend, and he was perfectly acquainted with the exertions and services of that officer. He knew that to sir W. Gordon was due the merit of inventing and arranging that complicated machine, the commissariat-management. Mr. Herries had all the difficulties smoothed before him, and was not called upon for any extraordinary ingenuity; he had nothing but the increased labour which became necessary from the state of the war. He (Mr. T.) was ready to admit that this labour was greatly augmented by the course of events; but he could never consent to allow the criterion mentioned by the chancellor of the exchequer, that the remuneration of a public servant was to be in direct ratio with the number of millions that happened to pass though his hands. This mode of per centage would be as inapplicable as it was unfair. For instance, his right hon. friend over the way (Mr. Long) had vast quantities of millions passing through his hands, three times as many as had ever passed through the hands of Mr. Herries, yet his pay was but 2,000l., a year; while Mr. Herries was to receive 2,700l. Surely such an inequality must produce disgust; surely, men in office would be apt to compare their own remunerations with those of Mr. Herries, and would think themselves ill-used or him grossly favoured. In every view of it, he could not but consider it, if not a job, at least a most extravagant waste of the public money. The right hon. gentleman seemed to take great credit to himself for the reduction which had been made in the commissariat, as if any body had expected that the office of commissary general would be kept up in peace the same as in war. That office being under the commander-in-chief, he thought ought to be regulated as a military office, and the holder of it put on half-pay. There was no sort of proportion between the reward given to this gentleman and that intended for other persons in situations of greater importance. He-would take the instance of the prime minister (on whom all the responsibility of administration rested): and yet by the new bill he was only to have 3,000l. a year. What were the labours of Mr. Herries, compared with those of sir J. Kennedy and Mr. Bergman? And yet those gentlemen who, during the whole war, had exposed their lives in all parts; who had been entrusted with the disbursement of large sums, of which 4,000,000l. were yet to be accounted for (and he doubted not would be accounted for in the most satisfactory manner), had retired with a pitiful 600l. per annum, while Mr. Herries obtained his inordinate salary for only five years service. It really seemed as if the ministers could not be content to abolish any office till they had created another of equal value, so that they might never lose a jot of their patronage. But then it was said that on granting Mr. Herries his half-pay it was with the express condition that no future accession of office should increase his income to a sum above 2,700l. Gentlemen in that House were in the habit of talking so much about millions, that they forgot the value of hundreds: and yet he knew many gentlemen, (and surely many members must feel the same) to whom 2,700l., or even half that sum, appeared a very considerable sum. One person he well knew to whom such a sum would seem no trifle; and he was sure that the mass of the gentry throughout England must, in times like the present, entertain a similar opinion. Must it not, therefore, be disgusting to these gentlemen to see such a reward carelessly given to such a rate of service, while they themselves were pressed down with the weight of taxation? As to the new-created office of auditor of the civil list, he had always objected to as unnecessary, and if it could be proved otherwise, its duties ought not to be paid for as they were. For this office 500l. would be a sufficient income. The right hon. gentleman talked of the auditor of the civil list, as if he were auditor of the whole, when the fact was, he had nothing to do with any of the departments but those of the lord steward of the household; the lord chamberlain, and the master of the horse. When he stated this, did he state the fact or not? Had he to do with any other department? He audited but an expenditure of 209,000l. In the first place the Prince Regent was put on board wages, neither more nor less. Then he had a lord steward to look after him, and the lord steward had a manager to assist him: but all would not do; they could not be trusted; neither could the lord chamberlain and his agent, nor the master of the horse, and his agent; so they must have an auditor to look after all six; and for this unnecessary ridiculous office he was to have 1,500l. a year. This officer had been appointed in consequence of a recommendation from the finance committee, who, at the same time, had suggested that as many offices ought to be abolished as would effect a saving to the amount of the salary he was to receive. He wished to know if a saving to the amount of 1,500l. per annum had been made by the abolition of offices in pursuance of this recommendation.—[He was here answered from the Treasury-bench, that such a saving had been effected.]— If offices had been abolished to save such a sum, he could only say they ought to have been abolished before. But this was the economy of ministers: they would not give up any set of useless offices till they had secured one or more new ones of equal value. The allowance given to Mr. Herries exceeded that conceded to those who had laboured ten times as much for what they received. Mr. Herries himself, he would venture to say, did five—aye, ten times as much—when he was in Mr. Perceval's office as he did now, and then he received but 300l. per annum for what he did. But now Mr. Herries was a few years older, he was to receive so much more for doing less. The commissioners of excise and stamps had ten times as much to do. When he thought on this, he must pronounce the business to be a foul and gross job, not of Mr. Herries, but of the government who appointed him. He (Mr. Tierney) felt perfectly convinced that the ministers would not have ventured to say a word in defence of such a barefaced proceeding, if the present motion had come from any quarter except one which, like his hon. friend, was usually in opposition to the administration. For his own part, he did not consider it a party-question. [A laugh from the ministerial benches]. Well, if they pleased, he did consider it a party question. One thing at least he felt to be a party question, and that was, he felt it to be his duty to impress on the House his own firm conviction that there never was an administration which, showed such an indifference, to the feelings and wishes of the people as, was manifested by the present ministers. He supposed, that the present job, like another not long since, would be supported by a triumphant division, and then people, perhaps, would exclaim, "there, you are at your old work again, always making a fuss and talking nonsense about nothing! how can you waste your time in making motions which have no other effect than to drag members from their homes to vote against you, and to disturb the comfortable feelings of meritorious persons; and all this stir you are making about such a paltry sum as 2,700l. a-year!" He wished from his soul that gentlemen would lay their hands upon their hearts, and say whether they really thought the present a justifiable remuneration. But, alas! gentlemen did not come there to lay their hands upon their hearts, but merely to vote. He wished to know if in all such cases of five years service, such an allowance was to be given as Mr. Herries enjoyed. He did not mean to attach any blame to Mr. Herries; he was not to blame for receiving the salary which was offered to him; but the blame lay on the government, and still more would the blame lay on that House if it should sanction such an appointment. He hoped to God, if the House did neglect its duty, that whenever an opportunity should occur, the country would come forward and show to members, in the proper manner, its sense of their conduct.

Lord Castlereagh

observed, that he would not follow the right hon. gentleman through the whole of his speech, as two-thirds of it had nothing to do with the question now before the House. The right hon. gentleman instead of confining himself to the principal question, had gone out of his way to arraign the conduct of Parliament, in order to build something like an argument against the appointment of Mr. Herries. It was common for the gentlemen opposite, when they had no other argument to use, to endeavour to save themselves by having recourse to the word "job," though, he could not but feel some surprise that the right hon. gentleman, after the lesson of the other night, should again venture to use the term "job:" he could only account for this by supposing that the right hon. gentleman, like the starling, had got a habit of crying "job," and that it slipt from him unawares on the present occasion. Considering the long and able services of Mr. Herries, he thought nothing more than justice was done to him. It was not from any special favour to Mr. Herries that either of the appointments had been conferred. It had often been said, that till the civil list expenditure was put under the control of some responsible officer, the House could never be protected against those excesses which were of such frequent occurrence; but now that such an officer had been created, when a gentleman in every respect qualified to attend to its duties was appointed to the situation, the whole business was called "a job." Nobody had spoken of Mr. Herries but with that respect and kindness to which every one knew he was entitled from his high character and great talents; and he contended, that, viewing the long services, the distinguished merit, and the high offices of Mr. Herries, no provision inferior to that given could have been offered by the Treasuty, and accepted by Mr. Herries. He would separate the question into two parts. He would first inquire what proportion of the salary of commissary-general he ought to have retained on retiring from that office, and next what emoluments it was proper he should receive when his services, were called for as auditor of the civil list. As to the first question, the 1,350l. was not given to Mr. Herries upon the principle of half-pay. That principle was applicable only to officers who had a regular rise in the army. When this very consideration was under the view of Mr. Perceval, that scrupulous and conscientious minister would not, admit that the commissary-in-chief should be subjected to the principle of half-pay. He (Mr. Perceval) on the ground that there were no persons under the commissary-in-chief in a military capacity—that he was not in the way of regular promotion—and that his duties were detached from those strictly military, placed it in such a rank as to be connected rather with the civil list. Mr. Herries had altogether served for 18 years, 13 years in situations of great labour; and had he continued in that department of service, he would, in all probability, have soon risen to a situation of more than 1,500l. a year; but he left that kind of service, and was placed in a situation of a more laborious character. Now, it should be recollected that the situation of controller of accounts was a situation for life. From that permanent situation he was removed to one of 2,700l.; one in which the greatest responsibility, the severest attention, and the heaviest charges were I imposed upon him. This would be felt when the purchases he had to effect were considered, when it was remembered that the outlay of 10,000,000l. devolved upon him in 1814, and of 15,000,000l. in 1815, to procure a supply of specie on the continent, which was found to be the only course by which the country could be protected against the ruinous expenses thrown upon her by the then state of the exchanges. Such a trust, he would maintain, could not with propriety have been confided to less distinguished characters than colonel Gordon and Mr. Herries, and of the merit of the latter gentleman they had earnest, as Mr. Perceval, with his accustomed penetration, had selected him to be about his person. For those various and arduous charges, for all the operations he had carried on, he possessed the very highest qualifications. He admitted col. Gordon's merit, he willingly assented to all that had been said of him; but Mr. Herries, he must say, was eminently qualified for that situation from his vigilance, activity, and perseverance, and was, entitled to the utmost confidence. In this most laborious and highly, responsible office, he continued for five years. Now if the principle of half-pay were admitted, he would be found to have been treated as in the lowest class. In giving half-pay, the principle of proceeding was, that when an officer had served 10 years, he should be entitled to half his salary; when he had served twenty years, to two-thirds: therefore, on this principle, they put him, since he had served only eighteen years, on the lowest scale. On the first part of the question, therefore, it appeared that Mr. Herries had not received even a sufficient retiring provision. On the second question, whether in the event of his accepting another situation he should forfeit his half-pay, he could show that such a rule by no means applied to this case. When Mr. Herries accepted the situation of auditor of the civil list with a salary of 1,500l. per annum, it was not to be expected that he would give up his allowance of 1,350l. which he was free to enjoy without doing any thing; it was not to be expected that he would take upon himself the duties of auditor of the civil list for the additional 150l. a year. That would have been to accept of an inferior situation to that he had formerly had, which was inconsistent with the practice in all such cases. It was well known, that when paying diplomatic services, they placed them in a different situation; it was always a higher one than they had occupied, never an inferior one. The allowance on retiring was not to be viewed as the half-pay of a military officer, which was consi- dered as a retaining fee. The officer in the army might be called on to serve again, as might the retired diplomatist; but neither could be forced cut of his line. When then Mr. Herries had been called upon to give ministers the benefit of his talents in a new way, they had no right to call upon him to relinquish the allowance he had received on retiring from the office of commissary general. Mr. Herries acted in foreign countries as commissary-in-chief; he had crossed the sea into various parts of the continent, therefore he could not be reduced to an inferior appointment. In common justice, and in common liberality, he could not be called upon to relinquish his 1,350l. in consideration of being appointed auditor of accounts of the civil-list. The right hon. gentleman opposite seemed to have viewed the appointment altogether as one part a job, and the other part a sinecure. He had shown that the first was not a job; he would now prove that the other was not a sinecure. It was clearly established, by two committees of that House, that the office of auditing accounts on the civil list was one of great confidence; and a noble friend of his considered it of the last importance, that the civil list should not be again neglected, so as to bring it again before the House. Mr. Herries, then, having already performed duties of extraordinary importance, was again called upon to undertake a duty of extraordinary importance; for to superintend and correct the accounts on the civil list was an office out of the common line, and required a man of tried integrity and talents, and diligence. The question, therefore, was (for he had discussed the subject separately), as to the proper provision for Mr. Herries on retiring, and whether he was bound to renounce that provision on being appointed to a situation of great importance: the question was, whether, since the salary of this last appointment did not exceed the whole amount of his former salary of 2,700l., he could be called upon to renounce the 1,350l. He thought it a fair appeal to that House, whether such a demand could, in common justice, be made; whether, considering the integrity and ability for which Mr. Herries had been distinguished, he enjoyed too high an allowance. Another point of view in which he would beg leave to represent the subject was, that by this arrangement an actual saving was effected to the public. An auditor of the civil list was necessarily to be appointed, and to be paid 1,500/. Mr. Herries had 1,350l. Had another person been appointed to be auditor, there would in consequence be 150l. more paid. The hon. gentleman who had opened the subject had given it a great deal of colouring, but he (lord Castlereagh) could not but think it would have been a great injustice to Mr. Herries, after he was removed from being commissary-in-chief, to have given him less than he now enjoyed. He, therefore, upon those grounds very conscientiously appealed to the House, whether, since it became necessary to appoint a person to audit the civil list, a situation of great importance, the selection of Mr. Herries for that undertaking was not, in every point of view, a proper one.

Mr. Ponsonby

, notwithstanding the reasoning of the right hon. gentleman, and notwithstanding the distinctions of the noble lord, could not see any grounds for thinking that the office of commissary-in-chief was not of a military nature. An argument, if the House could consider it an argument—an argument of a puzzling and curious nature had been used on this point. The situation was one of great importance and responsibility; the emolument was corresponding to its importance; but when over, nothing but what the Treasury allowed remained to him who had held it, and therefore the situation was not military. Very differently; were all other military officers treated. They could receive no other office. It was said they had promotion; they had the prospect of rising from lieutenant to captain, from captain to major. This was very true during war, and during war the commissary-in-chief had 2,700l.: but when the war was over they had nothing but half-pay. From the most indigent to the most affluent of them it was the same. Why, therefore, should the situation of commissary-in-chief be treated on a different principle, and what was the force of this argument of ascending rank? But suppose it conceded that Mr. Herries was on the civil list; he had a situation for life of 1,500l.; he was not bound to quit it and to accept of the appointment of commissary-in-chief: therefore, he could claim nothing in consequence of his own voluntary act. Mr. Herries was offered the appointment of auditor; he was not obliged to accept of it; but he had accepted of it. He could not be compelled to give his time and labour, but he of choice under- took the task. He could not be called upon to attend to the duties of this office, if he had not been disposed to perform them; but if he took it, he must renounce all the advantages of his former situation. Mr. Herries then was, or was not, in a military situation; if he was, he was entitled to half-pay, but could hold no other situation; if he was not, he could not have half-pay, he could not pretend to both; unless Mr. Herries' friends should propose to make a new principle in his behalf. With all half-pay officers it was a rule, that when they received a new situation, they must give up so much as they had previously enjoyed: that is, if they had 1,000l., and they got an appointment of 3,000l., it was provided by act of parliament, that they could not hold the former sum. It was quite absurd to attempt to exempt this case from the same rule. In every case in which care, and diligence, and service, were rewarded, it was clear by this act, that no person could enjoy any thing at all more than a pension. So ought Mr. Herries to be treated. Was the principle insisted on here applicable to all commissaries general, or to Mr. Herries only? He dared to say that Mr. Herries was a very deserving person; he believed him to be entitled to all the praises bestowed on him; he had never seen him, he had never heard of him till the present subject had introduced his name; he believed him to be a deserving person, but not deserving of this favour. He was favoured he believed. Now though he admitted that he might be a very able and a very upright person, he did not think him deserving of such favour. If favour were thus allowed to influence such questions, every gentleman would have some friend whom he considered deserving and entitled to a similar favour. Nothing of this kind was a compensation to the public for the waste of their money. He felt himself, therefore, bound to condemn this transaction as an improper application of the public money.

Mr. C. Grant

, junior, said, there were two questions under their consideration; 1st, whether the Treasury had exercised a proper discretion in allowing Mr. Herries 1,350l.; and 2dly, whether there was any censure incurred for having given him the auditorship of the civil-list. He would prove that the superannuation act, as the 53d of the king was called, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, did not apply; and that the Treasury could not give Mr. Herries only military half-pay. The act applied only to the resignation or dismissal for age or infirmity, of persons holding offices; but here the office was abolished, a case not contemplated by the act. It was therefore a distinct case. The Treasury was free and unfettered as to the allowance to be given to Mr. Herries. He thought the case of half pay officers not at all analogous. They had their half pay as a retaining fee. Mr. Herries had no retaining fee, and no promotion. His was complete exclusion, and the Treasury had not the matter left to their option. Mr. Perceval had settled that it was not within the sphere of half-pay. It was, therefore, no longer optional for the Treasury to regard it as a case of half-pay. As to the question of suitable compensation, it should be always remembered that Mr. Herries had forsaken a situation for life of 1,500l. The Treasury seemed to him therefore limitted to the view of this circumstance, and of the extraordinary services of Mr. Herries during the five years he was commissary in chief. The hon. gentleman and his noble friend had agreed in the praise of colonel Gordon; he too was disposed to do him every justice; but Mr. Herries was called to perform the most arduous duties at a most eventful period; he had to conduct the most difficult arrangements, and to manage a various and necessarily intricate correspondence. At the close of the war he proved himself a very able person, and sustained a burthen of the highest importance: he had provided our armies with every thing necessary, though in different and remote places; he had, in addition, procured specie in abundance to meet the necessities of the army, and the demands of foreign powers. No man could have been expected to perform all that he had done. The expenses of this country would have been very much greater than what they had been, but for his exertions. Several millions had been saved to the country by him. He would ask, therefore, of any man capable of appreciating such services, whether this gentleman could be thrown upon half-pay? The hon. gentleman who opened the debate had contrasted Mr. Herries's services with the military exploits of others. He thought this contrast unfair and invidious, because it was not easy to form any comparison between the fatigue and hazard of war, and the labour and assiduity of civil functionaries. He thought it also unsound and unwise; for the reward of military toil and danger was the admiration of their country, and the renown transmitted to posterity; it was therefore unsound and unwise to contrast those services clothed with splendour, against the labour and duties, not less severe, though less renowned, of civil life. He was perfectly convinced that no more than strict justice had been done to Mr. Herries.

After a short reply from Mr. Bennet, the House divided:—Ayes, 42: Noes, 93.

List of the Minority.
Atherley, A. Mackintosh, sir J.
Aubrey, sir J. Milton, visc.
Bankes, Henry Monck, sir C.
Barnett, J. Moore, Peter
Birch, Jos. Ord, Wm.
Brand, hon. Thos. Ossulston, lord
Brougham, Henry Parnell, sir H.
Calcraft, John Philips, George
Calvert, C. Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Duncannon, visc. Prittie, hon. F. A.
Ebrington, visc. Rashleigh, Wm.
Fazakerley, Nic. Ridley, sir M. W.
Fergusson, sir R. C. Russell, lord W.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Sharp, Richard
Folkestone, visc. Sefton, earl of
Grant, J. P. Smith, W.
Grenfell, Pascoe Tavistock, marq.
Guise, sir W. Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Heron, sir R. Waldegrave, hon. W.
Hornby, E. Wilkins, Walter
Jervoise, G. P. TELLERS.
Lambton, J. G. Bennet, hon. H. G.
Latouche, Robert Gordon, Robt.