§ Mr. Humesaid, he was anxious to submit to the House a motion respecting the expenses of the Civil List; and, in the outset, he was able to state, that the objections which the chancellor of the exchequer had made to the proposition of the hon. baronet, would not at all apply to any one of the motions he meant to offer. The House, he was persuaded, from what he had observed this day, would be desirous to obtain all the information possible respecting the income which his late majesty possessed; not only with respect to what parliament granted as a civil list, but also with reference to other exclusive and reserved revenues. The House was aware that in the report now ordered to be printed there was a statement of the total receipts and expenditure of the civil list, from the accession of his late majesty to the month of January, 1815. The object of one of his motions was, to complete that return, and to produce what did not appear from any papers before the House—a return of the expenditure from the 5th of January, 1815, to the 5th of Ja- 76 nuary, 1820. This account would not be so difficult in making up as gentlemen might imagine. The total of the expenditure of the years preceding the last could be given in about nine lines; and the account of the last year, up to the 5th of January, 1820, might contain the detail of the whole payments on the establishment. It must be in the recollection of gentlemen, that, since the civil list was divided into classes, two or three alterations had taken place, particularly in 1804 and 1816. On those occasions there had been a transfer from one account to another of certain sums, improperly charged under various heads. The civil list had also been freed from considerable burthens of different descriptions, which were transferred to the consolidated fund, and were payable out of it. If, therefore, gentlemen had an opportunity of examining the expenditure of the period to which he had adverted, under the various heads, they would be better enabled to consider the grounds on which any alteration might now be effected. The payments, at present, were very complicated, and he could not see, as the civil list was merely intended for the support of his majesty's household, and did not include the whole civil expenditure, why a more accurate classification should not take place. No less than an expense of 600,000l., totally exclusive of the civil list, was incurred by the civil expenditure. From the accession of his late majesty, up to the period to which the report of 1815 extended, the money voted by the House of Commons, in aid of the civil list, amounted to 53,000,000l.; but nearly 9,000,000l. had been paid from the consolidated fund, on account of items separated from the civil list, and, strictly speaking, forming a portion of that list at the accession of George 3rd. They could not, therefore, know what the exact amount of the Civil list was, unless they had before them the six classes into which the payments were divided. They would then be able to decide on the alterations that should be made. He considered it quite an anomaly that the right hon. gentleman who filled the chair of that House should be paid from the 2nd class of the civil list the sum of 1,500l., and that another source should be applied to in order to complete his income. The payment of the salary of every individual should be simplified. And if that principle were followed, not only with respect to the civil list, but the 77 fee-fund, and various other departments, it would be infinitely better than the system now adopted. Some establishments were paid from four, five, and even six I sources; and it was actually necessary to have additional establishments to keep the accounts. The consequence was, that members of that House were prevented from understanding how the payments were made. As the information which he sought could not be obtained by any Other means but by the production of the accounts, he could see no good reason for keeping them from the House. They ought, he conceived, to be placed in the hands of members before the discussion on the civil list took place. He could not, therefore, contemplate that the chancellor of the exchequer would continue that course of opposition on which he had previously acted. He meant first to move for "an account showing the amount in totals which has been paid for each class, since the 5th January 1815, in respect to the charge of the civil list in each year from that period to the 5th January 1820, stating in detail the payments for the last year; and also, an estimate of the demands outstanding and unsatisfied on account thereof on the 5th January 1820." If ministers intended to inform the House of what had been doing, under the 56 Geo. 3rd, this account would not be refused. In each preceding settlement of the civil list the regulations were as strict as possible; every means appeared to be adopted to prevent any exceeding of the estimate laid before the House. But still it appeared that in every instance there was an exceeding. The estimate of 1786 was departed from, and that of 1804 was, in like manner, set at nought. There was an exceeding on every item. The House ought now to know whether the settlement under the act of the 56 of Geo. 3rd had been strictly complied with, or whether that estimate was also exceeded. He did not know that an exceeding had taken place, neither could he tell whether the whole of the sum granted by that act had been expended. He would state why; because, in many of the items, under several of the classes, the amount was very much altered, compared with that which was the average of the three years preceding 1816. The committee that drew up the report of 1815-16 said, "the estimate had been referred to them, and seemed to be drawn up on the average of the three 78 last years, during which the expenditure was very great." Now, as the establishment of 1816 was formed on a scale the most extravagant that had been known since the settlement of the civil list, the House ought to inquire, whether the two acts, ordering a return to be made to the House when any excess took place, had been complied with. He was not sure that such a return had been made, and he thought there could be no objection to its being produced. The second motion was for "a return of the amount of all payments under the head of civil contingencies, which do not form part of the ordinary charges of the civil list, in each year from the 5th January 1815 to the 5th January 1820; as also, an estimate of demands outstanding and unsatisfied thereof at that date; and also, of all sums granted by parliament to discharge the same." When the House had in their possession the first account—that which he had just read—and another for which he meant to move, gentlemen would be able, at one glance, to see the whole of the receipts and expenditure of the civil list. The account had already been brought up from the accession to 1815, and his motion would carry it on to January 1820. The last document for which he would move was, "an abstract account showing the amounts in totals, under each head, which have been issued in each year, from 5th January 1815 to the 5th January 1820, from the exchequer, out of the consolidated fund, or out of money specially granted by parliament for allowances to the several branches of the royal family, for the judges, &c. in England and Wales, and for all services which were formerly paid out of the civil list revenues, but from which the civil list has at various times been relieved." If these accounts were produced, the House would have at one view the whole amount of sums chargeable on the civil list which had been paid during the late reign—The hon. gentleman then moved for the first account.
The Chancellor of the Exchequeropposed the motion. The documents called for could not, he said, be useful to the hon. gentleman for the object he had in view. The act of 1816 required that, if there was an additional charge on the civil list exceeding the estimate by the sum of 16,000l. an account of such exceeding should be laid before parliament. Now, no such return had been made; and if 79 the hon. gentleman thought that the act of parliament had been violated, let him bring his charge forward, and ministers would be ready to meet it. He was prepared to say, that since the passing of the act of 1816, the issue had been regular, and no excess whatever had taken place, Under these circumstances, he would move the previous question.
§ Mr. Humecalled on the right hon. gentleman to point out where one account connected with the civil list receipts and expenditure since 1816 was to be found. He thought it was most unfair to refuse this information, since individuals would not, hereafter, be able to alter the arrangement, as they might now do, if they were in possession of those accounts. The system had been changed by two acts of parliament; but ministers did not always keep within the letter of those acts. According to the report of 1815, the sum of 3,747,000l. had been voted, to make up for certain violations of acts of parliament. He did not know that the whole amount granted by parliament had been paid; neither could he tell whether, of that large sum, 100,000l. or 200,000l.. might not remain unspent. On these points he desired information; and he hoped the House would not allow a motion of this kind, so palpable and distinct, to be rejected. If information on this important subject was to be thus refused in limine, it would be useless to enter into any discussion upon it.
§ Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the right of calling on ministers, under all circumstances, to produce accounts which the hon. gentleman seemed to think existed, was a new doctrine in parliament. He could quote a very high authority on this subject, that of the late Mr. Fox, who had distinctly stated, that, unless the Crown came to parliament for assistance in aid of the civil list, gentlemen were not at liberty to call for an account of its application and expenditure. They had just been told that the estimate had not been exceeded since the last arrangement; and the hon. gentleman observed, that he did not know whether it had or not. A specific allowance had been granted for the support of the king's household; and in the event of an excess beyond that allowance to the amount of 16,000l. or upwards, although that sum might be made good out of other funds, still it was enacted, by the 56th of Geo 3rd, that an account of such excess should 80 be laid before parliament. Now, if there was no excess (which must be inferred, as no return was made), and if no demand was made for assistance, he could see nothing, consistently with the course pursued by parliament at all times, that authorized the hon. gentleman to call for a detailed account of the application of those revenues which parliament had granted for the support of his majesty's household. The arrangement of 1816 accomplished that which had not been before accomplished. The regulations adopted at that period provided new-checks, by which the whole expense of every department, in each class, was to be kept within the estimate agreed to by parliament. It had been so confined; and that being the case, the hon. gentleman was in possession of all the information that was necessary for any proceeding with reference to the establishment of a new civil list. Let him take the estimate as it now stood, and rest assured that the expenditure was kept within its bounds. It was, therefore, fit to consider, whether, to satisfy the curiosity of the hon. gentleman, they would produce a detailed account, showing how much was spent for wine—what were the outgoings of the lord steward's, or of any other department—circumstances which could only be looked into with propriety, when the Crown called for assistance. It appeared to him that no ground whatever had been laid for the motion.
Mr. Tierneyadmitted that where no application for assistance was made by the Crown, it was not customary to inquire into the civil list expenditure. The speech of the right hon. gentleman was, however, one of the most extraordinary he had ever heard, because he stated the case as if there was a civil list in existence—the question being, how to form a civil list? They were not now dealing with a civil list actually in being—they were called on, de novo, to make a civil list; and in doing that, his hon. friend asked for such information as would enable him to decide on what was proper to be given. Could it be irregular to call for an account of that which took place in the reign of George 3rd? Because the hereditary revenue was to be placed at their disposal, and a sum was to be granted for the civil list, not exceeding the amount of that voted in 1816, were they at once to decide that the vote of 1816 was correct, without knowing the intervening circum- 81 stances? They were now called upon to make a final arrangement—so final, indeed (and he begged the House to recollect the chancellor of the exchequer's argument on other occasions), that, after making it, they would be told, if they attempted such a thing, that it was indecent to revise it. As this was the case, it became the more necessary that they should proceed with caution, and see I clearly what they were about to do. Fie thought it most extraordinary that they should be asked to vote this gross sum, founded on the settlement of 1816, without knowing what had occurred since, They were told, that if there were an exceeding to a greater amount than 16,000l., an account of the excess was to be laid before parliament within 31 days after such excess appeared. But this was no answer to the motion. They must bear in mind, that it was not an operative civil list they were touching, but one that only existed as a matter of history. His hon. friend wanted farther information. He wished to know whether all the money granted to support the civil list had been expended. There were two difficulties to be encountered and cleared up. Parliament might have voted too little, or it might have granted too much. He recollected, when the last arrangement took place, that it was considered a matter of difficulty to imagine how so large a provision could be expended; particularly that connected with the lord steward's department. That noble lord, it was understood, proceeded on a principle of great frugality. If, therefore, the settlement of 1816 provided more than was necessary, it was a material fact which the House ought to know. If there was a surplus, be should like to be acquainted with its appropriation, if it had been appropriated, which he did not suppose was the case. If the lord steward had, at the end of the year, a sum unappropriated, what was he to do with it? It was not an impassible circumstance that the Crown might wish to possess a sum of money than lay it out in the support of that splendor which it was granted to maintain. A king might be seated on the throne who would rather keep the sum of money than entertain the company who would expect to be present at his festivities. This he merely put as a possible case. It certainly might be so, and it was an evil that ought to be guarded against. They ought, therefore, to know truly how the 82 money had been spent, and every facility should be afforded to let them convince themselves that the whole of the sum formerly voted had been necessary. This was a very material fact, for it was just as possible that they had granted too much as too little.
Lord John Russellsaid, it seemed to be the intention of his majesty's ministers, at the commencement of a new reign, to take as a model in the arrangement of the civil list, the arrangement made five years ago, notwithstanding all the changes which had since taken place, and without consenting to any inquiry on the subject. That was certainly not his view of the way in which the House of Commons, at a time of such extreme pressure, ought to perform its duty to the country. He did not know whether the hon. gentleman's motion was that which was best calculated to obtain the desired information (although it appeared to him to be a very fair and proper one), but he was perfectly satisfied that the House of Commons would not do its duty, if it consented to any proposition for the permanent establishment of a civil list without any further inquiry.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. gentleman had observed, that the division of the civil list, in different classes in 1816, had prevented any exceeding. He did not seem to recollect, that, in 1786, there were different classes, which did not prevent an excess. At that time, the expenditure exceeded the estimate by 124,000l.; and a similar circumstance occurred in 1804. He would be glad if any other hon. gentleman would point out where the necessary information of the expenditure from 1815 to 1820, could be procured, except from the accounts for which he had moved.
§ Lord Miltondeclared, that he very much doubted if the present circumstances of the country were such as to justify the establishment of a permanent civil list In the present state of our currency, it was impossible for any man to say what was the real value of a pound sterling, or what alteration the execution of the measures agreed to by parliament last year might cause in that value. He would, therefore, almost say, that no permanent civil list establishment ought at present to be formed; but, at least, the House ought maturely to consider on what basis that establishment ought to be constructed. It was half a century since the subject 83 had been fundamentally brought under the consideration of the House; for all the subsequent acts with respect to it were mere modifications of the arrangement, and were not founded on any thorough consideration of it. Referring to Mr. Burke's celebrated speech, when he moved his economical reform, he put it to the House whether it might not be practicable to introduce some of the ameliorations then contemplated. At the time of making a new bargain with the Crown, might not various anomalies, such, for instance, as allowing the chief justices of Chester and Wales to sit in that House (contrary to all principle), be advantageously corrected? The present was the period in which a minute inquiry ought to be instituted, in order to see if some alteration might not be made beneficial, not merely as to the scale, but as to the classification of the civil list expenditure. But it appeared to be the determination of ministers to vote the civil list as it was, without any investigation whatever; taking credit indeed for not increasing it. A right hon. gentleman had even asserted that every body expected it would be increased. It appeared to him to be most extraordinary on the part of ministers to refuse all information on the subject.
§ The House divided: Ayes. 60; Noes 113.
| List of the Minority. | |
| Althorp, viscount | Hill, lord A. |
| Burdett, sir F. | Haldimand, W. |
| Boughey, sir S. | Harbord, hon. Ed. |
| Benett, John | Kennedy, T. F. |
| Bury, viscount | Lamb, hon. Wm. |
| Bernal, Ralph | Langton, J. H. |
| Baring, sir Thos. | Macdonald, James |
| Barham, J. F. | Milton, viscount |
| Bright, Henry | Millbank, Mark |
| Barrett, S. M. | Martin, John |
| Calcraft, John | Newman, R. W. |
| Calcraft, J. H. | O'Grady, capt. |
| Calvert, N. | Powlett, hon. W. |
| Calvert, C. | Parnell, sir H. |
| Cavendish, Henry | Pym, Francis |
| Crompton, Sam. | Palmer, C. F. |
| Colburne, N. R. | Ridley, sir M. W. |
| Curwen, J. C. | Robinson, sir G. |
| Crawley, S. | Robarts, Abr. |
| Penman, Thos. | Robarts, George |
| Duncannon, vise. | Russell, lord John |
| Dundas, C. L. | Rowley, sir Wm. |
| Grenfell, Pascoe | Ricardo, David |
| Gordon, Robt. | Rumbold, C. |
| Graham, R. G. | Sefton, earl of |
| Guise, sir W. B. | Tierney, right hon. G. |
| Hornby, E. | Wyndham, W. |
| Hobhouse, J. C. | Wilson, sir Robt. |
| Wilson, Thos. | TELLERS. |
| Warre, J. Ashley | Hume, Jos. |
| Webbe, Ed. | Philips, G. |
| Wilkins, Walter |
§ Mr. Humeproceeded to make his second motion. He avowed that his intention was, that the details of the last year's expenditure should be laid on the table, in order that the absurdity of many of the items might be shown. Was it not fitting that the House, in the present distressed state of the country, should have every information on the subject, when among the items were such sums in the 7th class as 1,372l. to the master of the hawks, which might surely be retrenched; 1,547l for the education of the Persian youths, which was misplaced in being charged on the civil list; and others as deserving of remark. He deeply regretted that the House, by the decision to which they had just before come, and expressed their determination to shut out all information on the subject of the civil list; not even admitting that which was by no means novel in its nature, but simply an extension from 1815 to 1820, of the information in the possession of parliament before that period. He could do no more than make the propositions which he deemed necessary; it was for the House to deal with them as they thought proper.
The previous question on this, and on the third motion, was put and carried.
§ Mr. Humesaid, he would not go on with the remaining motions of a similar nature which he held in his hand; he must, however, again state, that the accessible accounts on the subject took weeks and months to understand, although a single hour's labour on the part of the clerks would obviate that inconvenience. The motion which be was now about to make was of a very different nature. It was surely most important, when the House were called upon to vote a civil revenue to his majesty for the support of the royal household, that they should know what sums his majesty had at his disposal, over and above all parliamentary grants. The amount of the reserved hereditary revenue of the crown in Scotland, taken on the average of the la6t three-or four years, amounted to 110,000l. He was anxious to have this account continued in the same manner as the others, from the 2nd of February, 1816, to the 2nd of February, 1820. Over and above the sums voted by parliament, the whole of the reserved hereditary revenue of the Crown 85 amounted to 300,000l. If the account, as it respected Scotland, were produced, it would show that the 110,000l. was chiefly appropriated to the payment of pensions, not for meritorious services to the state, but for political considerations; the money was expended, not in maintaining the honour and dignity of the Crown, but in corrupting the members of that House [Hear, hear! a laugh, and cries of order !]. In a few days he would endeavour to show how the money was employed; for he intended to move for an account which would show how far the cheers of the gentlemen opposite were well-founded. He really believed that the whole of the 110,000l. of the Scotch reserved hereditary revenue might be advantageously saved. He would move, "that an account be laid before the House of the amount of the reserved hereditary revenues in Scotland for each year, from 2d of Feb. 1816, to 2d of Feb. 1820."
§ The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the previous question, which was put and carried.