HC Deb 15 June 1824 vol 11 cc1340-4
Sir James Mackintosh

said, he rose for the purpose of presenting two petitions to the consideration of the House. He should begin with that which adverted to a case of individual hardship, and subsequently submit the other, which referred to the general interests of the empire. The individual who made his complaint to the House, was aware that he could not obtain here a specific redress for the grievances of which he complained; but he trusted, that, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case, and the severity of the evil which, through no fault of his, was now about to be visited on him, he might be able, through the authority and; power of the House of Commons, to have extended to him the lenity and indulgence of the War-office. About twenty-five years ago the petitioner, Mr. Robert Bell, the proprietor and editor of "The Weekly Dispatch" newspaper, became one of the sureties of Mr. James Workman, who was then appointed paymaster to a regiment of infantry. It was within his (sir James's) recollection, that so far back as the period when lord Eldon presided in the Common Pleas, he (sir James) was of counsel for Mr. Workman, in an action which that gentleman brought against the colonel of that very regiment, for having imputed to him disloyal opinions. He mentioned the fact to shew the distance of time at which the transaction took place, out of which the present petition arose. It appeared now that Mr. Workman was a debtor to the Crown for certain monies advanced to him in his capacity of paymaster, and for that debt a claim had, within the last five weeks, been made on Mr. Robert Bell, one of his sureties. The petitioner stated positively, that after the regiment had been disbanded, Mr. Workman came to London, where he resided, and that if due diligence had been made by the proper officers of the Crown, he would have been forthcoming to answer for any balance. He (sir James) did not impute blame to any person; but it was extraordinary that the claim had not been made at the proper time. He did not say that the noble lord, in making the claim on the sureties now, was pushing the powers of the government beyond the legal bounds; but he felt, that, nevertheless, the petitioner having never heard of the claim for such a number of years, was justified in believing that the whole of the accounts of Mr. Workman had been satisfactorily settled. It was true that there existed no statute of limitations, by which the claims of the Crown, as in individual transactions, were circumscribed; but, a sense of justice, and the common feelings of mankind warranted the inference, that they should adapt themselves, in some degree, to such a principle. Might not the greatest degree of cruelty and injustice be inflicted on families, in consequence of letting loose under the power of the government, these long dormant demands? If the House should feel disposed to manifest any disposition as to the peculiar case of the petitioner, the noble secretary at war, he was persuaded, would feel rejoiced to be relieved, by such an indication, from the enforcement of such a rigorous act of public duty. If the noble lord felt himself bound by the rules of office, he would at the same time consider, that those rules were in such an extreme case, very un- reasonable, and that no public inconvenience could follow their relaxation in this individual case. He begged leave to move that the petition be read.

Lord Palmerston

said, he would state the circumstances of this case very shortly, that the House might see that it was not that case of hardship which the learned gentleman had described it to be. The petitioner, Mr. Bell, had become surety for Mr. Paymaster Workman; and it was only in consequence of his joining with another gentleman in a surety-bond, that the public money had ever been intrusted into that person's hands. As it was therefore by there own spontaneous act, that they had rendered themselves liable for Mr. Workman's deficiencies, he did not see what reason they had to complain of being now called upon to make them good. Now, Mr. Workman ceased to act as paymaster in 1800, and had then rendered his accounts. Any body who had heard the statement of the learned gentleman would suppose that, from the year 1800 to the year 1824, no step had been taken by government to examine those accounts, or to make Mr. Workman's sureties cognizable for the errors which they contained. Now, the reverse was the fact. In the year 1808, Mr. Workman's accounts were examined. The result of that examination was communicated to him immediately. Abstracts of the examination were also sent to the agent of the corps. The agent of the corps, in return, applied to the War-office, for information as to the residence of Mr. Workman's sureties. That information the War-office communicated, and the agent then wrote to the sureties, informing them of the sum in which Mr. Workman had left his accounts deficient. There was, therefore, no fault attributable to the War-office, for not having given the sureties the opportunity of settling these accounts with their principal. These accounts of Mr. Workman formed part of the arrears, which, owing to the multiplicity of accounts, accumulated during the war; and it was not till very lately that they had again fallen under the notice of the department with which he was connected. Upon finding them unsettled in 1824, he had ordered them to be revised, and had also directed application for the balance of them to be made to the sureties. In consequence of certain rules which he had laid down in his office with regard to the accounts of deceased pay- masters, 1,164l. was struck off the claim which might have been made upon them; and the only claim for which they were now liable was 150l. With respect to the doctrine laid down by the learned gentleman, that public debtors were to be released from all liability in cases where a considerable lapse of time had taken place without a demand being made upon them, he thought the justice of the case was quite the other way; instead of claiming a remission of the debt, they ought to be thankful that they were not called upon to pay interest upon it. In conclusion, he contended, that this case did not require the interference of the House, and was one in which he should not be justified in taking any other course than that which he had done.

Mr. Hume

felt great pleasure that this subject had been taken up by his learned friend, especially as the case was only one of a very numerous class of grievances. He was of opinion that, after the lapse of a certain number of years, the government ought to have no stronger claim on a man's property than any of his private creditors. The noble lord had said, that communication had been made in 1808 to Mr. Workman's sureties, regarding the deficiency in that individual's accounts. Would the noble lord undertake to say that such communication had been received by the sureties, or produce any answer from them admitting the receipt of it? The noble lord had likewise said, that the sureties became so by their own voluntary act. He admitted it; but it ought not to be forgotten, that they became sureties under the idea that government would perform its duty, in regularly overlooking the accounts of the party for whom they engaged, and in communicating to them on the instant any deficiencies which it might discover in them, Now, it appeared from the noble lord's own statement, that Mr. Workman gave in his accounts in 1800, and that nothing was said to the sureties about any deficiency in them till 1808. How came it, too, that sixteen years had been allowed to pass over in silence since that notice was said to have been given? He thought it was a great oppression on the part of the government to bring forward this claim at this period against the sureties, who, by the negligence of government, had lost the opportunity which they once had of recovering the money of Mr. Workman. Mr. Workman had gone to America shortly after the peace of 1801, and had there risen to the rank of Chief Justice of New Orleans; a situation of emolument, which would have enabled him to have repaid the sum now claimed of his sureties. He was sorry he did not see the chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, as that right hon. gentleman had acted with great liberality to persons in a similar situation with the petitioner. He had himself presented two petitions from individuals, on whom a demand had been made for arrears of legacy duty due in one case 26 years, and in the other 32 years ago; and the consequence of the discussion which had taken place upon them had been, that the right hon. gentleman had used his influence to procure the issuing of a Treasury minute, restricting the recovery of all arrears of legacy duty to those due since the year 1805.

Sir J. Mackintosh

said, that Mr. Workman was a man of considerable talent, and had filled a high judicial station under the government of the United States of America. There was no account of his death. Indeed, within the last three years, he had received a law book written by him. He did hope, that the publicity given through the ordinary channels of the proceedings of that House would advise him, if living, of what had passed; and he had no doubt he would at once meet the claims of the government.

Ordered to lie on the table.