RENEWAL OF OFFICES ON THE DEMISE OF THE CROWN. (Hansard, 4 March 1824)

Sir R. Heron
rose to ask leave to bring in a bill to prevent the necessity of the Renewal of Offices on the Demise of the Crown. It might be proper for him to account for the delay which had occurred since the time—nearly two years ago—at which he had given his first notice of a motion on this subject. At that time there were so many subjects of pressing and immediate expediency, that he thought it best to give way. In the course of last session, the temporary indisposition of the king prevented him. It ocurred to him, that such a moment would be the most unfit in point of delicacy, and that respect which was at all times due from the parliament to the Crown. It was well known that formerly, the occupation of every office, and the existence of parliament itself, terminated with the life of the king. It was found that great incovenience arose from this sudden suspension of all the legislative and executive functionaries, and a bill was brought in to prevent that effect with respect to the parliament. Various acts were passed from time to time which partially and by degrees removed the inconvenience of the renewal, with respect to some of the superior offices. At length it suggested itself to the enlightened mind of the late Mr. Ponsonby, to extend that principle, to introduce a temporary bill to prevent the renewal of offices on the demise of the late king. He was persuaded that Mr. Ponsonby's motive for limiting his measure to a temporary 723 bill, was for the purpose of getting, in the first stage, the assent of many who would have been indisposed to go further. Now, he was utterly at a loss to discover any one objection that was applicable to his present object, that was not equally applicable to Mr. Ponsonby's bill. On what principle was it, that a large class of meritorious officers were to be taxed to produce a large amount of revenue to the lord chancellors and to the attorney-generals? Either these high offices were already well paid, or they were not. If they were well paid, they did not stand in need of such an augmentation, particularly on a principle of an accidental and fortuitous nature. And if they were ill paid, though he would not give a shilling to a useless officer, yet he felt that it was the opposite of economy to refuse ample remuneration to effective service. The House would feel it to be a great hardship to the officers of the army and navy, to be obliged to pay large fees on the renewal of their commissions, and which they were obliged to do by the existing law. He did not see how it could be contended, that the moment of the accession of a new sovereign to the throne was that which ought to be chosen for sanctioning so ungracious a proceeding. In fact, he found it extremely difficult to imagine what could be the objection to any part of his proposed measure. He had heard something of its being objected to on a constitutional principle. What constitutional principle it affected, he was wholly at a loss to discover. Although, when Mr. Ponsonby's bill was passed in 1817, there was a regency, yet his late majesty's bodily health was at that time very good; at least so it was stated in the bulletins, and no doubt ministers would not have permitted the people to be deceived on that point. He might therefore have recovered, and resumed the regal functions; and unquestionably it might have been advisable on the part of the prince regent to take care, that in that event his father should not find himself surrounded by persons, against whom, unfortunately, he had so long entertained a political objection. But, unless the measure were opposed on constitutional grounds, he was really at a loss to know on what grounds it would be opposed. He thought no one could possibly defend the payment of the fees, considering the manner in which they went adventitiously into the pockets of various persons. They 724 might pass by a chancellor, grown grey in the harness, and who had been a quarter of a century in office, and fall to an upstart, without experience, and who might afterwards prove the most profligate of the human race. In making this observation, he begged not for a moment to be supposed to mean any thing of a personal nature. The hon. baronet concluded by moving, for leave "to bring in a bill to prevent the necessity of the Renewal of Offices on the Demise of the Crown."

Mr. Secretary Canning
observed, that the hon. baronet had kept his word with the House in refraining from going into any great length on the subject of his motion, and he would follow the hon. baronet's example. The hon. baronet appeared, indeed, to assume, without argument, that considerable alterations were necessary in the principles of the constitution, even in the most sacred of them. He knew none more sacred than that which threw on the Crown the most pleasing, and took away from it the most unpleasing functions. But, the hon. baronet seemed to think, that a new sovereign ought immediately to have imposed upon him acts of severity and harshness; and that he should have a ministry fastened on him who had not received his approbation, unless he had recourse to the ungracious step of instantly dismissing them. He must either leave his cabinet precisely as he found it, or act with apparent harshness. Now, it was one of the great principles of the constitution, that every appointment under the Crown flowed as a favour from the Crown; and it was neither just nor wise to invert that principle, and to assume, that, at the demise of the Crown, every man possessed of office must remain in office, unless dismissed by the new sovereign. One of the hon. baronet's views was very inaccurate. The hon. baronet had said, that in former times, not only offices but parliament itself terminated on the demise of the Crown; but that was felt to be so monstrous a thing, that the legislature stepped in to prevent it. But the principle now was, that parliament did terminate at the demise of the Crown. It was true, that to prevent confusion, the dissolution was postponed until six months after the demise of the Crown, not on the principle which the hon. baronet supposed, but on the principle, that parliament ceased and extinguished on the demise of 725 the Crown, but continued assembled for six months for practical purposes. Such being the case, the House would at once see the importance of placing the great officers of the Crown on the same footing, and thereby not imposing upon the new sovereign the harsh necessity of beginning his reign by the dismissal of any of his servants. If they agreed to the bill recommended by the hon. baronet, and enacted that ministers should remain in office until they were dismissed, they would invert the whole practice of the constitution, and, instead of leaving it to the new monarch to perform acts of favour, would throw on him the ungracious task of inflicting disgrace. On that ground alone he must oppose the motion. Nor was that ground changed by the bill passed in 1817, called Mr. Ponsonby's bill, in which parliament acquiesced, because in the event of the demise of the Crown at that time, there would have been in fact no change of the sovereign authority, and his royal highness the prince regent had, in the former part of his regency, made his choice of ministers. The change from unrestricted power, as regent, to his power as king, was a change in title not in substance. Mr. Ponsonby's bill, therefore, afforded no precedent for the bill proposed by the hon. baronet. Whether some relief might or might not be afforded to certain offices expiring on the termination of a reign, he was not immediately prepared to say. A relief might be afforded in the article of stamps, fit was observed by Mr. Hume, "and of fees."] Aye, and of fees; but that could not be done without some previous inquiry into the nature of particular offices. The hon. baronet, however, had placed the question on broad constitutional or rather unconstitutional grounds. He wholly differed from the hon. baronet. He would not change the character of the privileges of the monarch on his accession, nor consent to his being bound up by the act of his predecessor, unless he chose to rescue himself from his trammels by severity.

§ Mr. Hume
thought, that an important part of the object of the hon. baronet, namely, that which related to the fees, might be obtained without going to the extent proposed by the hon. baronet's bill. That was at present a very great hardship, especially as it respected the army and the navy; and he thought a satisfactory arrangement might be made 726 with regard to it. Few of the persons who held high official appointments would mind the expense of fees; but, to many of the officers of the army and navy, and to others, it was of importance, and, therefore, whether the bill were withdrawn or not, he trusted that that part of the subject would be taken into consideration.

§ Mr. Brougham
remarked, that the whole argument of the right hon. gentleman was applicable to the form and to the substance of the proposed measure. The question was, to what description of offices it was fit that it should apply? It appeared to him, that a previous inquiry would be the most satisfactory way of proceeding; and he suggested to his hon. friend the expediency of withdrawing his present motion, for the purpose of moving for the appointment of a committee, to examine and ascertain the facts.

§ Mr. Tierney
was of a similar opinion. The inequality of the fees was, he said, at present most unjust. Some of them were exorbitant; on several offices they amounted to two or three thousand pounds. He was at a loss to conceive how an act of the sovereign, by which so many of his subjects were required to pay a heavy fine, could be called an act of grace and favour.

§ Mr. Canning
observed, that this was very different from a mere question of fees. He was sure the hon. baronet would disdain the narrow ground on which his hon. and learned and his right hon. friend wished to place his motion. The fact was, that the hon. baronet's object was, to amend the constitution; to place the monarch in a situation in which he had not before been placed. It was impossible that the hon. baronet should have been concocting his bill for two years, and that then he should make it the miserable, paltry, money question that the hon. and learned and the right hon. gentlemen wished to make it. As to Mr. Ponsonby's bill, the word "fees" was not in it.

§ Mr. Brougham
said, it was his firm belief, that the right hon. gentleman and those who opposed this bill would not have done so, if it related to constitutional principles only; but that their opposition was excited by the "miserable, paltry question" of fees.

§ Mr. Denman
thought the proposed bill might be important in a view which had not hitherto been taken of it. It was one of the first acts of the last reign to make 727 the office of a judge independent of the demise of the Crown, with a view to preserve the purity of the administration of that office. Now, there were other judicial offices which ought to be placed in the same situation; for instance, there were various commissions of inquiry which, under the existing law, would become inefficient on the demise of the Crown. The commission of every magistrate in the country would also cease under the same circumstances. Those were great objects; and ought not to be relinquished. He thought, therefore, that his hon. friend ought to be allowed to bring in his bill.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had come to a conclusion exactly opposite to that of the hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken. So forcible an objection to the bill, as the fact which had been stated by the hon. and learned gentleman in its favour, had not previously occurred to him. To render the judicial office independent, parliament had stepped out of its way, and provided that that office should not cease on the demise of the the Crown. But the hon. and learned gentleman wished the hon. baronet's bill to be brought in, by which bill the army and navy would be put on the same footing of independence of the Crown as the judges.

Sir R. Heron
disclaimed any share in "concocting" the measure. It was word for word, with the exception of the provision respecting magistrates, copied from Mr. Ponsonby's bill. If the gentlemen opposite, therefore, thought the measure so erroneous in principle, and calculated to give so harsh a character to the exercise of the royal prerogative, why did they agree to Mr. Ponsonby's bill? For this was the same bill, except that it was perpetual instead of being temporary. The principal object of the bill was to prevent immense sums from coming adventitiously into the pockets of persons not entitled to them. As for the change in the constitution which the right hon. gentleman imputed to the bill, he could not see any. He would, however, withdraw his motion, and take time to consider what further proceedings to adopt.