Commons Sitting of 10 June 1828

CORPORATE FUNDS.
Mr. Otway Caverose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the application of Corporate Funds to Electioneering Purposes, and began by stating that his measure would resemble that which an hon. and gallant colonel (Maberly) had introduced last year. He rested his motion solely on the ground, that for a corporation to apply part of its funds to promote the return of a particular candidate, was an illegal interference with the privileges of the House. It was scarcely necessary for him to do more than to recal the attention of members to the leading facts detailed by his hon. and gallant friend; one of the main features of the case being the resolution of the corporation of Leicester to devote 1,000 l. of the money with which they were intrusted to procure the return of a candidate, who, partaking of their political opinions, would represent their interests. He would not enter into the history and origin of corporations, but he apprehended that no man would aver, that they were instituted for such a purpose as that which
1298
now brought the case of Leicester particularly before the House. His hon. and gallant friend had shewn, that one part of the funds of the corporation was granted for charitable, and another part for general, purposes: he had quoted the opinion of sir S. Romilly in reference to the latter, and had argued, that if the minority, consisting of the members of the corporation of a borough, could thus dispose of the money belonging to the majority, there was no earthly reason why the corporation should not vest in themselves and their heirs for ever all the property of the borough. This case last year had been put hypothetically, but it had actually occurred at Rye; and the hon. member read from a newspaper the instrument by which about six corporators had invested themselves, in the year 1759, with the funds and lucrative offices of the borough, which they and their successors had ever since enjoyed. His hon. and gallant friend had likewise shown, from the indisputable authority of sir W. Blackstone, what were the corporate purposes to which the monies intrusted to corporations were applicable. He would not now go further into that point than to state, that this species of perversion was not cognizable, not punishable in a court of law. There was no forum competent to punish and to prevent the repetition of the offence. Such had been the statement of his hon. and gallant friend, and he firmly believed he was right, because the corporation of Northampton, whose conduct had given rise to the proceeding of last year, had consulted three counsel, who had given their opinion that, under such circumstances, a corporation could not be brought to account. Supposing, however, that the misapplication was cognizable in the court of Chancery, where could be found the individual, from his own resources, to contend with a corporate body? And if such a public-spirited man were found, where was the hope, in the present constitution of the court of Chancery, that the cause would be terminated in the life of the person who began it?—As he had already remarked, he put it both on the instance of Northampton and of Leicester, upon the ground that the expenditure of a large amount of the corporate funds, for the purpose of securing the return of a particular candidate, was an infringement upon the privileges of the House of Commons, and sufficient to warrant its interference. In the case of North-

1299
ampton the fault was double; first, the corporation had been guilty of a breach of duty as corporators, and next, of the privileges of parliament. It was, he contended, the business of the House to interpose for the assertion of its own privileges, even if there had been any court of concurrent jurisdiction where the offence was cognizable. The House might, for instance, direct the Attorney-general to file a bill, without, in its paramount jurisdiction, interfering with its own right to punish the offence against its privileges.—He would take the liberty of drawing the attention of members to the Limerick case, which was first before the Irish House of Commons. It appeared that 800 l. had been expended to promote the return of colonel Vereker, and the facts afterwards came before the House of Lords. A demurrer was entered to the right of that House to interfere, but the objection was over-ruled, and a declaratory bill was passed, that the lord Chancellor had jurisdiction over the charitable funds of corporations.—He begged the House to consider, that the bill for which he now moved would be by no means unimportant in its general results. First, as to Northampton, the returning officer was a member of the corporation: and what impartiality could be expected in his decision, when he had already committed himself, as far as his opinion was concerned, in voting for the illegal expenditure of the corporate funds? What a slur it cast upon the whole election, and how much it must lower the corporation in the eyes of the public! But a much larger consideration was also involved; it raised a question, whether electioneering dealers and borough-jobbers were to have the uncontrolled direction of sending members to parliament, and thus rule the destinies of the nation? By being allowed, by means of their money, to send to parliament representatives of their own political notions, corporations might, in fact, govern all the rest. He agreed in the maxim of the constitution, that rank, wealth, and respectability, ought to have their due influence; but what chance had a man of rank, wealth, and of unquestionable respectability, against a corporation expending the funds of a public body? Whether his opinions were ministerial or otherwise, was of no consequence to the argument: he must give way before such a body, exercising these unparalleled powers, not
1300
recognised either by the letter or spirit of the constitution, or of their own charters.—Having disposed of the cases of Rye and Northampton, he now came to that of the borough of Leicester. Nearly a year after the last election, a charge was brought by the borough against a candidate—and he was himself that candidate—through their official organ, the town-clerk, that he should contribute his share of the expenditure of 27,000 l.; for that was the sum devoted to procure the return of a member at Leicester, and not merely 1,000 l. as at Northampton. Whether, fortified by that example, they improved upon the original, it was not for him to determine; but certain it was, that the claim was made. It was, perhaps, neither delicate nor proper, that he should enter into that point: he might leave it to his hon. colleague, more intimately connected with the corporation, who might give the House the information. For his part, he only knew that the charge had been made. The corporation allowed that he (Mr. O. Cave) had spent 16,000 l. on the election; but, altogether, they calculated that 41,000 l. had been laid out, and they came upon him for 4,000 l., calculated to be his proportion of the difference. In what these consisted he could not say, perhaps his hon. colleague could. The I inhabitants complained of a grievous borough-rate, and perhaps that demand involved the solution of the mystery. Whether this odious and oppressive tax was meant to be levied for the purpose of reimbursing the corporation for the expenses of the last election, or of providing a fund for future misapplication, he could not say; but his colleague, who was more connected with them than he was, might be able to give the House some interesting information on this point. While upon this part of the subject, he could not help complaining of the want of courtesy of his hon. colleague, in presenting a petition affecting him (Mr. Cave) personally, in such a manner that the Speaker interfered to prevent the allusions from being read, without giving him the slightest notice of his intention; and he had the same complaint against the hon. member for the county of Leicester, for the course he had taken on that occasion—a course utterly inconsistent with those frank and honourable feelings, which he had so pompously professed on a late occasion, and with the obligations, of even more than a political

1301
nature, which he had privately and publicly acknowledged. As he presumed the House had not altered its opinion since last year, the present bill was exactly a copy of the former. The only objection he had heard to that bill was, that it was not sufficiently strong; but he conceived the object of the House was, not to inflict punishment on any particular corporation for what they had, perhaps, done inadvertently; but to prevent the recurrence of similar malversation of corporate funds. There were two objections to his bringing forward the motion at the present moment. There was another branch of the legislature to which it would be unparliamentary to allude more particularly, who had lately thrown out almost all the bills sent up to them. The fate suffered by the Game-bill, the Corn-bill, and the Penryn-bill, had been shared also by the Northampton bill; and, therefore, in the present tone and temper of that House, it was the opinion of some of the zealous supporters of this bill that this was not the right time to press it. He had no hesitation in saying, that this argument weighed with him directly the reverse way. This was a question peculiarly concerning the privileges of that House; and he was sure, if they had any sense of pride—if they were not prepared to abandon their privileges and prostrate them at the feet of another branch of the legislature, less connected than that must necessarily be with the feelings and rights of the people—that dignified assembly of hereditary legislators would find it necessary to yield. That, he was convinced, would be the result, if that House persisted temperately and calmly to bring forward this case of crying grievance; involving a flagrant violation of the rights and privileges of the House. He was satisfied that the other branch of the legislature would not deny all hope of redress for a grievance which affected the independence of the House. If that other blanch of the legislature, which it was not proper for him to name, was not prepared to act merely as a drag on the wheels of the State-machine, but was disposed to erect itself into an insuperable barrier against every measure of constitutional improvement, and not only against every measure of constitutional improvement, but even against every other institution in the State, the sooner the people knew that the crisis was come the better—the sooner they were aware
1302
what they had to expect from the other branch of the legislature the better. It was peculiarly unfortunate that this should happen at the very moment when a trial was making by a certain party in the State to give "one cheer more," in honour of their expected return to power, and of the expulsion of those liberal, disinterested, and patriotic ministers, to whom the country looked for the continuance of that line of policy which was essential to its prosperity.
Mr. Legh Kecksaid, he was not acquainted with the contents of the petition which had been presented on a former occasion, and withdrawn on account of informality. He had further to say, that he was not acquainted with the merits of this particular case at that time, and that he still remained ignorant of them.
Sir C. Hastingssaid, his hon. colleague had complained of his conduct in presenting a petition the other day from the corporation of Leicester, without informing his hon. colleague of his intention. But the hon. gentleman should remember, that his charge against the corporation was of a severe nature, and that the House had no documents before it to enable it to judge of its propriety. Therefore the corporation had intrusted him with the petition to present in their defence; but, as it turned out, on reading it, that there was an irregularity in it, he had withdrawn it. The charge related to the expenditure of money in the last contest for the representation of the city; and he understood that the corporation had called on his hon. colleague for a certain sum, to defray his proportion of the expense; but his hon. colleague had not thought fit to answer the call made upon him. He would not object to the introduction of the bill; but he would give it his decided opposition, as an infringement of the rights and privileges of corporations, not justified by any necessity.
Mr. Rosswas thoroughly convinced that the vote of money by the corporation was perfectly legal.
Mr. Fylersaid, he would give his decided opposition to the bill in all its stages.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, he would support the bill, not on account of the particular cases of Leicester or Northampton, but Upon the great constitutional principle which had been always asserted in that, and in the other House of Parliament. A bill founded

1303
upon that principle had been passed last session through that House. That bill was read a second time in the Lords, and was only lost there on the third reading. The principle, then, that corporations should not be allowed to divert their funds to electioneering purposes had been already sanctioned by this portion of the legislature. There were at that moment two great corporations in this country—the Bank of England and the East-India Company—whose charters would expire in the course of a few years. Now, if these corporations were permitted to employ their funds for electioneering purposes, was it not possible that at the next general election they might employ them so as to influence the decision of that House, regarding the renewal of their respective charters? Corporations, in many cases, held their funds in trust for public purposes; there were some cases where they held them for private and individual purposes; but, if they were allowed to employ them for electioneering purposes, it would be difficult to decide whether it was the one species of funds or the other which they employed for such objects. Public opinion afforded some security against a private individual employing funds for corrupt or improper purposes; but that security did not exist in the case of corporations. He should support the bill as a very necessary measure.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that a bill of this description having, last session, passed that House, was a sufficient reason why the motion should be received. He should not, however, pledge himself not to oppose this bill in its future stages. Whatever had been done with the former bill in the other House, should not enter into their consideration now. Last session, a charge had been preferred against a corporation, of having diverted charitable funds intrusted to their care, to the purposes of an election. A more serious charge could not be preferred; but he believed it was satisfactorily refuted.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he should support the bill, which was founded upon an excellent principle.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

PENSIONS ON THE CIVIL LIST.
Mr. Hume, in rising to bring forward his motion, "to take into consideration the expediency of revising the Civil List, as far as regards the sums now appropriated to
1304
the payment of Pensions on his Majesty's Civil List in England, Ireland, and Scotland, with a view of reducing the same," said, he was aware of the delicacy which was, on all occasions, inseparable from the consideration of the Civil List, and it was only a sense of duty which had induced him to bring the question forward on the present occasion. He wished to bring it before the House, in order that the House might deal with it as it had frequently done before. In using the name of his majesty, he should always evince towards it that respect which was due to the first executive magistrate of the country. If he were not much mistaken, his majesty, if he were in the situation of his ministers, would not object to a motion of this description; and he was strengthened in that opinion, when he recollected the many acts of kindness which had been exercised by the king towards his people, in periods of distress. He was sure that, if his majesty were satisfied, that the object of this motion was to relieve the sufferings of the country, by a reduction of unnecessary expenses, he would not object to it. On the last occasion upon which he had addressed the House upon this subject, he had been induced to do so, in consequence of the grant made to the family of Mr. Canning, and the motion which had been then carried for a return of the amount of pensions chargeable on the Civil List, had not, for what reason he did not know, been complied with. Those papers, which it would not occupy six hours to make up, had not been laid on the table of the House, and they must therefore proceed to the consideration of the subject, ignorant of the state of the Civil List as it at present stood. Under these circumstances, he was obliged to recur to the prior accounts which had been laid on the table of the House. One of the first acts of his majesty, at the commencement of this session, was to direct the attention of the House to the expenditure of the country, with a view to its reduction. In obedience to that direction, the committee of Finance had been appointed. At an early period after the appointment of that committee, he (Mr. Hume) had endeavoured to ascertain, whether it was their intention to take the Civil List into consideration, and he gathered it to be their general opinion, that such a subject did not come within the trust imposed upon them. As the House had voted 3,000 l. a year to the family of

1305
Mr. Canning, they were bound to make up for that amount by a retrenchment in the Civil List. It had been said, that that House should not interfere with the Civil List; but, during the late reign, eight acts of parliament had been passed on the subject; and by each of them, an alteration had been made in the amount of the Civil List. That, too, had been done with the concurrence of the ablest men of the day. He had already put the House in possession of the opinions of Mr. Fox, Mr. Burke, and sir F. Norton on this subject. On a later occasion, the late lord Castlereagh expressed a similar opinion. In bringing in the bill in 1816 for regulating the Civil List, he had said, that the greater portion of these grants was as completely in its nature an expenditure for the service of the country, as the grants made for the army or navy, or for any other public service of the country. If that were the case, who would say that that House had not a right to regulate the expenditure of the grants made on this I list? He held in his hand a pamphlet which gave a distinct account of the various items of expenditure connected with the Civil List for the fifteen years subsequent to 1812. It even specified the oils and pickles which were used in the lord Chamberlain's kitchen. He felt himself warranted, therefore, in saying that this House had a right to inquire into, and to control, the expenditure of the Civil List. By the 1st of George 1st, the Civil List was limited to 800,000 l. a year. By the 17th of George 3rd, c. 21, an addition was made to it of 100,000 l. By the 22nd of George 3rd, called Mr. Burke's bill, the Civil List was increased by 50,000 l., making its total amount 950,000 l. By the 44th of George 3rd, it was further increased by the addition of 70,000 l., and it then amounted to 1,020,000 l. By the 52nd of George 3rd, it was further increased to 1,090,000 l. In 1816, when the Civil List was last settled, it amounted to 1,083,000 l. By the 59th of George 3rd, the House reduced the amount of the Civil List to 985,720 l. In the course of his late majesty's reign, the House was frequently called upon to pay debts arising out of the Civil List. In 1769, 513,000 l. was paid on that score. In 1777, the House voted 618,000 l. for the same purpose; in 1784, 60,000 l.; in 1786, 210,000 l.; in 1802, 99,000 l.; in 1804, 59,000 l., &c, In this way, 3,113,000 l.
1306
had been voted by this House. If, then, the House had the power to add to the Civil List, it followed of consequence that they possessed the right to reduce it, whenever it should seem fit to do so. He did not include the droits and other sums which had been voted—amounting to about a million and a half, and which swelled the total amount to five millions and a half that had been voted by that House to defray the extra charges upon the Civil list. 1,057,000 l. was the total amount of the Civil list, which was now regularly charged upon the consolidated fund. In 1821, that House agreed to address his majesty, requesting his majesty to direct an inquiry into the expenditure of the country, for the purpose of making a reduction in salaries and expenditure, in some degree correspondent with the reduction that had taken place in the value of money. On the 22nd of June in that year, the chancellor of the Exchequer reported to the House, that his majesty had given directions to have a strict inquiry instituted, upon the principle laid down in the address from the House. A similar principle was contained in the recommendation of his majesty, upon the first day of the present session; and it was upon that principle that the Finance Committee had been appointed. It was high time that they should endeavour to reduce the expenditure of the country. Within the last four years, upwards of 1,200,000 l. had been spent upon Buckingham palace, and the improvements in the other palaces. In 1796, the whole of the Civil List, with the various sums chargeable upon the consolidated fund, amounted to 1,030,000 l. This year, it amounted to 2,472,000 l. When they looked at the enormous increase which had since taken place in the amount of the debt, and the interest of the debt, they must perceive the necessity that existed for reduction. In 1792, all the miscellaneous services, the army, the navy, Sec, cost but 4,380,000 l.: they now amounted to upwards of 19,000,000 l. Now, therefore, was the time to retrench all unnecessary expenditure. A large portion of this grant, which he was desirous to have reduced, was applied to the maintenance of hundreds of idle and useless persons. It appeared, according to the returns made in 1821, that 202,000 l. were chargeable as pensions upon the Civil Lists. These pensions, which had been intended

1307
solely for meritorious persons, were given as the wages of corruption, to the individuals upon whom they were bestowed, or their connexions. The nett revenue of the country might be stated at 50,000,000 l. When the expenditure connected with the debt was deducted from that, they had but 21,000,000 l. left to support all their establishments, and to defray the entire expenditure of the country. From that 21,000,000 l. were to be taken upwards of 6,000,000 l. of dead-weight. There then remained but 15,000,000 l. applicable to the exigencies of the state. There was, under such circumstances, no hope for the country, unless they set earnestly about the work of retrenchment. It was with that view he now called on the House to inquire into the state of the Civil List, for the purpose of reducing it. In other words, he was desirous to prevent the granting of further pensions on that list, in order to save the amount of those which should fall annually upon the Civil lists of England, Scotland, and Ireland. He wished to know why the sum of nearly 400,000 l. was appropriated to the lord Chamberlain, the lord Steward, and the Master of the Horse? Surely i was impossible that such a sum could be necessary, or properly expended. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving—"That this House do resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to take into Consideration the Expediency of revising the Civil List, as far as regards the sums now appropriated to the payment of Pensions on his Majesty's Civil List in England, Ireland, and Scotland, with the view of reducing the same."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it appeared that the hon. gentleman wished to bring under discussion the arrangement which had been entered into with his majesty at the beginning of his reign, and which, in every constitutional point of view, was then, and ought still to be, considered a final settlement of the Civil List, unless the Crown deviated from its part of the compact; and, by suffering an arrear to accumulate, was obliged to come to parliament for assistance. He would say, with the hon. gentleman, that this question had little to do with the feelings of his majesty. It was in that House a rule, and a very proper one, that we should forbear from mentioning matters personal to the sovereign. Keeping that rule in view, he would not enter into what
1308
might be supposed to be the feelings of the Crown on this subject; but he would resist the motion, because he conceived it to be at variance with that wholesome rule of the constitution, which set down as final the arrangement made with the Crown at the beginning of a new reign. The hon. gentleman had endeavoured to inculcate a contrary principle, and, in doing so, had made frequent allusions to the debates on this subject, particularly to that which occurred in 1816, when the late lord Londonderry had said, that the Civil List stood precisely on the same principle as the pensions for the army and navy. Now, he knew so well the character of that noble lord, that he could not suppose he had ever lent himself to such a statement. Indeed, there was, in the expression itself, something so manifestly absurd, that he was obliged to conclude that it had never been uttered. He had no doubt that the words of lord Londonderry were, that "it was as much a point of public duty with that House to provide for the Civil List, as it was to maintain the army or the navy." That was a position of an entirely distinct character. The hon. gentleman had stated, that eight acts had passed in the reign of George 3rd, each of which referred to the Civil List, and altered the amount of it. But did the hon. gentleman, in making this statement, give a fair representation of the circumstances? Certainly not. Was it not, in each of these cases, an application on the part of the Crown for an increase of allowance, that occasioned the interference of parliament?—The hon. gentleman had informed them that, in 1812 and 1816, the House went through all these establishments; and he urged this as an argument in support of the present motion. Here again he gave an interpretation of the case, as unfair as could be imagined. In 1816, it was found necessary, in consequence of heavy expenses which had been incurred, to revise the whole system, and to separate from the Civil List a number of onerous, undefined, and constantly increasing charges, and to calculate what should be the amount of the list, as nearly as possible, beforehand. With the view of effecting that object, it had been divided into classes, and it was then stipulated, that whenever any arrear occurred, be it ever so small, it should be brought forward for the consideration of parliament. As the Crown

1309
had not, in the course of this reign, made any application to parliament for an augmentation of the Civil List, and as they had no reason to suppose that the amount of expenditure exceeded the sum allowed, the proposition of the hon. gentleman was at variance with every precedent of parliament. The hon. gentleman had referred to Mr. Burke and Mr. Fox, in support of his proposition; but really he did not know where the hon. gentleman found set forth the doctrine he attributed to them. He knew that Mr. Fox said in that House, that "the Civil List was not open to the revision of parliament, unless the Crown came down to the House for an augmentation of it." And he believed there was not an eminent man who had not held the same doctrine. When the Civil List was settled at the beginning of the present reign, that principle was maintained by individuals of all parties. The right hon. member for Knaresborough (Mr. Tierney) expressed himself strongly on this point in 1820. He said, "they were now called upon to make a final arrangement, so final, 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." The hon. gentleman seemed to shut out of view the plain but important fact, that the Civil List was a bargain between the Crown and the people. Both conceded something. The king gave up the hereditary revenues, and the parliament, in return, voted a grant sufficient to maintain the necessary splendor of the Crown. This, then, was a solemn compact on both sides, and he never would agree to break it. The hon. gentleman had talked much about the economy which would result from, such a revision. But this was not a question of economy. If parliament had acted on the wise principle of giving to the Crown a permanent settlement, no plea of economy should tempt them to break their engagement. But the effect of breaking through this arrangement would not be of an economical character. It would be the means of causing constant attempts to be made, not only for the reduction of the Civil List, but for its augmentation. And, knowing that the people of this country were sincerely attached to the monarch—knowing that they did not view with jealous eyes whatever was granted to him for the support
1310
of his honour and dignity—he believed that the infringement of the existing arrangement would rather lead to an increase of the burthens of the country than to a reduction of expense. On these grounds, he should resist the motion. No history which the hon. gentleman might furnish them of the expenses of his majesty's larder, or his stable, or kitchen, should induce him to recommend to parliament any alteration of the existing arrangements.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, his right hon. friend had taken a very correct view of the nature of the Civil List. He had, in his opinion, sufficiently illustrated the position, that it was not possible, without breaking through an arrangement, and putting the public to great inconvenience, to resume, during the present reign, any interference with that compact. The preamble to the act put an end to this question. He did not mean to say, that parliament, in its omnipotence, might not undertake anything; but, in this instance, they could not accede to such a motion, without breaking the agreement between the Crown and the public. Now, he thought that if they did break that compact—if the door were thrown open for the reclamation of the hereditary revenues—the country would not be the gainer. The doctrine brought forward that night had been reprobated by all the authorities on every side of that House. The hon. member had noticed the proceedings of 1812 and 1816. Why, on both those occasions, the Civil List was brought under their consideration, because the Crown had applied to parliament for assistance. On those occasions, the House certainly did receive that valuable information contained in the large volume referred to by the hon. member, relative to the expense of the larder, the kitchen, the stables, &c. He (Mr. Huskisson) had stated, on a former occasion, that he would not consent that the bins of his majesty's stables should be inspected to see what portion of oats was consumed from day to day; but, when he said that, he admitted, that if the Crown requested aid for the Civil List, then parliament had a right to inquire under what circumstances the debt had been incurred. But the hon. gentleman had gone further than he expected any individual would have done, when he called for a return of pensions chargeable on the Civil List, in order that he might see whether any of them were improperly

1311
granted. Now, the hon. gentleman had no more right to make such a demand, than he had to call upon the hon. gentleman, for a sight of his banker's book, that he might judge whether his personal expenses were or were not such as he was willing should be seen. The hon. member had gone through the history of the Civil List at great length. He was extremely fond of selecting some particular year, and comparing the expenditure of that year with the present expenditure. He generally selected the year 1792; but he could wish him to look to the revision of the Civil List in 1782—a period of as great difficulty as ever this country was involved in. They were then without any adequate revenue to meet the charge of the national debt, and in the midst of a most disastrous war. At that time, parliament revised the Civil List; and he should like the hon. gentleman to look to the amount of pensions then.—The hon. gentleman had spoken of the dead-weight, and of various other charges, to the amount of 5,500,000 l.; all which he wished, invidiously, to throw on the Civil List and the Crown. The hon. gentleman said, he was anxious to have these accounts, that the expenditure might be revised, and placed on the foundation of 1792. But he would call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the state of the Civil List in 1782. At that time, although the country was suffering under the pressure of the most severe distress, the pensions on the English Civil List amounted to 140,000 l.; on the Irish Civil List, to near 100,000 l.; on the Scotch Civil List, to 70,000 l.; and the 4½ per cent fund was loaded to the utmost amount it could bear. Now, the pensions on the English Civil List were reduced from 140,000 l. to 90,000 l.; on the Irish Civil List, from near 100,000 l. to 50,000 l.; on the Scotch Civil List, from near 50,000 l. to 25,000 l.; and the 4½ per cent fund was no longer chargeable with any pension whatever. So that, of those funds from which the Crown rewarded meritorious services, or disbursed charity, or ministered to misfortune, and which were liable to all those occasional demands that were constantly occurring in such a country as this, there had been a reduction of nearly one half. He begged of the House to draw a comparison between our resources, and our general situation, at present, and in 1782, and
1312
judge whether the sum appropriated to the Civil List was improvident. It was a strange mode of going to work, to call on the House to diminish an expenditure of 5,500,000 l., which had grown up from other causes and circumstances, by proposing to make a further reduction of the Civil List, under those heads in which so large a reduction had already been effected. He was not, therefore, prepared to admit the principle laid down by the hon. gentleman, even if the House could deal with the question. He did not consider that 90,000 l., under the circumstances stated (and it did not nett more than 70,000 l., for it was liable to great deduction), was an excessive sum for the monarch of this country to have at his disposal, to meet the various claims which might be made upon his bounty. But if he had no other reason for opposing the motion, he had this; namely, the avowal of the hon. gentleman, that, if he could deal with this part of the Civil List, he would then go on with the remainder. The hon. gentleman had read the House a lecture as to what he conceived ought to be the proper splendor of the monarch. It was very true, that his majesty, from his love of retirement, was not every day surrounded by his court, and encompassed by his officers of state. But, if not always wanted, would the hon. gentleman have them sent about their business, and called in occasionally, as waiters were called in? Was his majesty to send for the first person that came to hand, to act as lord steward, lord chamberlain, or lord, in waiting for the day? Was that the way in which the hon. gentleman would maintain the dignity of the Grown? On the revision of those offices, which were, in fact, sinecures, the House had never dealt with those which appertained to the personal service of his majesty. He hoped that no member would support the motion, involving as it did the resumption of a compact, which had been solemnly entered into at the beginning of the present reign. If they did so, they would not arrive at that profitable theory to which the hon. gentleman had directed his attention.
The House divided: Ayes 13; Noes 86; Majority 72.