§ 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 3,000l. 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 800,000l. a year. By the 17th of George 3rd, c. 21, an addition was made to it of 100,000l. By the 22nd of George 3rd, called Mr. Burke's bill, the Civil List was increased by 50,000l., making its total amount 950,000l. By the 44th of George 3rd, it was further increased by the addition of 70,000l., and it then amounted to 1,020,000l. By the 52nd of George 3rd, it was further increased to 1,090,000l. In 1816, when the Civil List was last settled, it amounted to 1,083,000l. By the 59th of George 3rd, the House reduced the amount of the Civil List to 985,720l. 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, 513,000l. was paid on that score. In 1777, the House voted 618,000l. for the same purpose; in 1784, 60,000l.; in 1786, 210,000l.; in 1802, 99,000l.; in 1804, 59,000l., &c, In this way, 3,113,000l. 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. 1,057,000l. 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 1,200,000l. 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 1,030,000l. This year, it amounted to 2,472,000l. 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 4,380,000l.: they now amounted to upwards of 19,000,000l. 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 202,000l. 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 50,000,000l. When the expenditure connected with the debt was deducted from that, they had but 21,000,000l. left to support all their establishments, and to defray the entire expenditure of the country. From that 21,000,000l. were to be taken upwards of 6,000,000l. of dead-weight. There then remained but 15,000,000l. 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 400,000l. 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 5,500,000l.; 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 140,000l.; on the Irish Civil List, to near 100,000l.; on the Scotch Civil List, to 70,000l.; 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 140,000l. to 90,000l.; on the Irish Civil List, from near 100,000l. to 50,000l.; on the Scotch Civil List, from near 50,000l. to 25,000l.; 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 5,500,000l., 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 90,000l., under the circumstances stated (and it did not nett more than 70,000l., 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.