HC Deb 20 May 1828 vol 19 cc829-40
Mr. Hume

rose to call the attention of the House to the subject "of Pensions Payable out of the Civil List." He knew it was considered by common consent in that House, that the civil list when once settled, was not to be meddled with, until they were called upon, at the conclusion of one reign, to consider a new arrangement for another. But he had never concurred in that principle; because he found, that there never was any hesitation on the part of ministers to ask for the payment of the debts of the civil list, when they had accrued to a great amount. The House, he thought, had an equal right to ask, what was passing in the civil list. But though the House had, he thought, a right to interfere, he intended only to ask for an account of the pensions payable out of the civil list, in order that they might see whether the acts of parliament for the regulation of that list had been complied with, and whether there were not the means of providing for cases such as that which had lately occurred; as he thought that this was the source from which any allowance of this kind should proceed, instead of calling on the House for additional grants, in the present over-burthened state of the finances. In the act of 1782, called Mr. Burke's act, there was an express provision, in the 17th clause, that the pension list, which was then very large, should be put under the regulation that only. 1,200l. per annum should be added, until the aggregate amount should be reduced to 90,000l. yearly, and that it should not be competent for his majesty to grant pensions for the future to an unlimited amount. In Mr. Burke's celebrated speech on the Pension bill, he had well observed, that the power of giving pensions was granted to the king, in order that he might reward merit and talent, and not for purposes of corruption; and Mr. Fox, at a subsequent period, had maintained, that that House had a right to call for an account of the civil list, in order that parliament might be aware of the manner in which pensions were granted. Acting on that, principle, he had, in 1820, moved "for a Return of the Pensions granted;" and in looking over that return he certainly thought that the king had exercised a sound discretion in putting some meritorious individuals on it; but he was bound to state that out of the sum of 92,000l., which was granted in the shape of pensions, he could find but very few who had the smallest claims on the country, and that therefore they were to be generally taken as acts of grace and favour granted by the Crown to particular individuals. Now, amongst other names on the list, he found that of William Huskisson, with an allowance of 1,000l. a-year, to be suspended as long as that gentleman was in the receipt of 2,000l. a-year from any public office; and in this case he must admit that he knew of no other ground for the grant, but the great public services which that gentleman had rendered to the country. This, however, was a rare case. He therefore contended, that the pension list ought to be made up from the year 1820 to the present time, in order that the House might see in what manner the public money was disposed of, perhaps it might turn out that on these lists there might be some vacancy, which might be filled up with the proposed grant to Mr. Canning's family of 3,000l. a-year, and certainly; when the country was pressed on every side by financial difficulties, it was worth while to see whether such a grant as this could not fairly be put on the ordinary pension list, without making it an extra grant. The Irish list, in the year 1820, had amounted to 71,000l. a-year; and therefore the proposed pension to Mr. Canning's family could not be placed on that, as, by act of parliament, no pension of more than 1,200l. a-year could be granted to any individual, until the general amount should be reduced to 50,000l. a-year; and besides, he did not see how they could reasonably grant any thing further in the way of pensions, till they knew what had already been done, in order that they might guard against profusion. How there could be any opposition to this measure he could not conceive, unless government was afraid to let them know the names of those who were on the list; and on this point Mr. Burke had well observed, that the moment there was an attempt to conceal names, men naturally came to a conclusion that there was something wrong in the transaction. From such a list as he had been able to draw up, it appeared that one family had had, within four years, no fewer than seven grants made them, altogether amounting to 1,200l. a-year; and he must say, that when such grants as these were made, no one could say that suspicion did not attach as to the motive for which they were made [hear, hear!] By an act passed in 1810, no pension out of the Scotch pension list could be granted above 800l. a-year, until the list was reduced to 25,000l. a-year; but, in 1820, that list amounted to 38,000l.; and it was his opinion, if the House were to grant ministers 3,000,000l. a-year, instead of 200,000l. a-year, every shilling of it would be anticipated by them. If, however, it should appear, to the credit of government, that the lists were reduced within the scale he had mentioned, no doubt, in the course of a year or so, such a vacancy would occur as would admit of the proposed 3,000l. a-year. He also objected to the manner in which the civil list was voted: he wanted the particulars to be stated, and not upwards of a 1,000,000l. at once to be voted, out of which the lord Chancellor, the Judges, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and several others were to be paid. Another objection that he had to the vote was, that the amount had been settled at a period when the price of provisions and every thing else was at a very high rate; but as, since that-period, the prices had fallen, he did not see why the same amount should be granted. Taking the general aggregate of pensions, including the military and civil pensions, no less a sum than 6,088,910l. was paid last year by the country; of course, that sum included the half-pay of the army. These being the circumstances of the case, he thought he had shewn sufficient parliamentary grounds, for moving, "That there be laid before the House a Return of all the Pensions granted out of his Majesty's Civil List of England from the 1st January, 1828; stating the names of the persons to whom they were granted, the amount of each grant, and the date at which the grant had been made; and also whether the grant was for life, or during pleasure. And that the same Returns should be made with respect to the Civil Lists of Ireland and of Scotland."

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, it would not be necessary for him to enter into an explanation of that part of the hon. gentleman's speech in which he had stated that the pension list amounted to upwards of 6,000,000l. annually; because he himself had stated that he included, in that calculation, the whole of the half-pay; and the House would likewise understand, that it embraced the whole of the allowances made to those who had been wounded in the service of their country. He was quite willing to admit that it was a large amount, but he was sure the House would not be sorry that it was so large, when they remembered who were the meritorious persons to whom it was granted. Neither would it be necessary for him to say any thing upon what had fallen from the hon. gentleman concerning the amount of the civil list, as connected with the present cheapness of provisions, compared with what the price was, when that list was granted: it would be enough for him to remind the House, that the very basis of that grant was, that it should be unalterable, after the commencement of each reign, in order to prevent constant discussion on the subject. So that the question really was, not whether the civil list was adequate to any particular year; but that, having once been made, it should be continued as permanent, being neither open to the revision of parliament, nor subject to perpetual examination and alteration. Having said so much upon what might be called the ornamental part of the honourable gentleman's address, he would now proceed to apply himself to the graver portion of the subject. The hon. member commenced by observing, that he could not conceive what opposition could be offered to a motion of this description. The hon. member must, however, have a very short memory; for it was in the recollection of almost every gentleman, that, on a motion for a return of the allowances granted under the civil list, Mr. Canning gave that motion his decided resistance, upon the very grounds which authorised him in now resisting the hon. member's proposition. The hon. gentleman stated, that he called for the production of the pension list, in order to see, whether he could not make an alteration in it, so as to supersede the measure which had been introduced for a provision for Mr. Canning's family. The hon. gentleman was of opinion, that, if he could place Mr. Canning's representative on the present pension list, the public would be put to no additional expense; but that, if the course which government proposed were followed, the effect would be different. The hon. gentleman was altogether wrong in his proposition. The expense to the public would, be precisely the same, whe- ther the provision for Mr. Canning: was made out of the pension list or out of the other fund allotted by parliament. The two funds were equally at the disposal of his majesty, for the purposes specifically mentioned in the acts of parliament. The pensions under the civil list were confined to 95,000l., to be paid in pensions not exceeding 1,200l. a-year. But his majesty had also a right, with the concurrence of that House, to provide for meritorious public services out of the consolidated fund. This power was given to the Crown in consequence of the large quantity of patronage which had, some years ago, been withdrawn from it. Nothing, however, prevented his majesty, where the necessities of individuals who had served the State were represented to him, from granting to them an adequate provision. The provision to Sir. Canning's family would not add to the public expense; for the plan proposed by the hon. gentleman would, perhaps, only have the effect of superseding some person who had rendered efficient service to the State, and who must still be provided for. If, therefore, the hon. gentleman wished to raise any question, with a view to the granting to the family of Mr. Canning a provision to the amount of 1,200l. on the pension list, or whether the provision was continued in the course which government recommended, it would be equally granted by his majesty out of funds which were at his disposal, and no new charge would be incurred.—He had stated the necessity of not interfering with any arrangements of the civil list, and he thought that interference ought not to take place, until some necessity arose for an application, upon the part of the Crown, to enlarge the amount of that list. He might, indeed, say, that the House did not possess any right to inquire into the expenditure of the civil list, until that application might be made, or until the powers of granting pensions under that civil list were so much abused, as to justify their interference. Until some case of that kind arose, it was not right for honourable members to demand, or for the House to grant, any means of inquiry into the expenditure of the civil list. The hon. member had stated, that in 1820 the pension list was submitted to the House; but the hon. member ought to have recollected, that it was in 1820 that that arrangement was made upon which they were now proceeding; and as the production of the list was necessary to show the reasons for that arrangement, therefore it was given without resistance. No case of that kind, however, existed now; and, as he had not been able to point out any instance of abuse, there was no ground for the motion. Neither could he conceive that it was necessary for that House to go into all the details of the civil list, because some hon. members might entertain peculiar opinions respecting the propriety of some of the grants. The hon. gentleman had referred to Mr. Burke's act as an argument for the production of the pension list; but the slightest reference to that act must satisfy any man, that it was not the intention to have the pension list laid upon the table of the House. In 1782, the amount of pensions greatly exceeded the sum originally proposed, and it was provided by Mr. Burke's art, that no more pensions were to be given, until the amount had been reduced to a certain limited sum. It was undoubtedly true that the act required the pension list to be laid upon the table of the House, but it was at the same time obvious, that the list was to be so laid on the table, in order to show that the sum was brought to that amount which the act required; and the very fact of its being required at that time proved that it never was in the contemplation of Mr. Burke, or the House, to require the pension list to be produced, except in the case of some great abuse. On these grounds he felt it his duty to resist the motion for the production of the pension list of England. To the production of the pension lists of Ireland and Scotland, standing as they did upon the act of Mr. Burke, and not having been yet lowered to the maximum specified by the act, he could not object. He could not acquiesce in this motion, to its full extent, without giving up the principle of keeping the arrangement with the Crown inviolate, and of not entering lightly into an examination of all the details of the civil list expenditure. For these reasons he opposed the motion.

Lord Althorp

said, he had listened in vain for any thing like a reason against the motion of his hon. friend. All that his hon. friend desired was, to know to whom pensions had been granted. The right hon. gentleman said, it was not desirable to bring the Crown into unnecessary con- tact with the House of Commons, upon the subject of the civil list. His hon. friend desired no such thing; he merely felt it his duty to ascertain whether certain sums had not been improvidently disposed of. The right hon. gentleman's arguments would go to the resistance of the production of the whole pension list; but he admitted that the Irish and Scotch lists could not be withheld. If, however, there was nothing discreditable in the expenditure, why should it be resisted? The responsiblity of misapplying this fund must rest somewhere; but, if the right hon. gentleman's arguments held good, how was that responsibility to be ascertained? The right hon. gentleman maintained, that the list could not be produced, unless some case of gross abuse was pointed out. If, however, the list was not to be subjected to examination, how could members ascertain the abuse which was to warrant the call for a production of the list? Although these pensions were placed at the disposal of the Crown, they must be given under the responsibility, and by the advice, of ministers; and, therefore, the House had a right to demand such information as would enable them to ascertain whether the advice given was strictly followed.

Mr. Secretary Huskisson

said, that if he could accede to the proposition, that parliament had it in its power to control the expenditure of the pension list in the way it thought fit, he might be disposed to agree to the motion. Parliament had, however, taken the matter out of its own hands; and, by declaring that 95,000l. was the extent of the sum which his majesty was to have at his disposal, at a time when a much greater amount was applied to the same purpose, and the power of granting pensions carried to excess, they had left it within the discretion of the Crown to apply that sum in the manner it thought best fitted for the purposes of the original grant. So much for the improvidence which had been charged against the Crown on this subject. Parliament had, however, at the same time, fixed the maximum of the amount which was to be expended in the distribution of pensions. The hon. gentleman had told the House, that there were only one or two of all these pensions which were not improperly granted. Did he mean to contend, that the House of Commons was to sit in judgment on every act of grace, or justice, or munificence, which the Crown might be pleased, in its wisdom, or in its liberality, to exercise towards the subject? If this list were to be called for, like any other account, when a pension happened to be granted, a considerable portion of their time would be employed every session in discussing the right of the Crown. The Crown did not act in this case without the assistance of responsible advisers; and, unless gentlemen could adduce an instance in which an improper application was made of this fund, it was the practice of parliament to presume that the Crown had been properly advised. For, though the claims might be those of benevolence, of grace—of favour, if they would—of liberality, of misfortune, would it not be quite unworthy of parliament to have the situation of individuals, whose cases had been introduced to the notice of the Crown by his majesty's responsible advisers, brought afterwards before parliament? He therefore would say, that, looking to the sense and spirit of the act of parliament, the pension list having been granted, they were not called upon to examine the manner of its appropriation. When he looked to the whole of that act, he found the doctrine now laid down fully confirmed. By Mr. Burke's act, it was provided, that when the list exceeded the annual limited amount, an account should be laid before the House of what pensions were granted. It was to be laid before parliament, not to examine whether any pension was a proper or an improper one, but to show that the check imposed by parliament was in force. It was quite clear the legislature meant, that the account should not be called for, while the list was kept within the limits prescribed by parliament, as was now the case. But the hon. member for Montrose went greatly beyond this. He said, that, since 1816, provisions had fallen in price, and money had risen in value; therefore, he would have the civil list revised. Why, he might as well go to the fourth class of the civil list, to the department of the lord chamberlain, and the master of the horse, and inquire how many quarters of oats were purchased, what the price was in 1816, what it was now, and what it was likely to be six months hence. If they proceeded on such a principle, they would, every session, be dealing with this list, which they were bound to keep inviolate. The civil list was granted for the life of the sovereign; and only in the unfortunate event which would call for a new arrangement of that list, could the hon. member bring forward with propriety the arguments which he had this evening used. They had, he contended, no right to touch this subject, unless where the Crown called for a new civil list, or where it was placed in the unfortunate situation of coming to parliament for relief. The hon. member proceeded on a wrong principle, when he wished to confine the civil list entirely to the king's personal service. He differed from the hon. member, and regretted that so many of the civil expenses of the state had been removed from the civil list. Would the hon. member wish that the payment of those who immediately represented the Crown at foreign courts should be taken from the sovereign and given to parliament? He would tell the hon. member, if he entertained such a wish, that this was a monarchy; and he should regret if any individual were authorized to state in a foreign country, that he was not the ambassador of the king of England, but the representative of the House of Commons. He wished those who represented the Crown, to look directly to the Crown, for the reward of their peculiar connexion with the Crown. In the same way, he liked to see the dignity of the Crown identified with the provision for the judges, and thus connected with the administration of justice, which then appeared to flow from the Crown itself. If they acceded to the doctrines of the hon. gentleman, they would bring the Crown into a dangerous personal competition with the House, and destroy the dignity, the splendour, the very existence, of sovereignty in the country. If the hon. member thought proper to rest his case upon the act of 1782, he ought to be bound by it; and if he was so bound, it was clear that the act was decidedly against the position he had endeavoured to maintain. In the case of the pension list of England, his assertions were completely disproved by the act; but with respect to the pension list of Scotland and Ireland, it was right that it should be laid before the House, until its amount was lowered to that maximum which parliament had prescribed. If the Crown, whenever a member pleased, was to be called upon to produce the accounts of the disposal of the pension fund, they would take away all the restraint which prevailed at present in the disposal of those funds. Let the motion be once granted, and they would have inquiries into the expenditure of the civil list, as extended and as frequent as into any of the details of the Excise board or the Customs. For these reasons, and because he could not consent to allow the hon. member for Montrose to sit in judgment upon every special act of munificence or of favour which the Crown might think proper to bestow, he felt bound to resist the motion.

Dr. Lushington

said, the argument of the right hon. gentleman, if good for any thing, went to this—that the moment the civil list was settled, so it should remain, unless the monarch was obliged to come to parliament for relief. It was not, it seemed, to be inquired into, though the situation of the country rendered such an inquiry indispensable. Now, if the civil list had been fixed at 95,000l., when the late king ascended the throne, what would have been the consequence, if the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman had been carried into effect? Why, for sixty years, during which the late king reigned, he would have had the command annually of 95,000l., without the possibility of inquiry. The right hon. gentleman told them that, in this, as in every thing else, the Crown had responsible advisers. It was, however, a responsibility which, it appeared, was never called into action. Had a settlement taken place, with respect to the civil list, in 1761, it could not, according to the right hon. gentleman's doctrine, have been interfered with until 1821. Now, he never understood that it was consistent with the constitution, or that Mr. Burke had ever tolerated such a principle, as that the monarch might have, for a long series of years, the uncontrolled power over a very large sum of money, perfectly independent of parliament. If this fund were properly distributed, he could see no reason for withholding the account from parliament; and, when they found a system of concealment practised, it was but fair to conclude that the fund was not justly dealt with.

Mr. Hume

said, with respect to the argument of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should not interfere with the civil list, he would reply, that parliament did interfere several times during the last reign. In the first year of George 3rd the civil list was settled at 800,000l.; in the seventeenth year, 100,000l. were added; in the forty-fourth year the civil list received an augmentation of 70,000l.; and in the fifty-sixth year it was altogether new modelled. It could not be, therefore, said, with these precedents before us, that parliament ought not to interfere with the civil list. The right hon. Secretary had said, that we should not interfere with ambassadors, because the government of this country was a monarchy. But, were their expenses not paid in the same way, and were they not equally under the superintendences of parliament as the military and other establishments of this country? It was said that the sum appropriated to this purpose was limited; but what means had the House of knowing that the limit was not exceeded, unless they were informed in what manner it was applied? The principle of Mr. Burke's bill of economical reform was, that parliament should be put in possession of the means of ascertaining whether or not a sum appropriated to any purpose had been exceeded. Without the information for which he now moved, it was impossible to know whether it was or not.

Mr. Fergusson

regretted that he felt it his duty to vote for the motion. He regretted it, because he had every wish to support the present government, who were placed in a situation of difficulty, both with respect to foreign and to domestic affairs, to which few administrations had ever been exposed. But he could see no reason why the civil list of this country, as well as the civil lists of Ireland and Scotland should not be laid before the House. He was sure it would disclose nothing discreditable to his majesty or his advisers; and therefore there could be no reason for withholding it. The sum was given to his majesty for the purpose of rewarding meritorious servants; and the public should be satisfied that such services had been rewarded.

Mr. Calcraft

said, he should resist the motion. This sum of 95,000l. had been voted at the beginning of the reign, for the life of the monarch; and if they were justified in moving for this, they would be justified in moving for every other item. Thus, all that had been done to avoid that scrutiny, which it was clear would promote any thing but good feeling between the king and his people, would be destroyed. Unless a case of abuse was shewn, or the king asked for an addition to the civil list, they ought, not to call for these items. He could cite many constitutional authorities in support of his opinion.

Lord Howick

said, he never heard a move extraordinary speech than that which had been made by the last hon. member. He said, that it was unconstitutional to inquire into the civil lists, and yet he had admitted, that the king might come down to that House, and ask for an increase of those lists. He would contend, that it was highly constitutional for them to see that this sum was properly disposed of. Responsibility was a complete joke if this information were refused. The hon. member told them, that they might apply for this information if they could show a case of abuse. What! show a case of abuse without the information, by means of which alone they could ascertain whether abuse existed? He had been told, on a former occasion, that he had displayed constitutional ignorance in saying that they ought to ascertain the amount of their income before they settled what their expenditure should be: but he still held the same doctrine; and the expenditure of five only of these 95,000l. was not necessary, for it was an improvident expenditure. In order to ascertain this point, he should vote for the motion.

The House divided: For the motion 52; Against it 131; Majority 79.

List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord Marshall, John
Baring, A. Monck, John B.
Baring, B. Nugent, lord
Baring, sir T. O'Brien, Lucius
Bentinck, lord G. Osborne, lord F.
Bernal, R. Palmer Fyshe,
Bright, H. Portman, E. B.
Buck, L. W. Protheroe, E.
Colborne, N. R. Ramsden, J. C.
Davies, colonel Rick ford, W.
Dawson, A. Robarts, A. W.
Duncombe, T. Russell, John
Fazakerley, J. N. Smith, Wm.
Fyler, T. B. Sykes, Daniel
Gordon, Robert Stanley, hon. E. G.
Guest, J. J. Thompson, C. P.
Heathcote, R. E. Townsend, lord C.
Heron, sir R. Vyvyan sir R. R.
Howick, viscount Warburton, H.
Keck, G. A. L. Whitmore, W.
Kennedy, T. Wilbraham, Geo.
Langston, I. H. Wood, John
Leycester, R. TELLERS.
Lushington, Dr. Hume, Joseph
Maberly, col. Fergusson, R. C.
Marjoribanks, S. SHUT OUT.
Morpeth, viscount Taylor, M. A.
Martin, John Fergusson, sir R. C.