SUPPLY.

HC Deb 10 May 1830 vol 24 cc506-26

The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.

The first item was a grant of 6,000l. for the Building of Churches in the West Indies for the year 1830.

Mr. R. Gordon

wished to know, whether there was not to be some statement made relative to the distribution of the former grants made under this head, and how the present grant was to be appropriated.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the greatest part of that explanation was already on the Table of the House. Those grants had been made in consequence of what had taken place in 1825, with the view of improving the condition of the negroes, and were, he thought, in unison with the unanimous wish of the House at that time. Salaries were appropriated to Bishops and other clergymen—and other measures were taken for the moral improvement of the population of the Colonies, which had, he believed, fully succeeded. By the arrangements then made, the Colonies were to be at half the expense for erecting chapels, churches, &c. and the Government was to be at the other half. In compliance with this understanding, the Government had frequently submitted votes to Parliament, and sums had been continually granted. The money advanced by the Colonies for this object amounted to 23,930l., while, (including the present grant) this country had only supplied 21,466l. The rents of the Bishops' houses were paid out of the Civil Contingencies, but 8,000l. had been laid out in 1827 to purchase a house, with a view to save the rent. A church had been built at Bridgetown, Barbadoes, for 8,800l., of which this country had contributed 3,400l. At Kingston a church had been built for 4,255l., of which this country had paid 2,000l. The establishment of these churches appeared to him to be one of the most effectual modes of improving the condition of the negro population; and as that had been in some measure promoted, agreeably to the wish of the House, Members would not, he thought, now have any objection to supply the means of attaining so important an object.

Mr. R. Gordon

admitted the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's statements as to what had been the wish of the House, and he expressed his satisfaction at hearing that means had been taken to improve the Negro population; but he did not know in what papers to find the accounts to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded; unless, indeed, they were to be found under the head of Army Extraordinaries; for it was there that he had once found an account of the expenses of the Bishop's House at Barbadoes. As he conceived, notwithstanding the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that Parliament ought to have more information on the appropriation of what had been, and what was to be voted, than simply "For building Churches so much," he should oppose the grant.

Sir James Graham

rose to ask, as he saw a sum of 508l. voted for the rent of a house for a Bishop of Barbadoes; whether that sum was for a second residence for the Bishop, as the House had just heard that a place had been built for that Ecclesiastic.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that this charge was for the rent of a house before the present one was built. It was a charge which would not be repeated in future.

Mr. Hume

wished to know, why the people of England should be obliged to pay for erecting palaces for the Bishops of the West-India islands? An end ought to be put to such extravagance. He should certainly oppose such votes. He wished to know why there was every year to be an additional expense under these heads, and he trusted the House would not sanction it by its vote.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the Bishops had been appointed, with the approbation and wish of the House for the ecclesiastical government of the West Indies. At first they were obliged to hire houses, and the rent of those houses was paid for by bills drawn on the Government, which were charged in the Army Extraordinaries. But it was desirable to relieve the country of that charge, and construct a residence for the Bishops. This had been done, and their houses were not, as the hon. Member said, palaces, but houses. If they were palaces, the Government deserved great credit for its economy in having built them for a sum of 4,000l. each. Now the Bishops had houses provided for them, the country would not be called on to incur a similar expense again. The Parliament had given its assent to the appointment of the Bishops; it had thought a Church Establishment in the West Indies necessary, and houses for the Bishops were as necessary as churches.

Mr. Wilmot Horton

was surprised at the notice that was now taken of the expenditure on this subject. The building of churches in the West Indies, and the sending out of Bishops was an arrangement called for by the West Indians themselves, as well as the people of this country. If the colonists would undertake to be at all the expense of subsequently supporting these establishments, they were told the Government would consent to the appointment. The proposition had come from the West Indians, and had met with the support of Parliament. It was thought to be of great importance, and the Government was called on to give it its support.

Sir James Graham

said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Horton) would confer a great favour on himself and other Members, if he would point out to them where they could find an authentic account of the Colonial expenditure. He confessed that he had sought after this with some diligence, but he had been unable to discover any correct source whence he could learn what was the whole amount of our Colonial expenditure. His right hon. friend would not be surprised at this, when he reminded him of a document recently published—an authentic document, signed by the present Master of the Mint. He was not aware that any change had taken place in the Colonial management since that letter was written. He would, with permission of the House, read the letter, which had been printed at his request. It was a letter from the present Master of the Mint, who was then Secretary of the Treasury, to his right hon. friend, who was then Under-Secretary of the Colonies.

The hon. Baronet accordingly read the following letter:— Treasury Chambers, 24th March, 1827. Sir:—I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury to transmit to you the accompanying papers, being statements prepared by the Auditors of Colonial Expenditure, showing the Income and Expenditure of Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, Trinidad and Malta, for periods of ten and more years for each of them respectively, preceding the latest date up to which the accounts are in the possession of the Auditors, and I am to request that you will lay the same before Lord Bathurst, and call the serious attention of his Lordship to the results which are exhibited by these papers. His Lordship will perceive that the collective expenditure of these several Colonies has so greatly exceeded the Colonial Revenues, applicable to the discharge of it, as to have constituted a deficiency, amounting altogether to 2,524,000l. according to the latest accounts under examination. Lord Bathurst will also observe, that according to the rate at which the income and expenditure of each of the Colonies were proceeding at those dates, the annual accruing deficiency could not be estimated at less than 200,000l. My Lords are aware that these observations do not apply to Malta or Trinidad in the same manner as to the other Colonies, although they are included in this account, and that the excess of expenditure at the former of these, was owing to a peculiar calamity, which may not recur. They also bear in mind that at the Cape, the excess of expenditure beyond the Revenue has been small in comparison with that of the Mauritius and Ceylon; but they have judged it most advisable to present a view of the whole together. They are well aware that the expenditure by which the deficiencies above stated have been created, was incurred for public services such as could not, consistently with a due regard to the interests, either of the Colonies, or of the empire at large, have been avoided, and they desire to be distinctly understood as not intending to convey any doubt upon that subject, or to impute to those under whose control and management the expenditure in those past years was directed, any want of due regard to public economy, when they state their decided opinion that some alteration is urgently required in the system under which the financial arrangements of the Colonies (not having legislatures) has hitherto been conducted. My Lords are confident that Lord Bathurst will not hesitate to concur with them, as to the necessity of some change in this respect, when they draw his attention to the manner in which the above deficiency has been gradually created, and principally provided for. It appears that of the above-mentioned sum of 2,524,000l. there has been furnished out of the public funds of the United Kingdom, partly by bills upon this Board, by advances to the agents for the Colonies, and by the discharge of debts to the East India Company, about 2,435,000l. and that the remainder is still existing as a debt of the Colony, either in the shape of a paper circulation without funds for the discharge of it, or in some other form, in addition to all the debt of this description which existed at the commencement of the account. Of the expenditure thus defrayed, or remaining to be defrayed under the authority of this Board, I am to observe, that under the system hitherto pursued, the greater part has been incurred without any previous communication with my Lords; and that the Treasury has been uninformed, not only of the measures which have from time to time led to occasional and extraordinary expenses in these Colonies, but even of the state of their ordinary revenues and the permanent charges upon them. My Lords have therefore had no opportunity either of preparing for such expenses, as it might be indispensable to provide for by funds at home in aid of the revenues of the Colonies, or of suggesting, with respect to those services which might have been susceptible of reduction or postponement, such modifications as a due regard to other more pressing demands upon the general funds of the United Kingdom would have rendered expedient. Of the great inconveniences to which this imperfect administration of an important branch of the public expenditure is obviously liable, my Lords are well assured that Lord Bathurst will entertain the same opinion with themselves; and I am therefore to request that you will submit to his Lordship the desire of this Board, to receive as early as possible an estimate of the present and permanent annual revenue, and also of the present and prospective annual expenditure of each of the above-named Colonies, in such detail as may enable their Lordships to communicate fully with Lord Bathurst upon the subject, in order to determine in what manner, whether by diminution of expenditure or augmentation of the Colonial Revenue, if any such be practicable, or by the aid of additional funds under the authority of Parliament, if such should be indispensably necessary, a regular and sufficient provision may be made for the charges to be defrayed in each Colony, instead of throwing an excess of yearly expenditure unprovided for, according to the present practice, upon the annual grant for the extraordinaries of the army. I am to add, that the information which has been obtained from the Auditors of Colonial Accounts upon this subject, does not afford to my Lords the knowledge which they desire to have of the present and prospective state of the revenues and expenses of the several Colonies, inasmuch as that information relates only to periods already long passed, and it does not appear that the Auditors are competent to supply any other.—I am, &c. (Signed) "J. C. HERRIES. From this letter, the hon. Baronet continued, it appeared, that nothing was known of the colonial expenditure; that even the auditors could give no account of it, and that the Treasury knew nothing about it. He believed that the vicious system described in that document had not been changed, and that no improvement had been made in it. A board under the Government, indeed, had been appointed to investigate these abuses; but three years had elapsed since that document was written, and the same abuses were continued. The House ought not, in his opinion, to vote one farthing, till the report of this Board of Commissioners was made, and till this most flagrant and most vicious system of the Executive Government was corrected. The House would not discharge its duty if it voted these sums till then. At least in future, an estimate of the expenses of the principal colonies ought regularly to be laid before the House every year, by the minister for the colonies, like the estimates for the other branches of the public expenditure. A budget for the colonies, with ways and means, ought annually to be submitted to the House; and if that were not done, the House would not be justified in continuing to vote money for the expenses of the Colonies.

Mr. Wilmot Horton

said, his hon. friend must be aware that the answer to the document he had read had been moved for: and he was surprised that it was not yet laid on the Table of the House. When that answer was laid on the Table the two documents might be considered together; but it was hardly fair to discuss one without the other. He would only observe, that the Colonial Auditors were not appointed by the Colonial Office, but by the Lords of the Treasury. It was, however, of more importance to consider what ought to be, than what had been done, and though there were many official difficulties in the way of the proposition of his hon. friend, he agreed with him in thinking that a regular Estimate of Colonial expenditure ought annually to be submitted to Parliament.

Mr. Herries

said, as he was the author of the letter alluded to, he would say a few words, though he was convinced that it would be proper to postpone the discussion till the other document was laid on the Table. He would, in the first place, say, that the hon. member for Cumberland was quite unwarranted in his assumption that no improvement had been made in the Colonial management since the date of the document he had quoted. He could assure the hon. Member that in this he was mistaken; and if the hon. Member had attended to the information laid before the Finance Committee, he would have found that the management of the Colonies was not so defective as he supposed. Respecting the auditors' ignorance to which the hon. Baronet alluded, that was merely an ignorance of the estimate of the expense in future, which the auditors could not know.

Mr. Hume

said, that the letter quoted was dated in April, 1828, and there had been certainly some accounts laid before the Finance Committee. He had urged the Government to have these accounts printed and laid before the House; and he had understood that it was to be done. He was surprised, indeed, that they had not already been laid on the Table; and he could only account for it by supposing that at the Colonial office little or nothing was done. Three weeks had elapsed since one letter was ordered, and it was not yet ready, which was a pretty good specimen of the negligence at that office. Till the accounts he had mentioned were laid on the Table, he, for one, should be unwilling to vote a shilling for the Colonies. The Report of the Commissioners ought, indeed, first to be laid on the Table before any money was voted. The Colonies were loaded with unnecessary officers, with large salaries; they were unable to support their own expenditure, and the country was accordingly called on to support their expensive establishments. He was afraid that Government was tardy in submitting the documents to the House because they would not justify its extravagant expenditure.

Sir J. Graham

said, as he had not been a member of the Finance Committee, he could not judge of the improvement made in the management of the Colonies by the documents submitted to that Committee; but he saw before him the Chairman of that Committee, and he had lately given to the public, in an authentic form, the result of its labours. Within two months the judgment of that hon. Baronet was, that the Colonial accounts were in a state of unintelligible confusion. It was at that hon. Baronet's suggestion that he had taken the liberty of inquiring into the matter. He would admit that he was in error if the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or any of the right hon. Gentlemen sitting near him, would state from any source the entire sum demanded from this country for the support of the Colonies. If they would tell him from the Miscellaneous Estimates, the Civil Contingencies, and the Army Extraordinaries—for under each of these heads there were charges for the Colonies—the amount of the expenditure, he would at once admit that the accounts were intelligible and that he was wrong.

Sir George Murray

admitted that it would be very proper to have Colonial Estimates, both of the expenditure and the receipts of the Colonies; and he should have no objection to prepare such documents, if it could be accomplished in future, though he believed that there would be many difficulties in the way. With respect to the observation of the hon. member for Aberdeen concerning the documents submitted to the Finance Committee, it happened that those documents were very incorrect, and the remoteness of the Colonies had prevented him from obtaining the corrections necessary to make them fit to be submitted to the House. With regard to the letter which had been read, the other document connected with it was about to be laid on the Table, and then the two might be considered together.

Mr. Warburton

wished to say a few words on the vote before the Committee. The Government desired to have a large Church establishment and extensive patronage, with Bishops, and fine churches; and in order to have these, it had been anxious to get rid of the Moravians, who were far better qualified to teach both the negroes and the whites of the West-Indies religion than the members of our Established Church. The Moravians were humble men, who lowered themselves to the humble intellect of the people they undertook to instruct. So long, however, as the House voted money, so long would there be Bishops, and churches to be paid for.

Mr. Bernal

denied that the West-Indians had demanded the establishment of Bishops in the West-Indies, but he remembered that expressions reflecting on the religion of the West-Indians had been used in that House, and he remembered that a Church establishment had been described by several hon. Members as a desideratum in the Colonies, and that the West-Indians had assented to the plan, though the proposition did not originate with that body. The West-Indians did not wish, and never had wished, to interfere with the Moravians, or to get rid of them; but they had wished to have proper spiritual guides. His hon. friend had spoken of palaces; but he believed the palaces built for the Bishops were only common houses. He wished that a Colonial budget should be annually submitted to the House, and it would then be seen that Jamaica cost this country very little. It defrayed all the expenses of its internal government, the salary of the Governor, and of all the public officers; and it defrayed the expense of a great portion of the King's troops, which were kept for the defence of that valuable colony. Other colonies in the West-Indies cost this country very small sums; and he believed if the 4½ A per cent duties were applied as they ought to be, those colonies would not put this country to one farthing expense. He was willing to unite himself to the hon. member for Cumberland in all his praiseworthy undertakings; but he ought to recollect that a large portion of the expense he had referred to in the letter he had quoted, arose from other colonies than those of the West-Indies. That letter related chiefly to the Cape of Good Hope, the Mauritius, and Ceylon.

Mr. Wilmot Horton

maintained, that the West-Indians had desired the appointment of the Bishops, and complained that he had been exposed to the attacks of both parties. He had been censured by one writer, a Mr. McQueen, who had received, it was said, 3,000l. from the West-Indian body, for making every appointment in the Colonies with a view to promote the emancipation of the negroes, and ruin the planter; and he had been threatened with opposition in the town he represented, because he was the enemy of emancipation. He had endeavoured to guide his course impartially, but it was his fate to be condemned by both parties. This was too bad, and it was still worse that they both pursued him into private life, and even now continued to make him the object of their censure.

Mr. Maberly

thought it would be better that the documents alluded to by the gallant Officer should be printed and laid before the House, although they were incorrect, rather than that the House should be left without any information.

Sir G. Murray

said, that those docu- ments were so very inaccurate, that it would have been improper to lay them before the House; and he regretted that the distance of the Colonies had hitherto prevented the inaccuracies from being corrected.

Mr. Maberly

inquired how long it would probably be before those documents would be ready? If they were not likely speedily to be ready, he should move that the inaccurate documents be printed.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

objected, that it would be a pity to print inaccurate accounts, when no harm could arise from a short delay, particularly as any Member who chose might have access to those accounts in their present state.

Mr. Trant

wished that the Colonial budget should include India, as the accounts of the finances of that country were formerly laid before Parliament regularly, and with great advantage to both countries.

Sir James Graham

was of opinion, that a commission appointed by his Majesty would be better to inquire into the Colonial expenditure than a committee of that House: but as the efficiency of such a commission would depend altogether on the persons who composed it, he begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman the names of the commissioners.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the commissioners were the Earl of Rossyln, the member for Kerry, Sir W. Gordon, Lord Eliot, and himself, and they were disposed to prosecute every requisite inquiry.

Mr. Portman

was anxious to hear the Government pledged to bring forward next year a sort of Colonial budget, and to declare that he Could not consent to vote any more public money for the Colonies till a pledge of that kind was given.

Sir George Murray

said, if it should be his duty to perform such a task next year, he would willingly bring forward a Colonial budget.

Lord Howick

wished to know if the grant were to be expended upon churches already begun, or if they were not commenced?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the works were generally commenced upon the faith of receiving these grants from Parliament.

Mr. Gordon

objected to the grant being at the disposal of Government, as there was no uniformity of system in the application of the money voted for the service of the Colonies. It was partially distributed. He thought that accounts had better be laid before the House, and that a committee of the House would be preferable to a commission.

Mr. Brougham

said, the Committee was voting away money in the dark: he would not vote even 6l., much less 6,000l., for establishments, which in his opinion, were not the best calculated for the religious wants of the people of the Colonies. He wished also to know whether the churches were begun or not, for which the sum of 6,000l. was required; for if they were not, it would be better, in his opinion, not to vote the money till more information was laid before the House. If the works were begun, the House could probably not refuse the grant without a breach of faith. He wished to know what islands had voted aids to this grant, what was the amount of the votes, and whether such votes were in the course of expenditure?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the Treasury did not give the money until they received a certificate from the Bishops, that the funds voted by the Colonies were in course of expenditure.

Mr. Brougham

wished to know when the statement that the money had been raised in the Colonies had been received; and how the 6,000l. now required was to be expended?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

stated, that the certificates from the Bishops had been sent home at various times, the last came, he believed, in the autumn. He could not specify the particular churches the 6,000l. would be appropriated to build, but he had a list in his hands of all those to the building of which it was to be applied.

Mr. Hume

thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to be prepared with more circumstantial information before he came down to the House to ask for a grant of money.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the money was chiefly to be expended in Antigua and Barbadoes.

Mr. Stanley

wished for the details of the expenditure.

Lord Howick

was for suspending the vote till next Session.

The Question was put and carried.

The next Vote was for 8,000l. for Piers at Milford Haven.

Mr. Hume

thought that it would be throwing away money to apply it to such a purpose.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the subject had been investigated by a committee in 1827, and that committee reported, that in order to facilitate the communication between England and the South of Ireland a landing place was necessary, and in pursuance of that recommendation the plan was adopted for which money was then required.

Mr. O'Connell

complained of the tardy and circuitous rout of the post under the existing regulations. Although the expense had been incurred, Ireland derived no benefit from it.

Mr. Rice Trevor

said, that an excellent road had been made for a considerable distance, but there was no means of getting a gentleman's carriage to it. The sum proposed was necessary to complete the communication with the South of Ireland, which would be of great utility to both kingdoms.

Lord Ebrington

having been a member of the committee mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself bound to confirm the statements of that right hon. Gentleman.

Vote agreed to.

12,000l. was next proposed to be granted to his Majesty, towards defraying the expenses of a State Paper Office, to be built in Duke Street, Westminster.

Mr. Hume

said, he did not object to the grant. He thought, however, the situation selected for this office had been ill chosen.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

contended it was most convenient, on account of its proximity to the public offices.

Mr. J. Wood

complained of the unprotected stale of the records in Westminster Hall. He suggested that no time should be lost in their removal.

Mr. Ewart

wished to inquire if any alterations were to be made in the entrance and interior of the courts of Westminster Hall, which, in their present state, were found to be extremely inconvenient. He had presented a petition on the subject, and was desirous of obtaining information as to the intentions of the Government concerning it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, he was extremely anxious to effect the removal of the records, and he was happy to tell the hon. Member who had asked the question, that the records of the Com- mon Pleas would be very soon transferred to a house in Westminster belonging to the Government; and it would be his duty, as it was his disposition, to remove all the other records into some place of safety as soon as he possibly could, leaving it to be decided, on some future day, whether it would not be advisable to erect some building in which all of them might be deposited. He knew that there had been complaints made of want of room in the Courts of Westminster Hall, and he had received a memorial suggesting the propriety of making alterations upon a plan which the House had before condemned. That he did not consider it advisable to assent to; but he was, at the same time, most anxious to promote the object which the memorialists had in view; and to obtain for gentlemen connected with the law, that accommodation in the courts which they ought to have; but he was afraid that the space was too limited to allow of compliance with their wishes.

Lord Milton

suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of providing some secure place also for the records preserved in Doctors' Commons, on which so much of the property of the country depends.

Vote agreed to.

4,700l. was voted to defray the expenses of the Commissioners of the Holy-head and Howth Harbour Roads.

10,000l. was voted to defray the expense of the new buildings in the British Museum, for the year 1830.

30,500l. was proposed for the purpose of defraying the expense of all salaries and allowances of the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons, for the year 1830.

Mr. Hume

said, it would be extremely desirable that the House should have a detailed account of this Estimate, which seemed very large; and before the report was brought up he should endeavour to get some correct information laid before the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that the sum then moved for was absolutely necessary in addition to the fees received by the officers of both Houses. The little difference between this and former estimates on the same account, arose from a fluctuation in the amount of fees.

Vote agreed to; as was a vote of 17,000l. to defray the expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons for the year 1830.

It was proposed that 24,000l. should be granted to his Majesty to make good the deficiency in the Fee Fund of the several public offices in the Treasury Department for the year 1830.

Mr. R. Gordon

wished to have the Estimate drawn up in a different form in future years. He did not object to the vote; but as the Estimate now stood it was impossible to know how the money was to be applied.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

would have no objection to meet the wishes of he hon. Member, and in future would take care that the manner in which the different sums, composing the whole of this vote were appropriated, should be set forth.

Mr. Portman

said, it had been his intention to move that a reduction of one-tenth should be made in all salaries above 200l. a-year paid for the public service; he would not, however, bring the matter forward that Session, as he was not possessed of the necessary documents. He had no means of ascertaining the amount of money paid to the public servants, and he might, if he carried such a motion, be inflicting injury on the few without conferring benefit on the many. He would, therefore, abandon his design for the present; and in doing so begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite if he would have any objection to furnish him with accounts, before the next Session, of the sums paid by the public for all officers and for all services above 200l. a-year.

Sir James Graham

said, that the Government had intimated its intention to him of opposing the motion which he proposed to bring forward to-morrow night; in which, if he succeeded, he could pledge himself to the hon. member for Dorsetshire that he would show him the amount of all the principal salaries. And this he knew would answer the hon. Member's purpose, who was as little disposed as himself to stoop to ignoble game, while flights of voracious birds of prey were gloating in the upper regions of the air. They would direct all their efforts against these, and urge them by every argument, ad invidiam and ad verecundiam, to adopt that course which had been pursued by only one officer then serving his Majesty. He meant the Duke of Northumberland, the Viceroy of Ireland [cries of "Lord Camden"]. Lord Camden had made the sacrifice of his salary long ago—it was before the pressure of distress was so universally felt by the nation, and before an urgent cry for relief had been raised by the people in that House, through the voice of their representatives [cries of "Mr. Moore"]. He had forgotten Mr. Moore, whose conduct was certainly deserving of the highest praise; but thus it was, that the only instances of patriotism were to be found in the persons of one amongst the humblest and one amongst the most exalted of the public servants. He would accordingly, if the information he sought for were denied, call upon the House to declare whether it was a thing to be endured that they, the guardians of the public purse, should be left in ignorance as to the mode in which the public money was expended. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that it was just as painful to him to put these interrogatories, as it was irksome for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to them; but he had a public duty to perform, and would not, consequently, hesitate to show how ignorant a country gentleman could be of the arcana of office by asking him to explain what the Fee Fund was, and what was the meaning of the several items he saw connected with it, under the title of Superannuations and Retired Allowances.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

complained, that the hon. Baronet, notwithstanding all his professions, did not act with that frankness towards his political opponents for which he was disposed to take credit. The hon. Baronet, in saying that Government had declared its intention of opposing his motion, had only given half the statement that was made to him, because it was added, that the hon. member for Lincoln had moved for a series of Returns so ample that they would embrace all the hon. Baronet proposed, and, consequently, that Government would find it necessary to oppose the granting of any partial Returns. He therefore denied any wish to exclude the House from information on the subject of those salaries. He also thought it extremely hard that he, who honestly, though perhaps inefficiently, discharged his duties in an office for which he received that remuneration bestowed on his predecessors, had been designated as a bird of prey, rather than the hon. Baronet, who enjoyed the income derived from the territorial possessions of his ancestors. From what vocabulary was it that the hon. Baronet derived such phrases; or, why was it that he was to be subjected to them in a society of Gentlemen? Notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, he should be always happy to give him all the information in his power: but as for the Fee Fund, it had been, on several occasions, sufficiently explained.

Sir J. Graham

admitted, that he had, when speaking on this subject, employed a metaphor which had drawn an expression of feeling from the right hon. Gentleman that he was very sorry to observe. He was bound to apologise for the metaphor, which he could assure the right hon. Gentleman he had not meant to be personal in any manner, or offensive to him, when he indulged in it. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly soared into the higher regions with much industry, but without any stain whatever on his character. Having thus apologised for the form of the expression, he must, with every possible deference to the right hon. Gentleman, adhere to its spirit, and must contend that it was unworthy of the Government to cut down the salaries of inferior clerks, while the great officers of the State, possessed of private fortunes, wealthy connections, and ten thousand other advantages which these clerks did not enjoy, were allowed to remain with undiminished salaries. He begged to state now, that he should submit a motion on this subject to-morrow; and he wished to observe, that the motion of the hon. member for Lincoln, which went to obtain a Return of the salaries of all the officers of the Government, from the highest to those who had only 200l. a year, would by no means meet the object he had in view, which was to direct attention particularly to the salaries enjoyed by the members of the Privy Council.

Colonel Sibthorp

also thought, that the two motions would not interfere with each other, and he should certainly support that of the hon. member for Cumberland, believing that it would not render his own unnecessary.

Mr. Hume

wished to recall the Committee to the consideration of the vote before it, and to the whole subject of which it was a part. The vote was to make good the deficiency in the Fee Fund, part of that going to pay the public servants of the Treasury, who derived their emoluments from no less than fifteen dif- ferent sources. The whole estimate for the services of the Treasury in 1797 was about 44,000l., but now it amounted to 87,000l. He could not conceive what reason there was for so considerable a difference; particularly as the accounts were now more simplified than they were then, and the whole business better arranged. In 1827 the Fee Fund was 294,000l., of which 130,000l. only was appropriated by Act of Parliament, and out of which 93,000l. was paid into the Exchequer as fees on the issue and receipt of our own money. He thought that was most wasteful extravagance. We were paying money twice over, because the Treasury would not simplify the accounts. Promises to do that had been made year after year, which had never been fulfilled, and he did not know whether the solemn pledge given this year would not also be violated. He wished to ask how it was that Mr. Stewart, the present Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, received the same salary as his predecessor, when the Treasury Minute of 1821 directed its reduction on the next vacancy from 2,500l. a year to 2,000l. a year?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that Mr. Stewart's predecessor had other allowances which the present possessor of the office did not enjoy. At the same time his labours were so great, that they were not more than paid by 2,500l. a year.

Mr. Hume

replied, that Mr. Hill, the former holder of the office, had been a man of long experience in business, and yet the same salary was now given to the present officer, perhaps because he was a military man. If Treasury Minutes were to be so violated, he did not see of what use they were.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that the salary was not kept up to 2,500l. a year in favour of any particular individual. The hon. member for Cricklade, who sat immediately under the hon. member for Montrose, had suggested the observation as to Colonel Stewart having been a military man. It was true he had been so, and had served with distinguished merit in the Rifle Brigade, during the Peninsular War; but it was not on his military services that his claim to his present salary had been founded. After the peace, Colonel Stewart had entered the Civil service, and, as Comptroller of the Army-accounts, had laboured most effectually for the public advantage. His exertions had recommended him to the post of a Commissioner of the Excise in Ireland, when preparations were making to consolidate the different Boards. In that office he saved a considerable sum of money to the public, by the investigations he instituted and the control he exercised over the subordinate officers of his department. On the first vacancy of a Chairmanship here, Lord Liverpool, who approved most highly of his services, appointed him Chairman to the Board of Stamps; and from a sense of his zeal and ability in the public service, he himself had recommended Mr. Stewart to the Duke of Wellington, who certainly had not selected him on account of his being a military man.

Mr. Gordon

said, it was disagreeable when these discussions were made personal. The question did not relate to the individual who held the office, and who might fully deserve the encomiums that had been passed on him—but to the pledge which the Government had given that the successor of Mr. Hill should not have more than 2,000l. a year. If the Minute of 1821 was not to be adhered to, no advantage was derived from it, and, in fact it was a delusion on the public.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that Mr. Hill, who had been appointed alter that Treasury Minute was made, had 2,500l. continued to him in deference to his great capabilities for the office, and his great previous services. Although Colonel Stewart could not. boast of such long services as Mr. Hill, his great merits was considered to take his case out of the general rule.

Lord Milton

observed, that it appeared from the right hon. Gentleman, that this place was, in fact, made a means of remunerating individuals—a practice which he thought quite improper, after that House had recommended, and a Treasury Minute had directed, a reduction of the salary attached to it.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

agreed that it would be improper to make the place a means of remunerating individuals, but he denied that it was so, and asserted that the great duties of the office, and the great merit of the two individuals, made such a salary not more than sufficient.

Lord Milton

remarked, that the result of this was, that in 1830, the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to pay 2,500l. a year for the office, when the Treasury, in 1821, had declared that 2,000l. a year was sufficient. Of course, when the Treasury made this minute, they fully intended that the office should be filled by a man of ability.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that the Treasury of 1824 thought that the office could not be paid for by less than 2,500l. a year, for it was they who had appointed Mr. Hill.

Lord Milton

answered, that these facts only showed that the Lords of the Treasury had twice violated the principle of their own Minute.

Mr. C. Wood

said, that after the successive appointments of two individuals at a salary greater than the Treasury Minute of 1821 declared to be sufficient, he could not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying that it had been the constant attempt of the Government to adhere to that Minute, and to reduce as much as possible the expenses of the Treasury. The question was, whether the House would agree with the Treasury in what they had thus done. He would put that question to the proof, by moving that the vote be reduced by 500l. If a man's salary were to be increased in proportion to the time that he had served, there was no saying to what its amount would be limited. He moved that the vote should be diminished by the sum of 500l.

Mr. Hume

said, that the Treasury Minute had equally recommended the reduction of the salaries of the chief clerks. He wished to know if that recommendation was to be adhered to?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

answered in the affirmative, and added, that to show how anxious the Government had been to adopt economical principles, it had reduced a Commissioner of Stamps, whose salary was 1,000l. a year; and thus, in effect, the salary of the present Assistant-Secretary of the Treasury left a balance of 500l. a year in favour of the public.

Lord Milton

said, this was more extraordinary than ever, for it showed that the Government reduced salaries where the reduction was not recommended, in order to be able to continue those which not only that House but the Treasury had recommended should be reduced.

Mr. Stanley

was also of opinion that the Ministers could not justify their conduct in maintaining the one salary against the recommendation of that House, by saying that they had, of their own accord, reduced another. Nor ought they to be allowed to continue a high salary on the pretence of the singular merit of each individual who filled the office; for if they did so, the exception would then become the rule, and the singular merit of each Government officer would be pleaded against the reduction of his salary.

Mr. F. Lewis

opposed the Amendment, on the ground, which had been over and over again stated in debates of this kind—that nothing could be more unwise or impolitic than for Government to put itself in the situation of not being able to obtain the services of those who were most capable and efficient. Mr. Burke had especially dwelt upon this principle in his celebrated speech upon Economical Reform. Mr. Stewart had been Chairman of the Board of Stamps with a salary of 2,000l. a year, and he had been removed to a situation of ten-fold the duty and double the responsibility under an expectation, which had been realised for two or three years, that his emoluments should be increased to the extent of 500l. a year. Would it not then be most unfair now to deprive him of that sum? It seemed to him impossible that the House of Commons could pursue a course of such intolerable injustice. From what he had seen of the office and its duties, he did, in his conscience believe, that a man who adequately discharged them amply earned the salary of 2,500l.; and it was not to be forgotten that an ordinary individual would not be competent to the situation.

Lord Howick

suggested that the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Stamps clearly ought to be reduced, if, as the hon. Member who last spoke had said, the duties of the Assistant-secretary of the Treasury were ten times more laborious and twice as responsible. Supposing the Assistant-secretary properly paid by 2,500l. the Chairman of the Board of Stamps was much overpaid. He should vote for the Amendment, as he was satisfied that the sum in question ought to be saved to the public.

Mr. E. Davenport

adverted to the altered circumstances of the country, and observed, that if justice were due to public officers, some little justice was also due to those who paid them.

Mr. Maberly

felt himself placed in a difficult situation: if he voted according to what he conceived to be the value of Mr. Stewart's services, he should grant the whole sum; but if he voted according to the Treasury Minute, he should refuse to give more than 2,000l., because the Lords of the Treasury had said (and it could not be denied that they were competent judges) that the Assistant-secretary ought to receive no more. He thought that the determination of the Lords of the Treasury ought to be supported, even in the face of Mr. Stewart's high and acknowledged merits, and he should, therefore, divide in favour of the Amendment.

Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald

bore testimony to the extraordinary and most severe labours of the Assistant-secretary of the Treasury: it would be false economy to reduce his salary, especially in the face of the principle established by the Report of the Finance Committee. The Assistant-secretary was the working and controlling-authority of the department, and his responsibility, as well as his labours, was great. To reduce the just rewards of faithful and efficient officers of the State would not be greater injustice to the individual than to the public.

Mr. C. Wood

said, that he should persevere in his Amendment, and take the sense of the House upon it. He gave more weight to the Treasury Minute, deliberately made, than to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who wished that it should go for nothing. His Amendment was to reduce the vote of 24,000l. to 23,500l.

Sir G. Warrender

supported the original vote, on the ground of justice to Mr. Stewart.

The Committee then divided—For the Motion 178; For the Amendment 106—Majority 72.

List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord	Crompton, S.
Baring, F.	Clive, E. B.
Baring, Sir T.	Calvert, C.
Baring, B.	Cavendish, W.
Belgrave, Lord	Colborne, R.
Beaumont, T. W.	Clements, Lord
Benett, J.	Davenport, E. D.
Bernal, R.	Davies, Colonel
Birch, J.	Duncombe, T.
Blandford, Marquis	Dundas, T.
Bright, H.	Dawson, A.
Brougham, H.	Dickinson, W.
Brougham, J.	Denison, J. E.
Brownlow, C.	Ebrington, Lord
Buck, L. W.	Encombe, Lord
Carter, J.	Ewart, W.

Euston, Lord	Pendarvis, E. W.
Fazakerley, N.	Palmer, F.
French, A.	Price, Sir R.
Fane, Hon. J.	Rumbold, G. E.
Fyler, T. B.	Rice, S.
Guise, Sir B. W.	Ridley, Sir M. W.
Gascoyne, General	Rancliffe, Lord
Gordon, R.	Robarts, A.
Grattan, J.	Robinson, Sir George
Graham, Sir J.	Rickford, W.
Guest, J. J.	Sibthorp, Colonel
Howick, Lord	Stanley, Lord
Honywood, W. P.	Stuart, Lord J.
Hobhouse, J. C.	Stewart, J.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Slaney, A.
Jephson, C. D. O.	Sadler, M. T.
Kennedy, T. F.	Stanley, Hon. E. G.
Killeen, Lord	Thomson, P.
Knight, R.	Trant, W. H.
Langston, J. H.	Tomes, J.
Lambert, J. S.	Wilson, Sir R.
Lester, B.	Wyvill, M.
Lennard, T. B.	White, Colonel
Labouchere, H.	Wilbraham, G.
Lawley, F.	Wrottesley, Sir J.
Lamb, Hon. G.	Warburton, H.
Milton, Lord	Whitbread, S.
Morpeth, Lord	Whitmore, W. W.
Monck, T. B.	Western, C. C.
Maberly, J.	Webb, Colonel
Macauley, C.	Wood, Alderman
Macdonald, Sir J.	Wood, J.
Marshall, W.	TELLERS.
Nugent, Lord	Hume, J.
O'Connell, D.	Wood, C. PAIRED OFF
Ponsonby, W.
Portman, E. B.	Denison, W. J.
Philips, G. R.	Ferguson, Sir R.
Parnell, Sir H.	Fortescue, G. M.
Phillimore, Dr.	Harvey, D. W.
Power, R.	Rowley, Sir W.
Poyntz, S.

The House resumed: the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday.