CIVIL LIST. (Hansard, 8 August 1832)

§ Mr. Courtenay
was sorry to take up the time of the House again, but he was desirous of making one or two observations on the Bill. This was a Bill for providing for a very small part of the charges formerly included in the Civil List; all not relating to the household being provided for by a grant to the King, a charge on the Consolidated Fund, and the annual votes of a Committee of Supply. The object of the Bill was to give this House an increased control over this expenditure. He had always objected to the separation of those of the civil government from the other expenses of the Crown; but he would not then enter into that part of the subject. What he meant to contend for was, that the House ought not to leave the Crown without the means—Parliament sitting or not sitting—of paying the great officers of State, and conducting the civil government. The effect of the arrangement under the Bill would be, that, with the exception of the 1258 Lord Lieutenant, who represented his Majesty in Ireland, and the Ministers at the several foreign courts, his Majesty would not pay, in future, any civil officer. It appeared to him, that this was in opposition to all the principles of the Constitution. It was, perhaps, right that the King should not pay the Commander-in-chief of the army, or the Master-general of the Ordnance, because the Constitution did not contemplate the existence of a permanent army, but it was right that he should pay all the permanent officers of the Government. With respect to the navy, that was also dependent on the House. He thought that the Bill was the first stage of a very republican proceeding. He knew it was unavailing to oppose this arrangement, but still he could not refrain from protesting against it. The noble Lord acknowledged that he had fallen into various anomalies in making this arrangement. The most ridiculous mistakes, in fact, had been made. He did not accuse the noble Lord of being a republican, but he repeated, that in his opinion, this was a very republican proceeding. In recurring to history, to see what the practice had been upon this matter, he had avoided referring to a Tory historian, being aware of his own Tory predilections (which, however, he trusted, he should never be ashamed of). He had referred, therefore, to the historian who came over with King William, a Presbyterian Whig (the worst of all Whigs), and nevertheless a Bishop of the English Church; he meant, of course, Bishop Burnet. He begged the attention of the House, for one minute, to what this prelate said of certain debates concerning the settlement of the revenue in the first year of King William's reign. 'By a long course, and the practice of some ages, the customs had been granted to our kings for life; so the king expected that the like regard should be shown for him. But men's minds were much divided in that matter. Some Whigs who, by a long opposition and jealousy of the Government, had wrought themselves into such republican principles that they could not easily come off from them, set it up as a maxim not to grant any revenue, but from year to year; or, at most, for a short terra of years. This they thought would render the Crown precarious, and oblige our kings to such a popular method of government as should merit the constant renewal of that grant; 1259 and they hoped that so uncertain a tenure might more easily bring about an entire change of government'. He was sure that the noble Lord opposite, did not make this change in the same spirit; but he must not be surprised if those who were not disposed to place implicit confidence in the Government, were very jealous of such a proceeding. Having entered his protest against the Bill, he should not occupy the attention of the House any further. He sincerely prayed that he might be mistaken, and that he should die, as he was born, under a monarchy.

§ Lord Althorp
said, undoubtedly, although the salaries of the Ministers of the Crown were voted annually in this House, it never entered into his imagination that that was considered a "republican" proceeding, as the right hon. Gentleman termed it. He looked at this merely as a question of economy; and thought it desirable that the salaries of the Ministers of State should continue under the control and inspection of Parliament, rendered liable to such alterations as changes in the circumstances of the country might from time to time require. The House of Commons had so much power in the State, that no Administration could continue to exist contrary to the wishes of the House. He thought, therefore, whatever the theoretical deductions from this Bill might be, that it could not have the practical effect which his right hon. friend anticipated. He had already stated to the House the principle on which it proceeded. The expenses of the State, as a State, should be voted by a Committee of Supply, with perhaps one or two exceptions. The House generally concurred with him in this view, and therefore, he would not trouble it any further.

Mr. Hume
remarked that, as the Judges were paid fixed salaries, it would be now desirable to know what reason there was for continuing the fees still payable in the different courts, which must evidently tend to the interruption of justice. Cheap justice was never so desirable as at this moment.

§ Lord Althorp
said, he was not convinced that it was desirable to abolish all fees, though it was desirable to abolish such as were objectionable and onerous to the subject in obtaining justice in Courts of Law.

Mr. Hume
hoped the matter would be referred to the Judges of the different 1260 Courts, and that they would be required to return such public fees as it might be consistent and convenient hereafter to abrogate altogether.