Mr. Humesaid, that feeling a great objection to the system of paying public officers by fees, he wished to have an account of the different fees received by the public servants in the different public offices, with a view to bringing before the House some measure to put an end to a system so highly objectionable. This topic was by no means new, for in the time of Mr. Burke it had been felt to be a crying evil, as at that period the fees were, for the most part, arbitrary, and generally fixed according to the will of each office. At that time certain offices were put by an Act of Parliament under its regulations, the fees were not abolished, but directed to be paid over to the credit of the public account, and the officers were to receive a fixed salary. The principle was excellent, but the abuse consisted in allowing the continuance of these fees. It was obvious that every charge made by a public officer fell eventually on the public, and therefore, the best way to manage would be to remunerate the officer in such a manner that every one might know how much each officer received. By a return made to the Finance Committee, it appeared that, in 1826 and 1827, the amount of fees paid over under this Act of Parliament amounted to 127,130l., while other fees received in these offices amounted to about 165,000l. This return included only thirty-five offices in England, eight in Ireland, and seventeen in Scotland; and he had no hesitation in affirming, when he looked to the various other offices in which fees were taken, that they amounted to near half a million annually. These often pressed hard on individual interests; and it was upon this, as well as on account of the bad principle of the system, that he wished to bring before the House the amount of the sums received in this way. He would, therefore, move for an account of all fees taken in the public offices under the regulation of the Act of Parliament he had referred to, as well as those which were not regulated, so far as they could be made out—[ordered]. The hon. Gentleman then continued. There had been much discussion in the House on the renewal of commissions consequent upon the death of his late Majesty; and he, as the person who had brought in 29 the bill upon that subject, must say that he felt extremely disappointed at the course which had been pursued, as his object, which was to prevent imposition, had altogether failed. He did not blame any of the individuals, who by virtue of their offices had a right to demand all fees they were entitled to by law or usage, for making that demand. But the fact was, it had happened that the late Government had so interpreted this Act, as to permit these demands to be made, the object of the Act being to prevent any such imposition. It might not be generally known that, in 1812, the late Mr. Ponsonby brought in a bill, which enacted, that, on the death of George 3rd, no fee or emolument should be exacted on the renewal of any commission; and that Act had, he believed, been strictly complied with. Previously to the death of his late Majesty, he (Mr. Hume) had brought in a Bill with the same object, which however, was delayed in its passing until after the death of King George the 4th. The hon. Gentleman then proceeded to read some of the words of the Act, to the effect, that "it was expedient to abolish the payment of all such fees and stamp duties by any such persons so continued in such offices, and that from and after the passing of that Act no such fee or stamp duty should be payable to the heirs and successors of King George 4th, or any person holding any office under them." A subsequent clause stated, that "whereas there would be some expenses incurred for the parchment and other materials for these commissions, patents, &c, the Commissioners of the Treasury were empowered to make a reasonable compensation for the same." Now, his (Mr. Hume's) complaint was against the interpretation put upon this Act by the late Treasury, which had directed that one half the fees before usual should be taken; and the reason given was another ground of complaint; namely, that the Government had no list of the fees in the different offices. If this were true, it was a great blame to any Government to permit any such want to continue; and it appeared that it was merely to save themselves trouble that they gave the order to have half the fees taken. He would illustrate this by a memorial which had been presented to the Treasury on the subject by the Yeomen of the Guard, in the year 1831. They complained in this, that, after having paid 347l. each for 30 their situation, they had further to pay 91. 19s. 6d. for the renewal of their appointments. It was, he thought, high time that the sale of every office should be put an end to—it had been with respect to offices in the Courts of Law, and every situation should be a reward for some service. This petition stated, that the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard made 1,000l. a-year, as there were three or four casualties in the body every year, and this formed one of many instances in which great sums of money went into the pockets of individuals, respecting which the public knew and profited nothing. The petition went on to state, that the salary of a Yeoman was 39l. 18s. 4d., and that on the demise of King George 2nd there was but 2l. 2s. paid for renewing these appointments. Why then should 9l. 19s. 6d. be now exacted, and 1,800l. go into the Captain's pocket? The answer given by the Treasury to this memorial, and dated from the Treasury Chamber, and signed John Stuart, was, that "he was commanded to acquaint the memorialists, that the fees were correctly charged, in pursuance of an arrangement come to by the Board, under the Act of Parliament to regulate the fees, by which a moiety of them only was exacted, and the parties were exempted from stamp duty." The Act, however, had not regulated the fees in this way, but this discretion had been assumed by the Treasury. The items of these emoluments were curious: some of them were—to the Captain 315l. for each man appointed, the chairman ten guineas, the Secretary 2l. the messengers 2l. 2s. servants 16s. For the dress five guineas, for a treat 5l. 6s.; and 8s. for registering the warrant with the Lord Chamberlain. The hon. Gentleman then referred to the complaints made by the Irish Magistrates, and asked why, if 5s. only were paid in England, 2l. 15s. 6d. should be demanded in Ireland. These things only exposed persons in office, and at present in particular, the Irish Lord Chancellor, to charges of extortion; and that noble and learned Lord was accused in the papers of thus pocketing 2,500l. The time, he thought, was now come for the House to set seriously about abolishing fees in every department, and indeed one of the greatest reproaches upon Parliament was, the amount of the fees payable in that House; and he knew that those who held offices in parishes, and were anxious to conduct 31 the public business properly, were prevented from effecting improvements by the expenses of private bills. These persons, and with justice, complained of fees of 240l., on what was called a single bill, and the sum was swelled to 300l. and more, were an additional clause to be introduced. This was highly discreditable; not that he or any one could impute any blame to any one in this House, for here the fees were strictly regulated, and he merely instanced this in order to prove, that were every officer of the House and of the Crown paid by way of salary, it would be infinitely better for the public. His object, therefore, was to submit a motion, which was, under all the circumstances, he thought, of absolute necessity, as well to guard against imposition as to form the ground-work of future improvement. He should, therefore, move for a return of the several fees and stamp duties now chargeable on appointments to every office, patent, pension, or place, civil, military, and ecclesiastical, within the kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the dominion of Wales, the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, the islands of Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, and in all the foreign colonial possessions of the Crown, the British East Indies excepted, distinguishing the fees from the stamp duties, and by and to whom, and under what authority, the same were payable.
§ The Speakerobserved, that the motion was very comprehensive, and that perhaps it would be better to divide it.
§ Lord Althorpagreed that the Motion was certainly comprehensive enough. It was not, however, in accordance altogether with what his hon. friend had said, as it went beyond offices immediately under the Crown. He would, therefore, suggest, that the hon. Member should insert the words "under the Crown" after the words "all offices, civil, military, judicial, and ecclesiastical," and also add, at the conclusion of his Motion, the words "and the appropriation thereof." Unless he consented to these amendments, his return would be very incomplete.
Mr. Goulburnbegged to protest against several of the statements made by the hon. Member. That hon. Gentleman read extracts, as he said, from the Act of Parliament regulating fees; but the Act as it stood contained no such extracts as he had read, although the first bill introduced 32 upon this subject did contain the farrago which he had just read as part of the bill. The Board of Treasury had acted in strict conformity to the law, and he should be ready to defend their conduct now or on any other occasion.
§ The Motion as amended, agreed to.