HC Deb 23 June 1837 vol 38 cc1611-8

The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply on the Miscellaneous Estimates.

On the sum of 120,000l. having been proposed to meet the civil contingencies,

Sir E. Codrington

wished to ask whether there were any intentions to erect a statue to Lord Nelson at the public expense, instead of its cost being defrayed by private subscription?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that when the question had been put to him formerly he had given the necessary explanations. He was of opinion that the great name of Nelson deserved commemoration, and he knew no more appropriate place in which to erect a monument to him than the square which bore the name of the spot on which he had achieved his last victory. But from private communications he had learned that a private subscription had been raised for the purpose contemplated by his hon. and gallant Friend. When the question had formerly been mooted, he had said, that the Government would give every facility to the promotion of the object which the subscribers had in view; that he relied on the disposition of the public to add to the subscription; that, on that very account, he felt reluctant to interfere in the matter; and, that if the subscriptions should prove insufficient, then the Government might come forward.

Mr. Goulburn

did not think there would be any difference of opinion in the House as to the propriety of erecting a monument to one of the country's greatest naval commanders. He must, however, draw the attention of the House to a report on the state of Switzerland, which had been drawn up by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. He thought that nothing ought to be so much guarded against as the employment and payment of Members of Parliament, when the sums paid to them did not appear in the documents before the House. He did not mean to say, that Members of Parliament ought not to be employed; but he did mean to affirm, that the House ought to be satisfied as to the manner in which the funds voted by it were applied as to whether they ought to be applied according to the method he had mentioned, and as to what the remuneration given to Members of Parliament so employed might be. The country had in different states in Europe resident ministers, gentlemen of great talents, of great experience, and of perfect competency to give to the Government that information which it might require. When he himself had filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer, and had found it necessary to obtain certain financial accounts relating to foreign countries, he had addressed himself, through the Foreign-office, to the resident ministers of Great Britain in those countries, and from them he had obtained most valuable information. As, then, this country had at present a minister in Switzerland; as that minister was a gentleman of whose competency he had personal knowledge; as that gentleman possessed those ingratiating manners which aided an individual in acquiring information; he was surprised at the fact, and indeed he was utterly ignorant of the grounds which had induced the Government to select and to pay a particular individual for collecting that information which Mr. Morier was able to furnish, which the hon. Member for Kilmarnock acknowledged that he was able to give, and which he had himself communicated to the hon. Member. The report was one which the resident minister was the fittest to give. It commenced with a general report on the state of the Swiss Cantons in the month of December, 1833. It then proceeded to speak of the commercial relations of that country, which Mr. Morier's letters would equally well have explained. It then went on to give a census of the population and the amount of the revenue of the Federal Government. There was one portion of it which was somewhat amusing, as it treated of watchmaking, and spoke in one chapter of the birth of watchmaking, in the next of the vicissitudes of watchmaking, and in the third of the maturity of watchmaking. Amongst the documents contained in the report of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock was a poem on the state of manufactures, which had originally been published in the year 1586. In truth, all the documents were of a public character, and easily accessible to the public. The Report filled 141 pages, and 115 of those were composed of public documents, the remainder consisting of the hon. Gentleman's conclusions from them. It was not his object to invalidate the arguments of the hon. Member, but the question he wished to put was, why the information contributed by the hon. Member had not been procured from the servants of the Government, and why, if it ought to have been procured from the hon. Member, the matter had not been brought under the cognizance of Parliament. He disclaimed any design of casting an imputation on the hon. Member, but a sense of public duty compelled him to bring the matter before the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

must say, that when the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had been first employed by the Government, it had been by the direction of the right hon. Member for Harwich; that the next time that he had been employed was when the commercial relations between this country and France were under consideration. He had then been employed in conjunction with a gentleman, now her Majesty's Minister at the Court of Madrid, but then a Commissioner of Customs. It was not then considered derogatory to Lord Granville that those gentlemen had been sent out to perform particular duties. It had been for the purpose of following up the same course of inquiry with regard to commercial matters, that the hon. Member had been sent to Switzerland. With regard to the question of remuneration he could affirm that no sum whatever had been received for the Report; no sum had been received by the hon. Member, nor would any sum be received. If he pleased he might stop there, but he thought it right to add, that although the hon. Member had received no remuneration, yet he had received the amount of those expenses which he had incurred by travelling. These expenses had not, however, been arbitrarily awarded, but were dispensed according to the scale known in public offices and allowed to the Commissioners of Customs when travelling. The course of which his right hon. Friend complained was not only justified by former practice, but also by the proceedings of foreign governments. He himself during the last year had received several gentlemen deputed to this country by the government of France. So perfect was the analogy between their measure and that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, that it was a part of their duty on their return to France to publish in a book, or in other words, to make a report of the results they had arrived at. Such, then, was his answer to the complaints of his right hon. Friend, and he thought that he should lead the House too far astray if he were to go into the merits of the Report.

Mr. Hume

thought that the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge had been so accustomed to payment, that he thought no good report could be made unless it were paid for. He however could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that there was a great difference of opinion as to the competency of the British resident Ministers abroad. The right hon. Gentleman did not appear to know what had been the object of the Report of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock; that object had been to make known the state of a country in which no restrictive regulation on trades obtained—to make known the commercial state of Switzerland. The conclusions to which his hon. Friend had come were most valuable, and if his hon. Friend had not been paid, and was not to be paid, then his hon. Friend would be a most ill-used man. He asserted that the labourer was worthy of his hire. What conclusion had his hon. Friend arrived at? At this—namely, that under circumstances of great inconvenience in every branch of trade, Switzerland had been enabled to compete with every other, country, and to supply France, England the United States of North America, and indeed every country which had pretended by restriction to protect its trade. His hon. Friend had acquitted himself admirably, and had shown the absurdity of all restrictions. The document before them proved that, and it related to the only country which afforded materials for proving that. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded to the title of certain chapters in the Report. He thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to know how very necessary it was in a document of that nature to classify every kind of information, and thereby to simplify references. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had been quite fair—he would not say kind in his remarks. He thought that his hon. Friend notwithstanding there were British Ministers re- sident abroad, had done some service, and he was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had expressed in so decided a manner his opinion that the document in question was of little value.

Mr. G. F. Young

said, that he would not follow the hon. Member for Middlesex in the line of argument he had adopted. He thought nevertheless, that the hon. Gentleman would have qualified his eulogy if he had reflected that any disciple of the restrictive system who might have been sent on a similar mission to that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, would have been equally successful in collecting facts in favour of his own theories. He did not think that either the right hon. Member for Cambridge or the hon. Member for Middlesex had met the objection of the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. That objection was founded on the constitutional jealousy with which that House had always regarded the payment of public money to it members, who, previously to receiving that money, did not vacate their seats. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), had alluded to the practice approved of by the French Government; the right hon. Gentleman ought to have told the House, first whether the gentlemen whom he received were members of the French Camber of Deputies; and secondly, whether it was the practice in France, that members of the French Chamber of Deputies on assuming offices of emolument were returned to their constituencies. The system which the right hon. Gentleman had defended was one of which there could be no other more corrupt or more insidious.

Sir Henry Parnell

considered the document in question as one of great value, because it put beyond doubt the fact, that where the principles of free trade were acted on, the greatest advantage resulted to the country. In Switzerland it was no theory, but the law of the country; and the result was, that for a long series of time the trade of the country had enjoyed the greatest prosperity.

Mr. Kearsley

objected to the expense of an excursion of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock being paid out of the public money, He had no idea that the hon. Member should be allowed to take his pleasure at the expense of the country. The hon. Member for Middlesex talked of principle, and yet he would pay the hon. Member for Kilmarnock the expenses of his excursion out of the public money. They would shortly have an opportunity of seeing whether the hon. Member for Middlesex was right or not. The hon. Member for Dundee had pronounced a high eulogy on the Report. He (Mr. Kearsley) objected, first that it was paying for a wild goose scheme; and secondly, that the Report was moonshine. Why should the hon. Member have 500l. for going abroad and bringing home moonshine? He did not often agree with the Ministers, but he did agree with the right hon. Gentleman who had told the hon. Member for Middlesex that he was quite ignorant. Would the hon. Member go to Middlesex again, or to the boroughs—in God's name where would he go?

Mr. Goulbourn

stated, that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had asserted, that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock had not been paid for his report; that he had been only paid his expenses per diem. But such a payment was as much a salary as an annual payment. The merit or demerit of the report was not the question before the House. The question was whether the hon. Member, being a Member of Parliament, should receive a payment not known to Parliament. The hon. Member might be intitled to it; but a payment received by a Member of Parliament should be either the subject of a vote in the first instance, or, after it was paid, should be in the civil contingences the subject of account. The matter ought to be in the control of Parliament.

Mr. P. Thomson

said, it had been at his suggestion, or that of his department, that the hon. Member had been sent to Switzerland to make these inquiries. He admitted that it was the duty of the Foreign Ministers to procure all the information in their power with reference to commercial matters, and he could bear testimony to the able manner in which of late years, since he had been acquainted with the proceedings, they had fulfilled this duty, and the valuable information they had communicated in their returns. But every man must be aware that there were kinds of information which a Foreign Minister, however disposed had not the means of procuring—a fact which the Report in question illustrated. This Government had understood that Switzerland was disposed to join the commercial union of Germany. Was it possible to procure the requisite information from a Foreign Minister, who was confined to one place, and unable to visit the different cantons and manufactories? He believed the course adopted had conduced to the public advantage.

Viscount Palmerston

said, there were matters which Ministers abroad could not be so competent to inquire about as the hon. Member. Any matters that could be stated in answer to questions from Government could be furnished by Ministers in their official capacity; but when it came to inquiries into details of commercial matters, these could only be made by persons well acquainted with the subject.

Mr. Wakley

objected as much as any member to persons receiving money for secret services. He went farther, and thought that all pensions received by persons in that House ought to be discontinued, unless for public services expressed, acknowledged, or rendered to the state. Would the right hon. Gentleman agree to a list of pensions paid to persons in that House, being laid before it? He believed the right hon. Gentleman received a pension of 2,000l. a-year. [Oh! oh!] Gentlemen might cry "oh," but it was a proper question when the right hon. Member disputed the payment of 500l. to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock. It was a salary. He repeated it was not of the character of expenses; it was a salary. The right hon. Gentleman had received 60,000l. of the public money during the time he was in office, and now he received a pension of 2,000l. a-year, to be paid as long as he lived. The House had a right to consider the propriety of relieving him from the disgrace and annoyance of receiving this pension.

Mr. Goulburn

said, if the hon. Member wished to know the grounds of his pension, he would find his length of services, whether good or bad, recorded in public documents; and if he referred to the Act of Parliament, he would see the reason why he received the pension.

Mr. C. Barclay

observed, that the hon. Member for Finsbury had said, that this was not a charge for expenses, but a salary; and the constitutional objection was, that a Member of Parliament was allowed to receive a salary, whereas if a Member took any office under Government of 10l. a-year, he lost his seat. Yet, here was a secret mode by which a Member, on giving in a report to Government, might receive a salary without vacating his seat. This he thought an unconstitutional mode. His right hon. Friend had a right to a pension by Act of Parliament, and he knew no person whose services better entitled him to one.

Vote agreed to. The House resumed.