Lords Sitting of 11 March 1817

ABOLITION OF SINECURES, USELESS PLACES, &c.
Earl Grosvenorrose, pursuant to notice, to submit some resolutions to the House on the subject of sinecures, useless places, and the granting of offices in reversion. The subject, he observed, was at all times important, but particularly important at the present moment, considering the state of the public mind; but he did not agree with the noble earl opposite, who had on a former occasion said, that it was not material that the matter should be brought under discussion at an earlier period of the session. The noble earl probably alluded to certain measures which were stated to be in contemplation for the reduction of sinecures and useless places; but he did not feel himself justified in placing much reliance on hopes held out by ministers; and more especially on a subject like this. What he contended for was this—that their lordships ought to take the subject into their own hands, and give a distinct and solemn pledge to the country upon it. It was, however, with considerable pain that he now brought the matter under discussion, not merely on account of the delicacy of the subject, and the prejudices connected with it—not merely on account of the negatives which he had met with, when on former occasions he called the attention of the House to this matter; but also on account of the critical situation of the public mind. In looking at that situation, he could not view it without something like despondency; not from any such alarms as the noble lords opposite felt, but from the mistaken notion which the executive government appeared to entertain of the character, of the people of England. They totally misunderstood the open, generous, liberal, and manly character of the people, whom they
946
charged with disloyalty and disaffection; and with that opinion, adopted measures which might be attended with the most fatal consequences. The ground on which those measures had passed, was an imputation of disloyalty on a great portion of the British public.
With respect to the question which he was about to submit to their lordships, although he did not despair, and although he held in contempt the doctrine of the poet that
"When vice prevails and impious men bear sway,
The post of honour is a private station;"
(he by no means meant to apply this quotation to his majesty's ministers), he certainly feared that he should not meet with adequate support. The subject had been so often discussed, that much novelty, could not be expected, and he should confine what he had to say within as narrow bounds as possible; and so he wished that the various petitions on the subject of retrenchment and reform should be entered as read. Their lordships would observe, that, though these petitions differed materially as to the nature and extent of parliamentary reform, they all agreed in condemning useless places and sinecures, and in calling for economy and retrenchment. Many a long and weary contest had he had with the noble and learned lord on the woolsack on this subject. The argument of the noble and learned lord was, that innovation was a dangerous principle; but, adopting the language of a celebrated dramatic poet, he might say, that it might be dangerous to eat, drink, or sleep; but that out of the nettle danger, they would pluck the flower safety. The object of the noble and learned lord was to embrace the constitution as it was, with all its decays and corruptions. His (Earl Grosvenor's) object was, to cut off the gangrened limb, and restore the constitution to its full health and vigour. On former occasions he had been met by the objection, that this was not the proper time—that it was a period of war;" and he was asked whether he would set about building his house in a hurricane? And he was apprehensive that, though this was a time of peace, he should still be met by the old objection—that this was not the proper time. In his present view of the subject it would not be necessary to enumerate all the sinecures and useless places at home and in the colonies, which gave so much improper influence to the ministers

947
of the Crown, the masterships of the revels, and such places, sometimes given, to the amount of 5,000 l. each, to children of two or three years old. Into these details it was not necessary for him to enter. He only called upon their lordships to night to declare their opinions on the principle, and to vote that sinecures and useless places ought to be abolished. He did not wish to throw imputations on individuals. There was no demerit in holding these offices; and if indignation were felt on the subject, the public indignation ought to be directed, not against the individuals holding the offices, but against the offices themselves. His object was to procure a vote of the House that these sinecures ought to be abolished on the fall of the lives of the persons by whom they were now held. The very name of these sinecures excited disgust; and a great and eminent lord, who once sat on the wool-sack, had this opinion of them.
It had been objected, on former occasions, that sinecures ought to be reserved for; the reward of distinguished services: but it seldom happened that, when such services were to be rewarded, any sinecure was vacant; and in reality it was well known that for the most part they were not the reward of great and distinguished public services. Witness the instances of Marlborough, Nelson, and Wellington. There were, however, some eminent exceptions; such as his noble friend the auditor of the exchequer, and the noble earl opposite, who had been much employed in the public service. He might be told, that it had already been recommended to abolish several sinecures—the surveyer-generalship of the Isle of Wight, the wardenship of the Cinque ports, the clerkship of the pells, the justiceship in eyre, and four offices in the exchequer; but then he wished their lordships to give a distinct pledge on the subject. He was not called upon to place implicit confidence in what he heard; and he had so often found these things come to nothing, that he did not feel satisfied without a pledge from their lordships: and, besides, though the Commons might think that these offices ought to be abolished, their lordships might, perhaps, unless they gave that pledge, be of a different opinion, as on former occasions. The object, then, of the first resolution which he should propose to their lordships was, to procure their vote that sinecures ought to be abolished. The object of the second resolu-
948
tion was, the abolition or regulation of useless places. He was aware that the noble earl opposite had laid a paper on the table relative to that point; in the examination of which he would not take up their lordships time. The noble earl might say, that a great deal had been done by a committee appointed by the treasury board: but the paper in question, if it showed that something was done, also proved that a great deal was still to be done. Two inspectors-general were continued at large salaries; and in the barrack department, great reductions might have been made which had not taken place. The treasury board itself might have done all that had been done by its committee, and much more. These things they ought to have done, and not left others undone. The treasury might have reduced the salaries of those under their own control; for instance, that of the resident at Lisbon, whose salary was greater than that of the ministers who had been sent thither—certainly not greater than that of the present president of the board of control. There were other offices which had not been considered, though they well deserved consideration: the office of the secretary for the war and colonial department, for example—that was a question which ought to have been considered. There was another officer also, which he bad mentioned on a former occasion, which he conceived to be not only useless but illegel; and that, also, ought to be abolished. It would also have well deserved consideration, whether the office of one of the paymasters of the Army, and whether the offices of two of the lords of the Admiralty, might not be abolished. It had been said that the board of admiralty was a school for young politicians. If so, these young politicians ought certainly to pay 1,000 l. a year instead of receiving it. He had himself on one occasion been in the admiralty, and he remembered that the course of education which he received, was to have some large volumes of statutes relative to the Admiralty put into his hands, which he was desired to read all over, and these contained frequent references to other acts of parliament. The late lord Stanhope had read the whole statute book, but he believed few others had done so. However, he had been desired to read over these statutes, which he did not feel at all inclined to do; but as to the duties—he had been certainly very often called upon

949
to sign his name, so that the office was no indifferent school for writing: still if the first lord of the Admiralty had consulted them frequently, these additional lords might perhaps be considered as of some use, especially if they were naval lords; however, he believed that the first lord of the Admiralty was not in the habit of consulting them. All these offices therefore were very proper subjects for consideration.
An act had lately passed for authorizing the receiving of voluntary contributions from certain offices; and it was said, that this had been done on various occasions: but he could not agree that those who were employed in the active service of the state ought to be called upon so to contribute from their salaries; at least there was only one case in which such contributions might be proper, to a certain extent; and that was, when the salaries had been considerably increased a few years ago, during the depreciation of the currency. In such a case some contribution from these offices might be proper: but, generally speaking, nothing ought to be taken from the salaries of those employed in the active service of the state. It was not the active bee, but the idle drone that ought to give up his emoluments. After the example which had been given by one nobleman, who had held a large sinecure, it might be expected that others would follow. But a noble lord had, on a former occasion, recommended that the landed proprietors should contribute. Such however, was the general distress of the country, that none were exempt from it except those who derived their incomes from the taxes; and the distress was very heavy on the landed proprietor. A friend of his had told him, that the distress was so great, and the tenants so unable to pay that his present income was no more than that which he had formerly paid in property duty; so that had not the income tax been taken off, he would have had nothing to live upon. Whether the distress was generally felt by landed proprietors with such severity, he could not undertake to say: but it was unquestionable, that they were exposed to a very heavy pressure.
The third resolution which he intended to propose to their lordships, had for its object to put an end to the practice of granting places in reversion. Unless an end were put to that practice, no good could be done; and neither sinecures nor useless places could, to any very great ex-
950
tent, be abolished or regulated. The fourth resolution was of a more general nature, and related to the subject of reform, for which this was a proper time. He earnestly requested the attention of the House to the state of the public mind; not as a mind filled with disloyalty and dissatisfaction, but as one calling for some reform. The want of reform was considered as a practical grievance. The people thought that, in the present state of the representation, they had not that check and control over the conduct of the executive government which they ought to have; and without some reform the public mind never would be at peace. No people ever were more attached to their institutions than the people of England were to what they considered as the true and genuine constitution of their country. The public mind had become more enlightened, and the people in general understood what were their rights and privileges much better than formerly; and were naturally anxious to have that to which they conceived themselves entitled. These opinions were not confined to England, but were circulated throughout Europe; whether derived from the American or French revolution, it was not, for the present purpose, very material to inquire. But the sentiment had embodied itself in the minds of the European population; and all the power of governments, though accompanied with racks and tortures, would never be able to crush it. The public mind never would be satisfied till the people, all over Europe, obtained what he wished to God they might obtain—a fair representation. An able and eloquent writer had attributed the downfal of the French monarchy to clubs and corresponding societies, and those practices which were at present made the ground of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act: but he considered those practices not as cause but effect. They were the effect of dissolute morals and manners, of financial embarrassments; and above all, of the despotic nature of the French government. Many a government had begun under the happiest auspices, and ended as the French government had done:
"Fair laughs the morn, and soft the zephyr blows,
Whilst proudly riding o'er the azure realm
In gallant trim, the gilded vessel goes;
Youth at the prow, and pleasure at the helm,
Regardless of the sweeping whirlwind's sway
That, husht in grim repose, expects his evening prey."

951
He could not help now saying a few words with respect to a matter personal to himself. He had on a former occasion been called to order for naming certain members of the executive government in the other House. He had been made in some quarter to say, that by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act the liberties of the people would be placed at the mercy of such and such persons. Now, he had not made use of these words; and he was desirous that this should be understood lest an impression should prevail any where, that he acted from any personal motives, instead of acting on public grounds. But it was on public grounds alone that he proceeded; and he protested and declared, that if his noble friends near him were to become ministers, and were to act on the principles which appeared to govern the conduct of the present ministry, he would oppose them. The ministry which he wished for was one which would look, not merely to the prerogatives of the Crown, but also to the privileges of the people; a ministry which, while it stedfastly regarded the prerogative and dignity of the Crown with one eye, would regard the privileges of the people no less stedfastly with the other; and if the caprice of the sovereign should at any time call upon it to deviate from these principles, he wished for ministers who would resign their places rather than comply. He did not oppose the present ministers on any personal ground; and he earnestly and solemnly intreated the House, and especially the bench of bishops, to recollect, that if it was possible that a people should conspire against their government, it was also possible that a government might conspire against the people. There was one point more to which he wished to call the attention of the House. The saving, as it appeared from the papers on the table, amounted to 50,000 l.: but the excess of salaries lately created amounted to 126,000 l., or from that to 170,000 l.! from which their lordships would perceive, how small in comparison the saving was. He proposed then, these four resolutions:

1. "That it is the opinion of this House that all sinecures in the patronage of the Crown ought to be abolished after the expiration of the subsisting interests.

2. "That all useless places should be abolished or regulated forthwith.

3. "That for the future no places should be granted by the Crown in reversion, as tending to prolong and perpetuate useless
952
offices, and to render inadequate the discharge of those to which active duties are annexed.

4. "That it is more especially the duty of the House to adopt the foregoing resolutions at a period of unusual difficulty and distress, and of universal petition for economical reform and retrenchment."

The Earl of Liverpoolobserved, that the noble earl who had just sat down began the speech which contained the grounds on which he had submitted his resolutions to their lordships consideration with a general eulogium on the loyalty of the people, which he seemed to think there was a disposition on the part of government and parliament to libel. He should be glad to know whom the noble earl considered as the people of England? Was it those who were disaffected to the government and constitution of the country? Was it those who had lately assembled at certain meetings—the meetings at Spa-fields, and others of a similar description—whom he considered as the people of England? In the noble earl's general eulogium on the loyalty of the people, he was sincerely disposed to concur; but he believed that no man who fairly considered what had recently been the state of the country, what the probable effect of the treasonable practices which had been disclosed, but would agree that precautionary measures were necessary; not indeed on the supposition of disloyalty in the great body of the people, and therefore not adopted against them; but for the protection of a loyal people against those who wished to seduce and demoralize them. When the noble earl said that the bill which had passed for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, and those now in their progress before parliament, had excited discontent and dismay, he asserted what appeared to him completely contradictory to the real state of the case. Where were there any evidences of discontent or dismay since these measures had been originated? Let the noble lord, on the contrary, compare the despondency which existed a few weeks ago, with the state of the public mind now, and judge fairy of the difference. What had been the effect of the measures introduced by his majesty's government, and already, in part, sanctioned by parliament? It was to be seen in the removal of that apprehension and despondency which had prevailed; it was to be seen in the ameliorated state of the public mind and public

953
credit; as was evident from the very considerable rise of the funds which had taken place. He certainly did not mean to undervalue that consideration which was due to the measures which had been adopted, or to insinuate that the grounds on which they were proposed ought not to be jealously canvassed; but this he would maintain, that their immediate consequence had been the restoration of public credit and confidence. With regard to the only one of those measures which as yet had through all the forms requisite to it a law, nobody regretted its necessity more than himself, but it was rather singular that the noble earl should regard it as so peculiarly objectionable. The noble lord ought not to deal quite so hard with those who now supported the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, act as he had voted for it himself not less at least than 6 or 7 times. It was true, the noble earl would say, that when he so voted, the circumstances of the country were very different, and that the present circumstances did not call for such a measure. This however, was what he disputed; and whether the circumstances of the country now required the passing of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus act, was not a question to be argued between him and the noble earl—it had been decided by parliament. Before he proceeded to make any remark on the objects of the resolutions themselves, he must observe, that it was possible for resolutions to be so drawn as to contain nothing objectionable on the face of them, and yet to be such as it would be very improper for that House to adopt. A subject might be stated which would be a very fit one for inquiry, in certain circumstances: and which would be unfit in others. It certainly would be neither regular nor proper in their lordships to go into an inquiry on the subject of the resolutions proposed by the noble lord, with a knowledge that an investigation on the same subject was in progress in another place. It was also to be considered, that this was a branch of legislation not so appropriate for their lordships deliberation; and that if the noble earl's resolutions were adopted, it was not easy to see how any practical measure could be founded upon them. The first resolution which the noble earl proposed to move was for the abolition of sinecures, Now, the question he would wish to ask on that resolution was, what the noble earl meant by a sinecure? He would contend, that no
954
noble lord could give a distinct answer to the question. He would be glad to be informed, how any definite meaning could be attached to the word sinecure. The noble earl would find the term sinecure-office in a bill which had been introduced into parliament; but neither in that bill, nor in the long list of officers pointed out as fit objects of regulation, by a report of the other House, could any one be found to which the term sinecure would with propriety attach. To certain offices in the exchequer this term had often been applied; but were they really sinecures? On the contrary, they were offices of high importance and great pecuniary trust. It might be proper to regulate them: it might or it might not be proper to find other means for rewarding merit than the existence of these offices presented. This was a question he did not at present mean to argue; but what he contended for, and would maintain, was this—that if the noble lord regarded any one of these offices as a sinecure, in the proper sense of the word, he was most completely mistaken. They were all offices of trust demanding not merely a responsibility of character, but a pecuniary responsibility, and security, was given to the public by the individuals who held them. Whether the employment of them in rewarding public services was wise or not, was, as he had already stated, an entirely different consideration. In fact, the term sinecure, applied to any office of the state, was a perfect nickname. The noble earl called to abolish something of which the House knew nothing, and the existence of which he could not point out. Where were those sinecures the noble earl would abolish? And how many were thereof them? He should be glad to hear any noble lord answer those questions. Here he begged it might be understood that he was not giving any opinion against legislating on the subject of the offices in question; that was a matter on which parliament was competent to determine; but of this he was certain, that to ascertain what offices might with propriety be abolished, and what others might be changed, reduced, or otherwise regulated, required very mature deliberation; and more knowledge and experience of business than he believed the noble earl could pretend to possess. What the decision of their lordships might be, when the subject should be fairly under their consideration, would depend upon a view of the effects of the present system of rewarding merit, with the

955
probable consequences of that system which it might be proposed to substitute. He would not pretend to anticipate that decision: nor did he now object to the discussion of the subject, but should reserve his opinion until it came before their lordships in a proper shape. With respect to the noble earl's proposition, respecting an increase of the influence of the Crown in parliament, it was so monstrously absurd he did not think it necessary to enter into that subject. The contrary was notoriously the fact; but he should be ready to state his opinion on that question, also, if it should be at anytime brought in a practical form under their lordships consideration. That there was a call, an imperious one, on the government to inquire into the state of the public expenditure, he would not deny. If ever there was a time for economy it was the present, when the public distress was, from various causes so great. Whether ministers had or had not done their duty in the measures of economy they had adopted, there would be other opportunities of considering; and he should not now detain their lordships by discussing that point. He would, however, just observe, that the reductions made in a great branch of the public expenditure exceeded what had been expected by the best informed advocates of the system of economy in another place. The peace establishment was estimated, by a person well qualified to judge, and not disposed to take the most favourable view of the conduct of ministers, at 700,000 l. more than the sum at which it had been fixed. This he thought might be considered as at least a strong presumption of the disposition of his majesty's government to adopt every practical measure of economy. As to colonial offices, all of that class which it was possible to do without had already been abolished: but the increase of our foreign settlements, and the extent of their relations, required a department for the management of colonial affairs. No offices, however, in the colonies themselves, were in future to be given to, or held by any persons who did not reside in the colonies; which would at once render them all efficient offices. He was confident that it was impossible for public business to be carried on without three secretaries of state. Under the present, or any ordinary circumstances of the country, it was evident to any one at all acquainted with public business, that the business of the
956
office of the third secretary of state, to be properly executed—and it never had been better executed than now—was as much as physical and moral strength was capable of performing. Among those who might choose to take the trouble to inquire what business was really done at this office, he was confident there would be no difference of opinion on this subject. Upon the whole, seeing no practical good that could be derived from the resolutions proposed by the noble earl, which on the contrary appeared to him only calculated, if they should be carried, to embarrass the discussion of questions subsequently to come before parliament, he should move the previous question on them.
Lord St. Johnsaid, it had been often observed, that persons entertaining different political questions saw things in very different lights; and that observation was never more applicable than to the different accounts given by his noble friend and the noble earl opposite (Liverpool) of the opinion now entertained with regard to the measures lately resorted to, and the impression which those measures had made on the public mind. Many circumstances were calculated to have a considerable effect on the public funds, but he never should have expected to be told that the suspension of the British constitution was calculated to produce a favourable effect on the funds. He should much rather have been disposed to attribute any rise in the funds to an understanding that considerable reductions were about to be made in the public expenditure. The noble earl had also described the measure to which he attributed this beneficial effect as a precautionary one. Now this seemed quite anew way of viewing it. If he had at all understood the way in which the measure was proposed by ministers, it was for the purpose, not of preventing, but of putting down sedition. A great deal had also been said by the noble earl about the difficulty of defining what a sinecure office was. The noble earl had misconceived what his noble friend said. An office might be not a sinecure, and yet the person who held it a sinecurist, if the business was done by deputy. Though the office might be an efficient one, and required security to be given by the individual who held it, yet if the business was done by deputy, the individual holding the office was purely a sinecurist. The noble earl opposite had said there was an objection in limine to entertaining questions of this
§

957
nature. Nothing was, in his opinion, more desirable than that the petitions of the people, at a conjuncture like the present, should have every possible weight with both Houses of Parliament. He recollected all the discussions during the American war, when the complaints on the subject of retrenchment were as loud as at present. He recollected that the House of Commons were often called to the consideration of questions of economy when petitions for economy and retrenchment, and complaining of the extravagant expenditure of the Crown, were poured in from all parts of the country. They would be holding their dignities too high were they to say they would not pay attention to such petitions. That their lordships were also competent to originate measures for abridging the influence of the Crown, surely could not be questioned. The act of succession, by which the privileges of the House of Commons were so essentially secured, did not originate in that House, but with their lordships. Yet that was a subject respecting which the other House might have been expected to be as jealous, as respecting questions of expenditure. But according to the noble earl, every thing relating to expenditure was so peculiarly the province of the Commons, that though the table of their lordships should be loaded with petitions, they were not called on to take any notice of them. The noble lord (St. John, went into an examination of the result of the labours of the committee appointed to inquire into offices erected since the war, with a view to reduction; and maintained that the reductions, which amounted to about 50,000 l. were compensated for by superannuations very nearly to the same amount. He contended, that offices created during war, and depending for continuance on the war, were to be considered as temporary offices, and that the persons filling them had no right to consider themselves as permanent officers, and entitled to superannuation. He complained also of the withdrawing from the controllers of army accounts the auditing of the commissariat accounts which formed part of their business.
The Earl of Lauderdalecould not concur in opinion either with his noble friend who moved the resolutions or with the noble secretary of state. His noble friend had described the difficulties which the country experienced from the weight of taxation. The fact was that the landed
958
interest was in a situation of distress never before felt in this country. The noble earl opposite seemed to doubt this statement; but if, he inquired into the state of the tenantry, he would soon be convinced of the fact: he would find that few of them were able to pay their rents; and that the greater part of those who did pay, derived the means of so doing from their capital, and not from the produce of their farms. Did the noble lord consider what must be the ruinous effect of this state of things? It was capital in the hands of the tenantry that had created that high state of cultivation for which this country was justly famed; but if the capital was exhausted, the effect would necessarily cease. A noble lord had said, on a former occasion, that the situation of the agricultural classes could not be so bad as it was described, as the repeal of the property-tax must have been a great relief to them. If, however, inquiry were made among the farmers, it would be found, that they would be content to suffer the infliction of the property-tax, if they could be placed in the situation in which they stood five years ago. Whatever measures might tend to relieve them, he was certain the abolition of sinecures was not among the number. Nothing was more ridiculous than the expectation of great public benefit from that abolition; except, perhaps, what the noble secretary of state had asserted to be the effect of the abolition of the Habeas Corpus act. What facilities that measure might give to the noble earl's tenants, in enabling them to pay their rents, he did not know; but if the suspension had really raised the funds, as the noble earl asserted, it was fair to suppose that the subsequent fall of one per cent, had been owing to the discovery made by the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, that the amendment made on the bill by the Commons had done it great injury, inasmuch as the benefit of the measure would not be extended to Scotland. Would the suspension of the Habeas Corpus enable the manufacturer to obtain a price for his goods from those who had nothing to give for them? The state of the country required very different remedies than those proposed by either of the noble earls. A noble friend near him had spoken of the table being loaded with petitions: but if the public distress was to be in any way attributed to the existence of the offices in question, it would follow that public offices were now more highly

959
paid than they had been in former times; which was not the fact. The opposite parties of that House had often been described as two factions, only contending for the loaves and fishes of the British constitution; but as each party in its turn had yielded to the public prejudice against these offices, if the same system proceeded there would soon be neither loaf nor fish left. If any man wished to make his fortune a seat in parliament was the last course which he ought to take. With regard to the influence of the Crown in the House of Commons, there was a report on their lordships table which placed that question in its true light. That report, which was made to parliament in 1807, proved that the number of persons holding offices had diminished instead of having increased, To avoid entering into details on this question, he should only state some prominent facts. Before the Union with Scotland, the number of members of the House of Commons holding places under the Crown was greater than at later periods, though the House of Commons was augmented by that union. In 1705, 98 individuals holding offices had seats in the House of Commons: in 1807, the number was only 74, being a diminution of 24. In the year 1716, the difference was still more remarkable; there were then 164 placemen in the other House; which, compared with 1807, gave an excess of 90. In 1718 the number of placemen who had seats was 154; which made the excess at that period 80. In 1797, the number of placemen was 193, and the expense of their salaries above 285,000 l. In 1807, the number, as he had said before, was reduced to 74, and the expense to only 193,000 l., making a difference of 119 in number and 92,000 l. in expense. This comparison decidedly proved that the influence of the Crown had greatly decreased in the House of Commons: but he begged that he might not be supposed to state that it had decreased on the whole. On the contrary, he was aware that it had infinitely increased through the country at large. This was naturally to be expected, from the large civil and military establishments maintained by the government, and from the influence of a national debt, amounting to 700,000,000 l.; the charge on which was 37,000,000 l., while after the American war, it was only 240,000,000 l., with a charge of 10,000,000 l. It was not, therefore, the influence of the Crown in the House of Commons which was to be
960
guarded against, but the influence out of doors. This was evident from the readiness with which the Crown appealed to that influence whenever a majority of the House of Commons was disposed to bring about a change of administration. The noble earl who moved the resolutions had talked of the great emoluments of public offices; but the view he had taken was altogether erroneous, and founded on the common public prejudice. There never was a period in our history when men in office were less corrupt; and perhaps never a time when the public was more corrupt. He agreed with the noble secretary of state as to the impossibility of pointing out any office which was completely a sinecure. No man was more aware than he was of the deep necessity for adopting measures of economy, yet these measures were not to be adopted, when they came in contact with the safety of the state. Nor did he agree in the opinion, that because an office was held by a person who employed a deputy to discharge its duties, that that individual was a sinecurist. He undoubtedly received a salary from the public, but then it was to be remembered he became responsible for the performance of those duties. No man, he believed, could suppose that system of government to be right which allotted no rewards to its public servants. Rewards were indispensably necessary for meritorious services, and certainly sinecures were infinitely better than public pensions. Convinced as he was, that the giving of pensions would be felt to be a more serious evil than sinecures, he thought the granting of these pensions would disgrace parliament more. He looked upon sinecure offices as a sort of lottery, where, though the rewards were few, yet the hope of the great prize would induce many a man to exert himself to deserve it. He had not himself been much in office; but though he had never been minister, he was perfectly acquainted with this circumstance—that three or four importunate claimants might be put off by the hope of a reversionary sinecure, who, without such a mode of rewarding public service, would at once have required a pension. His noble friend had truly observed, that the distresses of the people made them look on all sides for relief: he was one of those, however, who believed that the people would never have turned their attention to this particular subject, nor have looked to such a source for relief, unless the parliament itself had set the

961
example of referring to such a fund for a supply. In fact, the evil under which the country laboured lay much deeper; it was the infinite load of the public debt. He had himself published to the world his sentiments on this point, though he had not had the good fortune to be listened to. He should say further, that he did not see the policy or propriety of ministers recommending his Royal Highness to renounce part of his income. The salary given to that illustrious personage was in consideration of the high situation in which he was placed, and it had been given to him after a solemn and dispassionate deliberation in parliament. He had no hesitation to state, clearly and explicitly, that he deprecated and even reprobated the discussion of these minor matters, because he felt a conviction that they took off the public attention from greater objects. He was ready to admit, that no taxes could be too great for a nation to pay, provided the objects to be attained were greater: but such a fact must be fully proved, which had not yet been done. As to the argument drawn from the funds, every man who looked to the state of the currency must know, that though the funds might probably be yet considerably higher, yet speculators alone would derive any benefit, while the labourer and the manufacturer would be entirely without relief. The funded system had been productive of the greatest disadvantages, and had taken as much as five millions from the pocket of the landholder. That was the wisest distribution of property which would give happiness to a whole people: but as to the abolition of sinecures, he thought that the measure would not only do no good in itself, but that the discussion of it would tend rather to increase than to diminish the hatred of public men; and would in its consequences force upon the people a stronger idea that such men lived only on the public property.
The Earl of Darnleyhad no hesitation in admitting that the constitution of parliament was much better with respect to the influence of the Crown than it once was. If, however, no other argument could be found for the abolition of sinecures, yet it ought to be accomplished for this single reason—that such a measure comprehended the general principle of a disposition to reform. When the times were so severely pressing as the present were, he thought some attention and respect should be paid to the public voice. The country
962
had, he might say, almost with one voice, declared the system of rewarding public services by sinecures to be extremely objectionable, and certainly some attention should be paid to that voice.—He said, he was ready to agree, that a system of pensions must be substituted for the present system; but he thought such a mode of remuneration would be more economical, and (he begged pardon of noble lords) less offensive, than the present. But, be this as it might, he thought that the circumstances of the country were such, that it became the duty of parliament to direct its attention to some species of reform, whatever difference of opinion might exist as to the particular and specific plan.
The Earl of Liverpoolhad no objection: to withdraw the previous question, if it were agreeable to the noble lords upon the opposite side, and hoped should such be the mode of proceeding adopted, that their lordships would, by a direct vote, completely and at once negative the proposition.
Lord Hollandthought the noble secretary of state had great reason to flatter himself on the accession of strength which he had obtained on this question; but the principle of it was by no means affected by that circumstance. He objected to the noble earl's withdrawing his motion for the previous question. It was at the option, of the House to permit that noble earl to withdraw it or not, and he had his reasons for wishing their lordships to refuse him that permission. The great questions which had deservedly agitated all persons within and without those walls, had formed part of this night's discussion. These were, the generally discontented state of the public mind, and the late suspension of the Habeas Corpus act. He did not exactly see the relation between the latter and the question before their lordships; but as it had been again introduced, Ecce iterum Crispinus, he must in the strongest terms object against the measure of suspending the most valuable part of our constitution. How absurdly had it been stated by the noble earl that the resorting to this measure had already raised the funds of the country! Why then, for Heaven's sake, and his own sake, for he seemed then to be sadly at a loss for any one argument for the measure, had he not mentioned to their lordships when the suspension was first proposed that it would materially raise the stocks? This rise of the stocks must be considered by the whole nation as

963
well as himself, a subject of the utmost alarm, and even terror and dismay; for if the suspension of this act for three months, before it had been consummated an entire week, be receiving the royal assent, had produced such an effect, what might not be the sanguine expectations raised in the breasts of the noble earl and his colleagues, should they be enabled, by the fatal complaisance of parliament to abrogate the Habeas Corpus act altogether? If by this temporary measure the three per cents. had thus rapidly risen to 70, might not the permanent measure raise them above par? Could any person who loved sound argument, or loved his country, listen to such assertions without alarm and apprehension?—Upon the subject of that report so generally and justly reprobated, it must be confessed therein the minister, whether he had or had not libelled the people of England collectively bad certainly chastised them collectively for the sake of the disaffected; and then because he had libelled only the few, he proceeded to punish, chastise, and oppress all the people of this country. When on a former occasion a suspension of this act had taken place, it was justified in some measure by the circumstance of our being engaged in a war with a powerful, intelligent, and energetic government, seeking to revolutionize and overthrow all established systems of government; but on the present occasion, the only reason adduced for these arbitrary measures, was the alleged perversion of a small portion of the public mind in the lower classes. What! was not this libelling the government of the country, as inefficient to resist these puny efforts, and libelling the people of England, by confounding the mass of the nation, patient and resigned under its sufferings and privations, in the crime, and also m the punishment of those objectionable few? It was not true, however, that the measure was of such prodigious importance, and the argument of the noble earl was good for nothing, unless he could go on to show, that the measure besides raising the funds, would give employment to the idle, and food to the hungry. With respect to the immediate question before their lordships, although he was satisfied of the propriety of concurring with the other House of Parliament in declaring the expediency of the abolition of sinecures and useless places, yet he never had heard any man in either House of Parliament contend that this was a measure of
964
such material consequence as could affect the reduction of our expenditure within the compass of our revenue. Yet it was necessary to oppose some mound to the incursions of the Crown. The noble lord whom he was happy to call his friend had expressed his regret at differing from those with whom he generally acted. He always heard the speeches of his noble friend with pleasure, when he considered the luminous and eloquent manner in which they were delivered. He did not, however, agree with his noble friend respecting the increase of the influence of the Crown being confined to the mass of the people. If the Crown actually had so much influence out of the House, that influence was of necessity exercised in the House for the most obvious reasons. Nor did he conceive the debt of the country to be the principal evil, because he thought the unconstitutional standing army, the unnecessary, extravagant expenditure of the public money, &c. were equally bad. He did not concur in the comparison made between the period of Queen Ann's reign and the present, respecting the influence of the Crown, because it should be remembered two unions had taken place, since that, and besides the colonial department had increased to such an extent as, in the opinion of the noble earl at the head of the treasury, to require the services of a third secretary of state. And here when speaking of the secretary of state, he could not help noticing the opinion of the noble earl. He had said the business of the state could not be conducted without this secretary. Surely the duties of that office could not be so highly important or laborious, when it was recollected that lord Melville had been both president of the board of control and secretary at war (as the office was then called) at one time. [Here some noble lord said, that lord Melville had held all the secretaryships of state at one time]. This was indeed new to him; he had no idea that lord Melville had been such a pluralist. Thus then he held all these offices, and it made the argument the stronger, controllership, secretary for the war and home department, as well as colonial. [The earl of Liverpool—"No, not colonial."] Well, be it so, in all conscience he had enough for the drift of his argument: and perhaps the noble earl might think enough for his (lord Melville's) capacity, for either occupation or emolument. He knew enough of public business to say that the business

965
of these three secretaries of state would be better transacted by two persons than by a multiplicity of officers. This opinion might be corroborated by persons of the highest authority. In fact, before the American war, there had been three, but parliament then inquired into the evil, and reduced them to two. With respect to the puisne lords of the Admiralty, he had heard with surprise that it had been asserted, that the best lords of the Admiralty were not to be found amongst those most conversant with nautical affairs, who had been designated sea monsters. Such language was neither wise nor respectful to the country. In the civil department of the admiralty he was sorry to find that a distinct stand had been made against economy. And though ministers had taken great credit to themselves for some general reductions, he begged to know why the retrenchments had not been made last year. The noble earl might think these concessions boons; but in fact they were extorted only by the petitions of the people—by such petitions as he trusted still to see the table crowded with, one noble lord had denied the existence of sinecures: with all his well known acuteness, he could, not it seemed clearly comprehend the meaning of a sinecure. Such had actually been the confession of the noble earl. Now if he wanted an explanation of its nature, perhaps he might bring his mind to understand the abstruse signification of that complex definition of a sinecure, viz. a patent place, executed by deputy. If such places were not sinecures, he did not know what they were; but if the word was matter of objection, let it be altered; and the substance of the present motion would still stand. And as to the reason assigned for not entering upon the question, that inquiries were now pending in another place it was precisely the reason why this proceeding should be adopted. A noble earl had objected to this as an abstract and speculative proposition; but "abstract" and "speculative" were nick-names too often applied. He must here allude to an assertion in a speech made the other night, that the French revolution began by the abolition of sinecures. Was it so? Who, then, was the great author of a similar revolutionary measure in this country? At whose instigation were sinecures first abolished? Was it not by the great champion of anti-revolutionary principles? To what extent would such an argument lead us? If the abolition of sine-
966
cures was a revolutionary measure, then Mr. Burke was the great revolutionist: if it was jacobinical, Mr. Burke was himself the arch-jacobin. If the Spencean doctrines should prevail, and every proprietor's land be divided into squares for the public good, Mr. Burke alone was answerable; nay, if their lordships should all have their throats cut, all the dire mischief was to be attributed to Mr. Burke's bill. Such was the absurd consequence to be deduced from the argument of a noble lord—that the very proposal of abolishing sinecures was in itself revolutionary. The noble earl had talked of certain salaries (offices would have been a proper term) as necessary to maintain the splendour of the Crown. He was himself as anxious as any man to support the due splendour of the regal dignity; but he thought that too much might be expended about it as well as too little. When Mr. Burke spared the great offices of the household, his professed object was to keep about the throne persons of refined education, of exemplary character, and of high rank; persons, in short, whose situations were such that they were not likely to attach themselves to the Crown for the sake of the salary. On this point he would not be so personal as to point out what individual offices might be abolished; but he thought the subject extremely fitting for parliamentary inquiry. The noble earl had said, that pensions would be as expensive a mode of remuneration as sinecures; but the question was not one of sinecures versus pensions, or of pensions versus sinecures; but of pensions versus sinecures plus pensions, for we had both the one and the other; and it was the desire of ministry to keep both. He had never seen that the existence of sinecures tended in the smallest degree to diminish the number of pensions. Whenever any public service was performed, or any great, man was to be rewarded, a pension was immediately demanded for him as much as if no such thing as a sinecure was in existence. He did not mean to cast any personal reflections, but two instances occurred to him too striking to be omitted. The first was the case of the late Mr. Pitt, a man whom, though he differed widely from him in politics, he was ready to praise for his noble disinterestedness and disregard of money? When he died, application was made to parliament, and all his debts were paid by the public. On Mr. Perceval's death, a similar application was I made, and pensions were given to his chil-

967
dren. So in all cases, whenever an opportunity presented itself, a message came down immediately to parliament, and a pension was recommended to reward each fresh instance of merit in a public servant. It was not fair, therefore, to call it a question whether pensions or sinecures should be allowed to be the best mode of public reward; for the real matter in dispute was whether both modes of remuneration should exist at the same time, and for the same purposes. For his own part, he thought sinecures the most unjust species of compensation; but, if not unjust, he was sure that it was the most invidious; and that was no slight objection. To call it by the gentlest name, he would say it was inconvenient, because it was peculiarly liable to unconstitutional influence. In this point of view, there was much more room for abuse in the distribution of sinecures, than of pensions. In every case of pension, whatever influence might be exerted was manifest and declared. All was open. A regular request was made to parliament; the service of the person to be rewarded was publicly announced, and was discussed and weighed, and calculated before the pension was bestowed. But it was not so with sinecures. Sinecures had been aptly compared to great prizes in the lottery of political reward; because very often they fell by mere accident to persons of neither merit nor service, whilst veteran servants of their country, merely from ill luck, after 40 or 50 years labour, had no opportunity of obtaining one of those prizes. Nothing could more strongly elucidate their impropriety. He might apply to pensions and sinecures the language of scripture, which had lately been quoted for another purpose; with respect to their different natures and effects, he would call the pension, "the arrow that flieth by day," and the sinecure "the pestilence that walketh in darkness." It was, indeed, the chief and prevailing objection against sinecures, that their influence was secret and silent. It was this that made them so offensive to the country: it was this which would ever continue to make them offensive, though the degree of injury which they produced might be infinitely less than it was pretended to be. This, therefore, was alone a ground (he would, I if their lordships pleased, allow it was the chief ground) why they should be abolished. It was no doubt true, that the Crown had an interest in remunerating its servants by this mode; but it was at least
968
equally clear, that public opinion was decidedly against it. The nation at large considered sinecures as odious burthens; and ministers were bound, not merely to listen to the voice of the people, but to obey it. The noble earl had talked of delusion, and of false persuasion, that had been super-induced on this subject; but the best way of removing it, was to abolish sinecures; and as they were the cause, the effect would cease with them. The plan hitherto adopted, if indeed it deserved the name of a plan, was most injurious to the purposes of ministers themselves: they refused to abolish at once in an open and manly way; but, by degrees, they clipped and trimmed one office and then another, without giving satisfaction to their own or to any other party. The sinecurists in the colonies it had been said, had been compelled to perform their duties themselves personally by a late act. In fact there had existed no necessity for this act. The act passed under lord Lansdown's administration, had it been put in force, would forty years ago have compelled their attention to their duties in person; and it was shameful on the part of government to allow that act to remain a dead letter upon the statute book, when the national complaints so loudly called for its enforcement. The noble earl had spoken of the danger of concession; but that danger was incalculable, when compliance was extracted and extorted by the compulsion of national sentiment. His majesty's government might delay as much as they pleased, but the time would come when they must grant what the nation required; they might patch and paint for a time, but "to this complexion they must come at last;" and it was not only far better for themselves, but for the public tranquillity, that they should comply at once with a good grace, instead of being forced to yield what in itself was most just and reasonable.
The previous question being put, the House divided: Contents, 5; Not Contents, 45; Majority against Earl Grosvenor's Resolutions, 40.