Sitting of 28 January 1812

LOCAL MILITIA.
Mr. H. Addingtonsaid, that understanding it to be the intention to introduce a new Local Militia Bill, and to dismiss those who had completed their four years service under the present regulation, he thought it right that the House should be furnished with
376
certain documents on that subject before any step was taken in it, and for those documents he should now move. He knew from his own experience, that in the corps, at the head of which he had the honour to be placed, consisting of 700 men, there were no less than 300 out of that number willing to remain, so that if a similar spirit existed in other corps, in the same proportion, the intended Bill would be rendered altogether unnecessary. He called upon the noble lord, who was the father of this measure (lord Castlereagh), and whom he was happy to see now in his place, to watch over it with a truly parental attention; and he was confident that if proper care was taken, the country would at the end of the 4 years possess 40 or 50,000 effective Local Militia-men. He then moved,
"That there be laid before this House, a Return of the whole Local Militia force of Great Britain, if complete, according to its present establishment, distinguishing the number in each county; also a return of the number of Local Militia-men, including non-commissioned officers and drummers, enrolled and serving at the period of their last respective training, specifying the numbers in each county; also a return of the number of men who will be entitled to their discharge from the Local Militia on or before the 25th of December 1812, on account of their having completed their four years service, specifying the numbers in each county."—Ordered.

PETITION FROM CAITHNESS RESPECTING REFORM OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. Sinclairsaid, that he had been instructed by his constituents to present to the House a Petition, which he now held in his hand, expressive of their sentiments on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. The anxiety of the freeholders of Caithness to take some opportunity in the course of the present session, to recommend this measure to the attention of the House, arose in some degree from the hardship to which they were at present subjected, in choosing a member alternately with the county of Bute (a county with which they were nowise connected, either in point of interests or of local situation) in consequence of which, they would have no representative in the ensuing parliament, to receive their instructions or to attend to their interests. But this was hot the principal, far less the only inducement by which they were actuated in laying this Petition before the Houses They were no less anxious to

377
prove, that at the northern as well as the southern extremity of the empire, in Caithness as well as in Cornwall, the necessity of a temperate and effectual Reform in Parliament was felt and acknowledged. When the state of the representation of Scotland should be brought under the consideration of the House, it would appear that the number both of the freeholders and of their representatives was by no means proportioned to the extent, to the importance, or to the population of that country, of which it was impossible to adduce a stronger instance than the case of that county which he had the honour to represent, a county, which, however inferior to many in wealth and in extent, yielded to none in respectability or independence, but which, under the present system, was excluded, during every alternate parliament, from all participation in the national councils. He should refrain on this occasion from making any observations on the general question of Parliamentary Reform, the propriety of which it was unnecessary at present to discuss. He trusted that the task of pointing out to the House, not only the extent of the evil, but the practicability as well as the expediency of a safe and a sufficient remedy, would devolve upon some gentleman as anxious as he was for the success of the cause, and much more capable to do it justice. He should now content himself with moving for leave to bring up the Petition.—The following Petition was then brought up and read:
"Unto the Honourable the House of Commons, the Petition of the Freeholders of the County of Caithness, assembled at Wick upon the 26th day of August 1811, to elect a representative to the Imperial Parliament of Great Britain.
"Sheweth; That your Petitioners are deeply impressed with a sense of the responsibility which attaches to them, in exercising their constitutional right of deputing a proper person to aid in the national councils, and in the preservation of the liberties of the subject against encroachment; and feel themselves imperiously called upon to stale to your honourable House their conviction, that great and alarming innovations have been made upon this first and vital part of the British constitution.
"It is the firm persuasion of your Petitioners, that the constitution may be
378
restored to its genuine and original purity, by a recurrence to its first principles; which, so far from endangering, will manifestly tend to ensure its stability; and they trust that your honourable House will receive favourably a statement of those grievances which they foment, in common with the great majority of their fellow subjects, and in respectfully representing which to your honourable House, they conceive themselves to be exercising the undoubted right and privilege of the subject.
"Your Petitioners beg leave to state, that, in their humble opinion, the restoration of triennial parliaments would be a powerful check upon corrupt practices, by producing more frequent appeals to the constituent body; and, as the causes which led to their being formerly rendered septennial have now ceased to operate, your Petitioners hope that your honourable House will, in regard to the duration of parliaments, comply with the express wishes of the great bulk of the nation. Your Petitioners are satisfied, that, in the true spirit of the constitution, no pensioner, no placeman, or person in office under the crown, ought to elect, or to be elected, a representative of the Commons in Parliament, with the exception of such members of the House of Commons, as his Majesty may chuse as his confidential servants, or of such as ought to be in the House for the dispatch of public business.
"Your Petitioners are convinced that many abuses have crept into the laws regarding the election of representatives for counties and boroughs in Scotland; that, under the present system, individuals may obtain a place amongst the freeholders, in a manner utterly inconsistent with the real intentions of the legislature; whilst others are excluded from participating in the elective rights, who, from the interest they possess as landed proprietors in the county, ought not to be debarred from assisting in the choice of its representative.
"Your Petitioners are humbly of opinion, that, in many other essential points, a temperate and effectual Reform would be highly expedient. Whilst they deprecate every attempt at undue or unsafe innovation, they are firmly convinced, that, by recurring to the first and genuine principles of the constitution, a House of Commons may be returned in a manner calculated to diffuse universal satisfaction, under the sanction of whose wisdom and virtue such measures may be adopted, as may in-

379
crease the confidence of the nation in their representatives, and, by enabling them to participate more extensively in the blessings of the constitution, will induce them to make every sacrifice for its defence and preservation.
"May it therefore please your honourable House, to take these premises into consideration, and to grant such relief as to your honourable House shall seem fit and proper."
Mr. Sinclairthen moved, "That the Petition do lie on the table."—Ordered.

BILL TO AMEND INSOLVENT DEBTORS' ACT.
Lord Folkestone, in pursuance of his notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the provisions of the Act of the 51st of his Majesty to Mary Ann Dix, whose case had lately been brought before the House (see p. 295.) and other persons similarly situated, under the writ 'de excommunicato capiendo.' Acts of the same description as the 51st of his Majesty had been at different times passed, most of which contained a clause for the relief of persons committed for contempt, for non-payment of costs, and those who were suffering imprisonment under the writ he had just mentioned. This clause had not, however, been inserted last year, which he believed, had originated in mistake. To rectify that error was the object of his present motion. He here thought it necessary to say one or two words, in consequence of what had fallen from a right hon. and learned friend of his (sir William Scott), in the course of the debate on a former evening. He regretted, that he was obliged to speak in the absence of that right hon. gentleman; particularly as that absence, he understood, was occasioned by indisposition. The right hon. gentleman, in the progress of his speech, had cast some aspersions, if he might use the term, on the character of the gentleman, from whom he (lord F.) was supposed to have derived some of his information on the subject of the Ecclesiastical Courts. He felt it his duty to say, that the terms in which that person was mentioned, were perfectly unfounded, and perfectly unjust. The original case was not introduced from any feeling of hostility towards those courts. It had been first mentioned to him (lord F.) by some most respectable inhabitants of Bristol, from feelings of humanity—that assistance might be extended to an unfortunate woman; and the person who had
380
been alluded to, was applied to for information; as, having practised in those courts; he was acquainted with their constitution. He was called on, and did not officiously press forward. The noble lord said he made this statement, that the character of the individual who had been thus harshly treated, should be set right in the opinion of his fellow citizens in Bristol. He had been actuated by no motives of malignity—feelings which were most foreign front his mind. And he felt convinced, if the right hon. gentleman were present, he would concur in rendering justice to au individual, who had been hastily injured. The noble lord then moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the said act.
The Hon. Mr. Herbertsaid he was requested, in the absence of his right hon. friend (sir W. Scott) to set him right with the House on this subject. Considering the motion of the noble lord as likely to be of very great benefit to the country, he should be very sorry that any thing should be said detrimental to the person, through whose information the subject had been brought before parliament. The fact was, his right hon. and learned friend conceived, at the moment, that the information had been given by some discontented proctor, and the papers with which the noble lord had favoured him, but which were not before the House, exhibited, as he thought, much professional ignorance, joined with an intention to blazon forth trifles to an extent which they did not deserve. Under this impression the words had been made use of. He had only to add, that if, in the warmth of a debate, into which his right hon. and learned friend had been dragged, he had said any thing offensive, no person could regret it more than he did.
Mr. W. Smithsaid he understood from a quarter totally unconnected with his noble friend, that there was not a more respectable person in Bristol, than the one alluded to. He was sure, if the right hon. gentleman who was now absent had known him he would never have permitted such words to drop from his lips.
Leave was given to bring in the Bill.
Lord Folkestonethen moved, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Act of the 39th of the King, for making perpetual an act of 33 Geo. 3, for the further relief of debtors, with respect to the imprisonment of their persons; and to oblige debtors, who shall

381
continue in execution in prison beyond a certain time, and for sums not exceeding what are mentioned in the Act, to make discovery, and deliver upon oath, their estates for their creditors' benefit.—Leave was given; and his lordship soon afterwards brought in the Bills, which were read a first time.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
Mr. Bankessaid he should not delay the House with any observations on his present motion, which he understood was not likely to meet with opposition from any part of the House. The Bill now in existence would expire on the 5th of February. It would ill become him to say that he did not intend this as a permanent measure, and it would also ill become the House after what had already passed. He should, therefore, without further preface, move for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the granting of Offices in Reversion, or for joint lives, with benefit of survivorship.—Leave was accordingly given.

KING'S HOUSEHOLD BILL.
On the question that the Report of this Bill be brought up,
Mr. Broughamrose to state the insuperable objections he felt to this new arrangement. After all the discussion the question had undergone, the House must be aware of the real nature and complexion of the measure then before them, and they ought not and would not lose sight of this fact, that they were dealing with a Bill to raise 70,000 l. additional from the people. That circumstance, of itself, was sufficient to make them pause and demand inquiry. Several of his hon. friends had, in consequence, called for investigation on various points; and, in answer to their demands, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his hon. and learned friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Cornwall, had given what they termed explanations, but what he conceived the House had no right to receive as arguments sufficient to warrant them in supporting this money Bill. This want of explanation was one great cause to prevent the House from entertaining the measure. But the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in answer to the inquiries of his hon. friends, observed, "that this was a Bill to regulate his Majesty's Household, and it was futile to answer it, by pointing out the grants made to sir Sidney Smith and a few others. Let the Bill stand on its own ground, and
382
make those inquiries hereafter." Now he (Mr. Brougham) would strenuously maintain this proposition, that the two objects of inquiry into the accounts, and passing this Bill, were inseparably connected, and if inquiry was not instituted, the Bill ought not to pass. The bare fact, that a new Civil List was about to be arranged, was sufficient to support him in this proposition, that parliament ought not now to do that which it had never before done, to grant a sum of 70,000 l. per annum, and to recognise and sanction an annual excess of 124,000 l. nay, of 9,000 l. more than that, without a strict and detailed enquiry. Cursory explanations and elaborate speeches, however pleasant to individuals, did not afford a parliamentary ground of proceeding. To use the words of a right hon. gentleman, it was no more than the language of party, and the House must have evidence before it. What was the conduct pursued in the year 1804, when a grant of only 60,000 l. was asked? The House had then no less than three Select Committees, who, after a laborous investigation, reported to the House the necessity which occasioned the application. That was an accurate and parliamentary proceeding—a proceeding adopted by Mr. Pitt and lord Sidmouth—who, though they were able to descant, as well as the ministers of the present day, on the general necessity of providing for the royal family, and could expatiate on the high price of provisions, and the depreciation of Banknotes, yet knew the duty they owed their country too well to call on the House to grant money on their speeches and representations. They did not depend on fine turned periods, in matters of mere arithmetic and calculation: no, they sent the matter to be investigated by a Committee. There was nothing, in the present instance, that should relax the constitutional jealousy which the House ought to feel in granting money; on the contrary, the accounts on the table should excite it in a greater degree than ordinary; and the House had no right to receive individual assertions, however respectable the party making them, as a ground for voting an annual sum of 70,000 l.—The hon. and learned gentleman next adverted to several of the items, which were mentioned last night, connected with the diplomacy of the country. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had also attempted a verbal explanation of the sums given to marquis Wellesley and sir sid-

383
ney Smith. The Secretary of the Treasury too (Mr. Arbuthnot) with an ingenuousness, fairness, and manliness, which it was impossible not to admire, came forward, when his case was challenged; but how did he come forward? He gave the House no explanation—he only challenged inquiry, and said, that the greatest favour which he could receive from the House, was a full and rigid inquiry. If he recollected right, this was the substance of what had been stated by that right hon. gentleman, and he acted very properly. Instead of attempting explanation in a place where it could never be satisfactory, he had challenged inquiry. As to the expences which a foreign envoy might be put to in case of an unforeseen accident, such as a rupture with the court at which he was resident, it might happen that they were necessarily very great; and he did not doubt but this really might be the case of the gentleman who had been at Constantinople; but still he contended, that this was no ground for refusing investigation. He might also instance the case of the marquis Wellesley. It might happen that during the three or four months, when he was at Cadiz, he was justified in incurring an expence of 15 or 16,000 l. besides the sums also then expended by Mr. Henry Wellesley; but it was certainly proper that this should be explained. No man could be more averse to the entertainment of any mean jealousy as to what was necessary to support the dignity of foreign envoys than he was, and particularly with respect to that branch of it which ought never to be discussed in that House, namely, Secret Service money. But there was another description of items which were not prima facie entitled to the same degree of credit. He alluded to the bills for 10,279 l. drawn by a noble person, stated to be a baron he believed; though as he was not very conversant in the Red-book, he could not say whether or not he was a baron of this country. He believed, however, he was not of this country. This person was, if he recollected right, named baron Hubert.—[The Chancellor of the Exchequer whispered over the table, that his name was Hubet.]—Then, said Mr. Brougham, I take upon me to say, that he is not a baron of this country. He said he would not join in any cry against foreigners. He did not object to their being employed occasionally in an army, nor would he object to their being sometimes
384
employed by us in a diplomatic capacity, though certainly this was more questionable; but if this foreign baron, whose name he could not exactly remember, had drawn for a sum of 10,279 l. he thought he was not arguing on too high a ground, if he said that that of itself was a sufficient ground of inquiry. But there were other grounds. It was, no doubt, reasonable that ministers ought to be allowed a sum, in addition to their salary, for their expences; but he could not see why a person who had been appointed to a diplomatic situation, and had never acted, nor sailed, nor even moved from London, should be entitled to an allowance of 4,500 l. for plate. My lord Cathcart was stated to have received for plate, previous to his mission to Petersburgh, a sum to this amount, and he had never made a single movement on the subject of this mission. There were other items, of considerably greater amount, and all of them spoke the same language—the language of suspicion and inquiry—to the House. Ministers could not look to 1804 as a precedent for them. They spoke a language which was formerly unknown here. Mr. Pitt and lord Sidmouth never spurned at giving any information required of them; but surely it was more necessary now, when much larger grants were required, and after seven or eight years of war, which had loaded the country with taxes, which certainly were, to say the least of them, the utmost that the people could bear.—There were other points which certainly required consideration, and to which he would shortly advert. Among these was the situation of the Prince Re gent. That situation no man could lament more than himself. It was certainly an ignominious and degrading state. He would say that the act of the 35th of the King had done more to injure, vilify, and degrade the executive in the eyes of the people of this country, than any thing which had taken place in our times. He was shocked at the degradation to which that person was reduced who was one day to wear the crown. By that act the language held out was, that the person who was one day to wear the crown, was not fit to be trusted with the management of his own concerns; that he would, if left to himself, act so as to defraud his creditors. No measure could have been adopted more calculated than this to stigmatise and vilify the person who in the course of nature was to succeed to the crown, His hon.

385
and learned friend, the Chancellor of the duchy of Cornwall, had stated the most humiliating and disgusting details respecting the treatment of the Prince in these Bills, and from the authors of these Bills in 1795; but he would ask, notwithstanding the confidence which it was very natural to place in any statement made by his hon. and learned friend, if they were at liberty to rely on his statement, when they had not only no power of putting questions to him, and when he had stated many particulars not from his own knowledge, and which he could not possibly know. How could the House place a confidence in this report, which was never asked before on any similar occasion? Did they believe that all these debts were paid? All this they were bound to say, or to say that which would go farther to stultify the House in the eyes of the country, than any thing which it was well possible to conceive, that whether they had ground or not for believing, they were determined to give credit.—There were many other particulars which called loudly upon the House to pause. Was it fit to sanction a constant arrear of the civil list expenditure of 124,000 l. above the estimate of 1804, without knowing one item of those arrears which they were about to sanction? If this growing arrear was to be sanctioned by the authority of parliament, they were saying that the arrear since 1804 had been justly incurred, because they would have no other stage for taking the matter into consideration. Was the House prepared to sanction this statement, without having one item of explanation? But then, as there was no want of speaking, whatever other want there might be in that House, they would be told, that so great was the depreciation on account of the overgrowing bullion circulation, that what was sufficient in 1804, would not be sufficient in, the right hon. gentleman would say perhaps, 1812. He would not say that—for the fact was, that it was not sufficient in 1805. In the year 1805 there was an arrear on the civil list; and unless one year's depreciation of the bullion, for so the gentlemen were pleased to term it, should have been so great as to account for this effect, how was he to account for this increase of nearly 130,000/. above the estimate of 1804? This argument of the depreciation, therefore, if good for any thing, must have been applicable in 1805. But, said the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there
386
might be some items of the expence of 1805 incurred in 1804; but how would: this account for the excess of 1806 and 1807? Unless, then, the depreciation had attained its maximum in 1805, the argument was good for nothing.—The hon. and learned gentleman then went into some particulars respecting the arrears of the civil list.—In contrasting the sixteen years previous to 1804, with the seven which succeeded it, it would be found, that during the latter period, the civil, list was annually larger, by 240,000 l. than in the former. Comparisons had been drawn, between the expences of an earlier period, and those of the present day; and here he begged gentlemen to consider how differently this question was dealt with in the last and in the present reign. When George the 2nd came to the throne, parliament agreed to give him 700,000 l. per ann. for his civil list; and if the funds on which that sum was chargeable did not produce sufficient, parliament were to make up the deficit. There was no bargain respecting any overplus. After the expiration of 20 years, a deficit of 420,000 l. of those funds had occurred. This sum was accordingly made good by parliament. it happened, however, that these funds in time increased beyond the estimate, and during the remaining thirteen years of his reign there was a surplus of 115,000 l. How was this surplus dealt with by this honest and conscientious Prince? It was not considered as private property; it was not laid out in the purchasing of lands, as might have been done; but he allowed it to accumulate, and paid over the sum to the Exchequer, for the relief of the people from whom it was drawn, as well as the amount of the Droits of Admiralty, which had accumulated, after one of the most brilliant and successful wars which was ever waged to the glory of any people. He did not think of laying out any part of this sum in the purchase of freehold and copyhold estates, (Hear, hear!) repeatedly from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.) The right hon. gentleman seemed to be so mightily taken with the precedent, that he would advise him to a. repetition of it, at a time when there was a much greater occasion for it.—The hon. and learned gentleman, next instanced the conduct of Queen Anne, who paid 100,000 l. in aid of. the taxes. out of the privy purse, besides having. built Blenheim, and several churches and public edifices. It was a precedent which

387
he thought might be followed with advantage. The attention of the House had been sedulously directed to the care which it was deemed right to take for the support of the dignity of the royal personage on whose behalf this bill was introduced, as well as to enforce the absolute necessity of maintaining two distinct courts, but as yet he had heard nothing from either, side of the House regarding another royal personage, who, in the event of a demise of the crown, would be raised to the dignity of Queen of Great Britain. He did not wish to press this subject upon the House, as he felt sure that it need only be hinted at, in order that its, importance should be felt and acknowledged. The truth was, that all the solicitude for what was called dignity, had been misnamed, and that it resolved itself upon due examination into an attempt to support a separate influence; since 21 officers were appointed, who either filled, or might occupy, seats in the legislature. If it were true, that fewer attendants upon the person administering the regal power were requisite, they ought to be diminished, and those officers who were removed from the Prince might be appointed to attend upon the King; but here the attempt was far different, for although twenty-one of the old servants of the crown were removed, their places were to be supplied by new appointments to the same extent, the only effect of which would be, that the influence of the Queen was augmented, but no addition was made to the dignity of the King. The remote possibility of the ultimate recovery of his Majesty, although now as well as last year, his speedy restoration had been so sanguinely expected and prophesied by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, could in no way justify any such establishment. It appeared by records, which it was not necessary to quote, that the House had never yet voted so large a sum as that now required, in aid of the civil list, without formal preliminary inquiry, and yet ministers, at a time when the vote of every shilling ought to be most severely scrutinized, ventured to make this most unconstitutional demand.—With respect to the formation of a distinct court, over which the Queen was to preside, no investigation could remove his objection: but into the voluminous documents laid upon the table, he could not imagine that a more proper time than the present could be found for investiga-
388
tion, and it was wholly unbecoming in the House to refuse examination into the comparative small amounts they contained, when the great demands for the ser vice of the state were met by the people with such confidential readiness. He warned the right hon. gentleman of the consequences of a refusal, and set be fore him, as an example, the precedent of the year 1804.
Mr. Roseallowed that enquiry ought to take place, as broad a one as possible, but not such as to impede the progress of the bill. In opposition to the statement of the hon. and learned gentleman, he contended that great grants had frequently been made to the civil list, without any enquiry whatever; and he instanced cases in the reigns of Queen Anne and George 1, and 2, in proof of his assertion. The hon. and learned gentleman said that George 2 did not lay out the surplus of his revenue in the purchase of freehold and copyhold estates. What sovereign had ever done so in this country? None. He asserted positively, that no sovereign had ever laid out a shilling of the civil list revenue in that way. It was impossible that he should do so. His present Majesty had waived the various revenues of his predecessor, and had accepted a specific sum of 800,000 l.; being 20,000 l. less than the revenue of George 2. He entered into a statement of the further parliamentary grants that had been made to his Majesty, the whole of which amounted only to 2,419,000 l being an average during his reign of 93,000 l. a year. And let it be considered, that since the year 1710, money had been depreciated to nearly half its value at that period. Adverting to what the hon. and learned gentleman had said, of the munificence of Queen Anne, he observed, that so far from Blenheim having been built out of the royal purse, it had been commenced by parliamentary grants, which being interrupted by the Tory administration, the building was completed at the expence of the duke of Marl borough, who was subsequently remunerated by another parliamentary vote. He trusted that the House would not hesitate in allowing the bill to pass; and if they thought proper, they might afterwards institute an inquiry into some of the minor details alluded to.
Mr. Bennetconsidered it to be a duty he owed to his constituents to oppose all grants of the public money, unless there

389
appeared a necessity for such grants being made. Besides, in this Bill there was not only to be considered the money given, but the influence to be created, and above all the influence of the crown in the House of Commons. He wished to direct the attention of the House to that part of the subject. But setting aside all discussions on recent events, it was fit to be examined, what had been the conduct of our ancestors, when questions of a similar nature were agitated.
In the 16th session of the 2nd parliament of Charles the second, known by the name of the Pensioned Parliament, complaints were frequently made of the influence of the crown in the House of Commons. In the 2d session of the 3rd parliament, the subject was revived, when sir Stephen Fox, who had the management of the Secret Service money, was made to name the members of the last Pensioned Parliament who had received money from the crown: he named from 30 to 40 persons who had pensions from 2 to 500 l. a year each. Before the House could proceed against these persons, the parliament was dissolved. In the 4th parliament of Charles the second, the Commons came to the following Resolutions. Dec. 30, 1680. "Resolved unanimously, That no member of this House shall accept of any office, or place of profit from the crown, without the leave of this House; or any promise of any such office or place of profit during such time as he shall continue member of this House: and, That all offenders therein shall be expelled this House." It was then maintained by sir Francis Winnington (and our ancestors, though following the Pensioned Parliament, had but a limited experience of those evils which we their posterity have felt: who had been an eye witness of those disgraceful scenes, he ventured to describe to many of those who had been sharers in the disgrace, "That all of those who had pensions and most of those who had offices, voted all of a side, as they were directed by some great officer, as exactly as if their business in this House had been to preserve their pensions and offices, and not to make laws for the good of them who sent them here. That they were so far from being the true representatives of the people, that they were a distinct middle interest between the king and the people, and their chief business was to serve the end of some great minister of state, though never so opposite to the true
390
interest of the nation." While the parliament was engaged in these discussions, it was suddenly dissolved. In the 4th session of the 2nd parliament of king William, the House of Commons once more revived the question, and a Bill, known by the name of the Place Bill, was introduced, passed this House, but was rejected in the Lords by a majority of two. It was revived the next session, again passed this House without much opposition, and was agreed to by the Lords; but king William was advised to refuse his consent. Thereupon the House of Commons resolved, "That it is the opinion of this Committee" (the House being in a Grand Committee on the State of the Nation: "that whoever advised the king not to give the royal assent to the Act, touching free and impartial Proceedings in Parliament, which was to redress a grievance and to take off a scandal from the proceedings of the Commons in parliament, is an enemy to their majesties and the kingdom." In another Resolution they say, "That the act tended much to the clearing the reputation of this House."
The hon. gentleman professed it not to be his intention to pass any panegyric upon the motives of those who supported the Place Bill in the time of king William. It was, however, to be remembered, that their votes were in unison with those of the Whigs in the time of Charles the second., when the corrupt influence of the crown first began to be felt: nor should it be forgotten, that the Bill was supported by men of all parties and descriptions in that House; by men of the greatest integrity, of the first rate abilities, and of the most enlightened and rational views, who, disagreeing in many points, agreed in these, that parliament was not to become the great grievance of the nation, and that the giving away of the public money among themselves and becoming the hired and pensioned servants of the crown, were violations of their duties to the people.
Neither did the hon. gentleman propose to go the length of the Bill in disqualifying all the servants of the crown; as there was a wide distinction to be taken, between those ministers of the crown who were at the same time servants of the people, and that herd of household retainers and inferior officers of the government, who seem to be of no other use than to swell the train of the minister, and to vote according to his orders, however hostile to the wishes or contrary to the interests of the

391
nation. In an act of the 13th of king William, entitled, "An Act for the farther Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the subject," it was enacted," That from and after the death of the king and princess Anne, no person who has any office or place of profit under the king, or who receives a pension from the crown, shall be capable of serving as a member of the House of Commons." This act was repealed by the 4th of queen Anne. The 6th of Anne disqualifies persons holding offices created since the 25th of October 1705, or that shall hereafter be created: and enacts that every member shall vacate his seat upon the acceptance of office, with, however, the liberty of re-election. These acts were mentioned, not only to shew the anxiety of our ancestors to lessen the influence of the crown in this House, but also to shew that by the last, the impropriety of members of parliament holding offices under the crown was recognized. Various attempts were made in the reigns of Anne, George the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, with various success, for the diminution of this influence. In 1780, a vote was passed against the increased influence of the crown, and declaring the necessity of its diminution. This vote was given in consequence of the petitions and remonstrances and addresses from all parts of the kingdom; for the people prayed, though hitherto they have prayed in vain, for rigid frugality, for the abolition of sinecures, useless places, exorbitant emoluments, unmerited pensions, and the unconstitutional influence of the crown.
The honourable gentleman then asked, if there were no recent events that called for the interference of parliament? Was not the appointment of four members of that House to places under the crown worthy of consideration? It was not, however, his intention to argue the question or rest his case upon any single example, however flagrant and insulting: but upon the accumulated and aggregated mass of public abuses against which every man in the country, but those who profited by these abuses in possession, expectancy, or reversion, was at this hour raising his indignant voice, One case, however, namely, that of col. M'Mahon, ought not to be so passed over. If the Regent's ministers were determined to make their stand upon Sinecure places, if they were resolved to grant no one prayer of the people of England, to abate not one shil-
392
ling from their burthens, or abolish one office, though reported against by two Committees of parliament, did it not occur to them, that some gallant friendless officer might be found who deserved reward; and though the rigid duties of this House might compel them to question the propriety of the mode, no man would have questioned the claim; and the Regent's ministers would not only have stood acquitted of the suspicion of having endeavoured by criminal compliances to purchase royal favour, but they would have had to shew, that where the claimants were many and the rewards few, they had bestowed them where the voice of the country thought they were most merited. But was this the character of col. M'Mahon's appointment? What were his services? What had he done to merit public remuneration? What claim had he to one shilling of the public money? He was an honourable man, and so they were all honourable men, but was he not amply rewarded for his services to the Prince, by the situation he holds in his family?
But it had been said, there was no need of such reform, as the number of persons sitting in parliament holding offices, were fewer now than at the period of the Revolution, or during the American war. To shew that the evil was lessened, was no conclusive argument to silence those who contended that it ought not to exist at all. What that evil was, every man's experience must tell him. The history of the country will show that most of the burthens we bear and many of our misfortunes may be traced to the influence of the crown in his House.
There were, too, persons who maintained what they are pleased to term the due influence of the crown. The question to be debated was not where due influence ends and undue begins; but the direct influence of the crown in this House, like that which is used by members of parliament towards their constituents: the law calls it bribery, and that in the most offensive sense. But one would suppose by this strain of argument that the crown was in danger, that it could hardly maintain a precarious existence: Was that its real situation? Was a revenue of eighty millions, an array and navy of the magnitude to which they had reached;—the circumstance of every fifth man in the kingdom being a candidate for public, office;—were these proofs of such decay of strength, or was there a rank so dis-

393
tinguished, or station so obscure, as had not something to gain or to lose, to hope or to fear, from the favour or displeasure of the crown? If, indeed, these were proofs of the diminished authority of government to warrant filling parliament with placemen and pensioners, it might be asked of these advocates for a feeble and powerless monarchy, when they would be satisfied of its strength?
But if a parliament was free from such an influence, if it were modelled upon the purest form, would the crown be in danger; would the government stop? Is it meant to be argued that placemen and pensioners are the bulwarks of the monarchy; and that the constitution is in danger if the parliament be not patched? Would not 658 gentlemen free from this contaminating influence have a due regard to the constitution under which they lived?—if money was wanted for just and necessary wars, would they not grant it?—if for the proper splendour of the crown, would they refuse it? or would they not be as ready as any pensioned parliament that ever sat, to place at the disposal of the crown, the hearts, and the hands, and the purses of its people?—A parliament of this description would not plunge the country in unjust and unnecessary wars against its own kindred and its own subjects, nor would it keep up a code of merciless proscription and odious intolerance. They would not support any and every minister solely because he was appointed by the crown; nor shift round and turn when caprice or bigotry, religious or political, or an entire want of principle, induced the crown to change or to keep its advisers. They would not entrench themselves against public criticism, by privileges of doubtful law and odious exercise, in imitation of that Tory faction in the time of king William, who first found it necessary to distinguish between the House of Commons and the people. Nor would they acquit from blame, and screen from punishment, men who had wasted their gallant soldiery in expeditions begun in ignorance and persevered into the destruction of the miserable victims to the folly and incapacity of their commanders. And above all, such a parliament would never have consented to that Bill of Indemnity, which, placing under the protection of the law men who had broken all law, furnished by that fatal example impunity to crime, and by stifling the voice of the oppressed against the oppressor, forced
394
men to look to some other quarter besides English law and English government, if not for protection, at least for revenge. It was, then, for these reasons he intended to propose a clause disqualifying all those who should hold offices under the Bill from sitting in the House of Commons.
Mr. Sheridansaid, he agreed with many parts of the speech of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, but thought he had not quite done himself justice; for he had not only put the House in possession of his future motion, but of his future speech. With regard to those points of his speech which went to object to offices being granted to members of that House, he should agree with his hon. friend, (if he would permit him so to call him) if he could do away ancient and deep-rooted prejudices. If his hon. friend could persuade all noblemen and persons of a certain rank in life to forego their wishes for such offices as the Post-master-General's, and others of the like kind, he should be very happy to coincide with him. There was one part of his speech, however, in which he could not agree with his hon. friend, and that was, where he arraigned the appointment of colonel M'Mahon, and argued, that ministers had been actuated in their conduct on that occasion, with a view to curry favour and increase their influence with the Prince. Now every one who knew colonel M'Mahon must be sensible that his conduct in the service of the Prince had been highly honourable, and such as deserved the particular marks of favour with which his royal highness had honoured him. His hon. friend had said, that he believed colonel M'Mahon to be an honourable man. He thought so too. They were all honourable men; but his hon. friend did not see what right colonel M'Mahon had to the public money. As to the right, there were certainly more ways than one of deserving remuneration for long, tried, and faithful services; and in appointing him to the office in question, no doubt the Prince was actuated by such motives as he thought just and right. If his hon. friend thought the place ought to be abolished, let him make a motion on the subject; and if the House should be of the same opinion, he had no doubt colonel M'Mahon would willingly resign it. He (Mr. Sheridan) was not in the House when the character of colonel M'Mahon was some time ago canvassed on a similar mention of the appointment, and when so

395
many hon. members bore such honourable testimony to his general worth and merits; bat he firmly believed that the appointment itself was not so truly gratifying to colonel M'Mahon, as the highly flattering manner in which his character had been universally spoken of on that occasion. He could not agree with his hon. and learned friend in his objection to bringing up his report; and he differed also with several of his hon. friends who thought the House had done wrong in not leaving to the Prince of Wales the entire regulation of his Majesty's person, &c. He was certain nothing could be more injurious to the Prince's feelings than such a measure would have proved. He differed with them also as to the corrupt influence which it had been argued might be used by the Queen, in consequence of the powers vested in her. The whole tenor of her Majesty's life had shewn that she had never been capable of such conduct; and he verily believed she had accepted the trust from motives of the most tender and affectionate regard to his Majesty, and that she might be able to ascertain to a certainty that every thing was done that could conduce to his Majesty's comfort and convenience. He differed also with them as to the provision allluded to for the Princesses. He was certain there was no wish for expensive establishments; but that whatever was offered would be gratefully received. He differed also as to the point of objection to the Prince's debts in 1803. The Prince sent a message by Mr. Tyrwhitt, stating his reasons why he could not resume his state and dignity, on account of certain claims on his honour which he was bound to provide for. He would not revive the argument with the Chancellor of the Exchequer which took place a few nights ago; he was sure the right hon. gentleman was convinced that he had taken up his idea from reading Woodfall's Reports, when he said that he considered the Prince to have given up his claims, seeing that the Journals shewed that he had only said he withdrew his suit. He thought with his hon. and learned friend, that the Bill of 1795 deserved all the epithets he had applied to it. It was the work, to be sure, of a great man who was in power at that time, now no more, who was regarded with the highest respect by his friends. He did not wish to use very strong terms while speaking of the dead; but he, must agree with his hon. and learned friend
396
that it was a scandalous Bill, degrading and ignominious to the Prince, and tending to stigmatise, and dishonour, and vilify, the character of him who was by the course of nature destined to fill the throne. He perfectly agreed with the whole of the statement made last night by his hon. and learned friend, (Mr. Adam.) Nothing, in his mind, could be more clear than that statement, which shewed decidedly that what he (Mr. Sheridan) had asserted a few nights ago respecting the Message of the Prince in 1803, and particularly respecting his claims on the duchy of Cornwall, was accurate. The claims of his royal highness on the duchy of Cornwall amounted to more than 700,000 l. which was a much greater sum than the total of all demands upon him. But when lord Sidmouth made an arrangement in 1803, the Prince had submitted to restraints for eight years, and had merely given back to him part of what was his due. It was a fact of which he was quite certain, and he was sure that if he had seen lord Sidmouth previous to this debate, that noble lord would have confirmed his opinion; for, indeed, he stated the same thing from the very bench on which the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat, that the measure then adopted was far from any thing like a compromise. That noble lord stated, that he had made no allusion to any arrears said to be due to the Prince of Wales. The claim to those arrears was fortified by all the greatest legal authorities that could be consulted, and left the question clearly in favour of the rights of the Prince. It was on the 18th of February, that lord Sidmouth, then Mr. Addington, expressed himself to the effect he had stated. It was on the 28th of February that the Prince's Message came down to the House, in which he relinquished the further prosecution of his suit, stating his reliance upon the affection of the King, and the liberality of parliament, to enable him to discharge those obligations which he had contracted. On the 4th of March an hon. gentleman who was member for Rochester made a motion in that House for an address to the Prince to resume his state, on the very principle of paying off the arrears of his debts: and nobody within those walls then argued on the message of the 28th of February, as compromising or bargaining away his claim. All which would have been impossible, had such a thing as a compromise been

397
understood from the Message. He had, however, no wish that his royal highness should now revive his claims. As to the debts which his royal highness acknowledged, many of them were of a nature binding on him by honour, if not by law. It was proposed to set apart 70,000 l. of his present income for their liquidation: but was parliament to be the guarantee? It was a voluntary trust made by the Prince; and it was perfectly possible to revoke it. He did not mean to insinuate such a thing as that the Prince would revoke it, for he knew that he was incapable of doing so, and he was quite assured of the punctuality and sacredness with which he would ever regard it: but there was a possible contingency to be looked to, which, though in other respects unfortunately an almost hopeless one, might occur, namely, the recovery of his Majesty's mental health, and his resumption of the duties of his high station; which would, of course, put the Prince back into his former rank and situation: or, supposing another case, however much to be deplored,—his Majesty's dissolution, then the income of the Prince of Wales would merge in that of the crown. The Prince might do all in his power to save his creditors harmless; but, he contended, that there was no security given by parliament for accomplishing this object. There was another event which should be taken into their consideration, and that was, the possibility of the death of the Prince of Wales himself. Then there would be a total end to all security. But would it not be a much preferable mode of proceeding, for the public to take upon itself all the debt, extinguishing all question of the arrears of the duchy of Cornwall? Could it be said to be fitting, that, under all the present circumstances, there should be precarious debentures existing for the Prince's obligations?—that in what was called the Foreign Loan for instance, the Prince of Hesse, in his present condition, should feel himself without any security from the British nation? Let parliament take the debts and the fund together for the public, and they would find it to redound much more to the honour of the Prince and the credit of parliament, and contribute more to the character and satisfaction of the country.
Lord Ossulstoncomplained of the perfectly gratuitous allusion which the right hon. gentleman had made to the acceptance by his noble relation of the office of
398
Postmaster General; an office which had always been held by an individual of his noble relation's rank.
Mr. Sheridandisclaimed the least intention of saying any thing disrespectful to the noble earl. The higher the noble earl's character, the stronger was his argument, which tended to remind his hon. friend in the midst of his general principles, that there were cases in which men of the best character did accept situations such as those his hon. friend exclaimed against. As to gratuitous allusions, it ought to be recollected that he must naturally have felt a little hurt at the gratuitous allusion which had been made by his hon. friend to colonel. M'Mahon.
The report was then brought up and agreed to.
The House then went into the Committee on the Household Officers' Bill. After a number of clauses had been read and agreed to,
Sir Charles Burrellwas desirous of saying a few words on the subject of the marshalmen, yeomen, and porters of the Household, in which he thought all must agree. The marshal men, he understood, paid 7 or 800 guineas for their places to the Knight Marshal, for which they received a sort of nominal salary of about 20 l. a year, which was subject to a reduction of five or six pounds. On their deaths, their situations were again sold by the Knight Marshal, and he supposed that it was from such sources that the Knight Marshal himself was paid. If a marshalman was permitted to transfer his situation to another, it was generally at the price of about 126 l.; but if he was an invalid, he was treated only as a sort of annuitant, and not permitted to transfer. He meant no kind of reflection in what he said upon the Knight Marshal; perhaps some of the money went to the Lord Steward; but he could not tell. Porter's places went at about 100 l. and under them were the groom porters. The duties, however, were performed by a set of paid under porters. He complained of the practice of such persons requiring; money in the shape of fees, which in the opinion of some lawyers might subject them to the Vagrant act. Those who lived in town might not wonder at such things; but what sort of impression must it make on a sheriff from the country, who came to court in the performance of a public duty, when he was the next day called upon for money But what said these inferior officers of the household?—that

399
they had their duties to perform, and had no remuneration except their low, insufficient, and scandalous salaries. Their conduct in demanding fees was connived at, and approved of by high authorities. Even persons who were received at court for their meritorious services were dunned in the same manner: and what must they think of it? When the custom of taking vails was universally done away in this country, the wages of servants had been proportionally encreased; yet this miserable practice was allowed to remain about the court. He felt it his duty to mention this subject, as it might come to the ears of his royal highness, whose own establishment, he knew, was pure from this species of inhospitality. The officers themselves he did not blame, for he was sure that they would, most of them at any rate, be happy to be relieved from such a system of beggary; and many of them, though not in high stations, had feelings capable of all the unpleasantness to which such a practice exposed them.
Mr. Kenricknever knew of more than one complaint against the conduct of a marshalman; and in that case proper redress was given, on application to the proper quarter. He had heard of no complaints as to the vails. He did not know who appointed the porters; but if the Lord Steward did, he was sure he received no money for it. If the marshalmen wished to be relieved from the present practice, he was equally certain that the Knight Marshal would feel the same satisfaction. When officers misbehaved themselves, their pay was dropped.
After some further discussion, in which Mr. Croker, Mr. Giles, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Bennet, participated, the clause was agreed to.