Sitting of 6 April 1821

NEWINGTON SELECT VESTRY BILL COMMITTEE.
Sir R. Wilsonaddressed the Chair on the subject of some most disorderly and irregular conduct which had taken place that morning in a committee up stairs appointed by the House. The House would remember the circumstances under which the present committee on the Newington select Vestry Bill was appointed. It had been the opinion of the last committee on that bill, that the preamble of the bill was not true, in consequence of some of the standing orders of that House not having been complied with. Upon receiving this report, the House was induced to appoint a special committee, to examine whether the standing orders alluded to had been infringed or not. That special committee having reported that the said orders had been sufficiently complied with, the House again appointed a committee on the bill, with power to send for persons, papers, and records. This was the history of the transaction up to that day, when on the assembling of the committee, his hon. friend, the member for the Borough, thought fit to make a proposition to send for the report of the special committee, which motion was carried by a decided majority; but. notwithstanding that, the chairman (Mr. H. Sumner) was the means of preventing the decision of the committee from being carried into effect. Under these circumstances, he (sir R. Wilson) moved an adjournment, in order that they might have the benefit of the Speaker's advice; for their exclusion from sending for the report by which they were authorised to sit, appeared to him to be a gross violation of justice, and of the orders of the House. That question was carried in the negative, and thus they saw themselves deprived of the means of ascertaining the extent of the powers with which they were invested. He

65
was aware that great disorder prevailed in the committee; but he begged to ask who were the cause and origin of it? Those undoubtedly who refused to send for the papers demanded by the committee in the first place, and then opposed a reasonable proposition to refer the question at issue to the Speaker. He was confident the House would bear out the decision of the committee, by ordering the paper in question to be referred to it. For these reasons he should move "That the report made by the committee on the standing orders, with respect to the New-ington select Vestry Bill committee, be referred to the said committee."
Mr. Sumnersaid, that in the committee that day a proceeding had been resorted to, which was one of the most extraordinary, and, in its consequences, the most important that could occur, so far as it affected the course of proceeding before a committee up stairs. To the present motion he had not the slightest objection, but in an hour he would call the attention of the House to the other part of the proceedings which had occurred in the committee.
The motion was agreed to. After which,
Mr. Humesaid, that having attended the committee, of which the hon. member who spoke last was chairman, he felt it necessary shortly to detail the circumstances which took place there. The committee was very fully attended, there being 50 members present; a question was put whether the report of a former committee should be read for the information of the members. The hon. chairman, without waiting for an opinion on either side, opposed the motion; the question being put, the committee proceeded to a division, and a majority was declared to be against the motion. A motion was then made for an adjournment, in order that time might be afforded to ascertain the sense of the House; and on the question being put, three hon. members who stood at the door having made their appearance, the chairman insisted that they should not be allowed to vote. One of the hon. members said, that they had a right to vote, because the question was improperly and irregularly put before strangers had withdrawn, and therefore the chairman had no right to profit by his own irregularity; they therefore desired that the question should be put again. This, the hon. chairman would not listen to; he insisted that he
66
was right, and that the members of the committee were wrong. This decision produced much confusion. The hon. chairman, with that suavity of temper, that mild forbearance—and perfect command over himself, for which he was so remarkable, having insisted that none of the three members should vote, another division took place on the question of adjournment—a noble lord, the member for Westmorland, and his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) were tellers; the tellers agreed on the number; but when the report of the numbers was handed by the clerk to the chairman, the hon. member threw the paper out of his hand, saying, "I will not read it;" an altercation then arose, during which his hon. friend (Mr. Bennet) very properly refused to report a second time, and the chairman persisted in conduct as little conciliating as he ever saw from any man in any situation. Language on both sides passed which was extremely intemperate; but all that occurred was occasioned by the want of temperance, and the irregular conduct of the hon. chairman. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That the conduct of H. Sumner, esq. member for Surrey, was intemperate and irregular, whilst presiding as chairman of a committee on the Newington Vestry Bill, and that such intemperate and irregular conduct had led to much riot and disorder in the said committee."
Mr. Wynnremarked upon the anomaly of calling upon the House to pass an opinion upon a subject of which they could know nothing. If the motion were entertained, the House would be occupied in hearing contradictory statements which could lead to no satisfactory conclusion.
Mr. Humedeclared his readiness to withdraw or delay his motion.
The Speakerpointed out the inconvenient shape of the motion. If the question for the consideration of the House were some abstract point as to the duties of chairman of a committee, under any supposed circumstances, there would be no difficulty in the House entertaining it. But when the question was a charge against an individual for his personal conduct in the discharge of the duties of his situation generally, he did not see how the House could make their way clearly through it. At all events, if a proposition of that nature were to be entertained, it would be necessary to have the Minutes of the committee in question.
Sir J. Mackintoshanimadverted upon the conduct of the chairman of the committee, who ought, he thought, to have furnished rather than withheld any information which might be deemed necessary for the understanding of the committee. For the chairman, without any instructions from the committee, to have given notice of a motion of a criminatory nature against any of its members, did certainly appear to him not a little extraordinary. To say the least of it, it was very unusual. It was, in point of discretion, a very ambiguous act, and seemed to show, on the part of the chairman, a remarkable, deviation from prudence. It appeared to have led to great intemperance and irregularity; and though the chairman might have been happily exempt from that impatience and irritability of temper which so unfortunately prevailed in the committee [a laugh], yet still it was imprudent of him, who should have stood impartially between all parties, to have, in the heat of the confusion, given notice of a criminatory proceeding against any of the members of the committee. There was one thing quite clear—that in the present temper of members at all sides, this business could not be investigated as calmly as it ought: he should therefore suggest to the hon. member to withdraw his notice of motion, and let the other party, whose conduct was purely defensive, do the same. The sooner the whole matter were dropped the better.
Mr. Sumnersaid, he did not use the term "criminatory" in his notice, which was merely intended to show that the orders of the House had been contravened by members in the committee. He thought the subject was of great importance, and ought to be thoroughly investigated. He was either prepared to proceed with his motion as chairman of the committee, or with his defence in reply to the hon. member opposite.
Mr. Wynnrecommended that the matter should be allowed to drop.
Mr. Denisonagreed in the recommendation.
Mr. Sumnercould not consent to flinch from the exposition of the whole transaction, after the language used by hon. gentlemen opposite.
Mr. Bennetsaid, that as he was one of the parties, he could not, if the inquiry were to be proceeded upon at all, consent to one hour's delay. He was most ready to admit, that great heats and animosities
68
had arisen in the committee. He was still ready on Monday to forget them all, and go into the committee to discuss the bill coolly and dispassionately. He assured the House that they would derive little further information as to the cause of difference by postponing the question; for, whenever it came on, the House would find 25 gentlemen on each side flatly contradicting each other, It would be quite as well that the whole matter should be now postponed sine die.
The Speakerwas of opinion, that no party would compromise his feelings by a delay that should conduce to mutual conciliation. With reference to the forms to be observed in committees, they ought to correspond in most instances with the forms of the House itself. No member was entitled to vote in either who had not heard the question put, the question was generally put whilst strangers were withdrawing; but it did not follow that because a member came in whilst strangers were withdrawing, he was on that account entitled to vote, for he might not have heard the question. As to the receiving the numbers of the division, there could be no question but that they must be received when the tellers agreed upon them. Suppose an error to be made by the clerk in setting down the numbers; suppose that he transferred the numbers from one side to another; it must appear quite obvious in that case, that the reference must be immediately made to the tellers, and the moment they had decided, the error must be rectified by the clerk. The clerk was not the teller of the committee. He hoped the House would not be displeased at the statement he had made on this subject. He did not know but that he had gone farther than he ought to have done; but he had proceeded from a conviction on his own mind, and he believed on the mind of the House generally, that the most perfect confidence was, in the outset, placed in the judgment of those to whom the proceedings of committees were intrusted; that in the second place, if they had misjudged, the House would lend its assistance to rectify the error, without casting an insinuation on any party; and, thirdly, that if any of the points to which he had adverted had operated, either in part or entirely, to produce this disappointment in the committee, the House would perceive, if they concurred with him in any of those points, the necessity of having a

69
fair and temperate decision. They would concur with him in the propriety of arriving at a temperate judgment on the abstract points, without any personal leaning on one side or the other.
Here the matter dropped.

METROPOLIS ROADS BILL.
Mr. D. Gilbert,in rising to move the second reading of the Metropolis Roads bill, went into a history of the modes of defraying the expence of the maintenance of roads, which had prevailed in this and other countries. He approved of the system of supporting the roads by tolls on them, as well as of the management by trusts, but the vice into which this system fell, was the minute sub-division, by which economy in procuring the materials, and the employment of scientific aid was rendered impracticable. He urged the benefits which would arise from the present bill, which would remedy these inconveniences, while it retained the advantages of the toll and trust system.
Sir E. Knatchbullspoke against the measure, which he conceived quite unnecessary, from the improved state of the roads m the vicinity of the metropolis. He therefore moved, that the bill should be read a second time on that day six months.
Mr. Denisonseconded the amendment, deprecating any attempt to cast a reflection upon those at present invested with the several trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, by whom the roads were kept in the best possible state.
Mr. Curwenregarded the bill as one of the most extraordinary measures that had ever come before the House. He was of opinion that the hon. gentleman who brought it forward had been imposed upon by false information with respect to the trusts of the several roads.
Mr. F. Lewishoped the bill would not be disposed of, in the summary manner recommended by the amendment. The magnitude of the sums collected by the several courts made it imperative upon the House to take the business into their own hands.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, he could not help stating that the trustees considered this measure as a bill of indictment against them. Out of between fifty and sixty trusts, the holders of at least thirty had petitioned against it. He could see no reason whatever for extending the provi-
70
sions of the bill to those larger trusts, of the execution of which no complaint had' been heard, and against which there was no charge of corruption or improper conduct,
Sir H. Parnellthought the bill was rendered necessary, both by an excess of expenditure, and a total want of science evinced in the execution of the present trusts. The roads might be kept in excellent condition for one half of the tolls now collected.
Mr. Sumnerwas of opinion that after the committee had sat two years, and had at length brought forward a mature plan, it would be extremely ungracious to shut the door upon it at once. Although he did not approve of it, yet he should vote for the second reading, with a view of subsequently moving for its being referred to a committee up stairs.
The House divided: Ayes 83. Noes 16. The bill was then read a second time.

MOTION RESPECTING COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving moved the order of the day, for going into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Creeveyrose to oppose the motion. The course which he was about to take might not, be said, be very agreeable to the right hon. gentleman opposite or to the House, but he felt it necessary, in the discharge of his public duty, to oppose the motion for going into a committee of Supply. Instead of going on, he thought it was the duty of the House to retrace its steps. There had been supplies enough voted; and what good had been hitherto effected? Notwithstanding all the petitions from all parts of the kingdom, complaining of the greatest distresses, and praying for the strictest economical reform, the House had still gone on voting away millions of money, and all the labours of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hume) had not produced the diminution of one single farthing in the public expenditure. Under these circumstances, nothing could induce him, as far as his vote or influence in that House went, to go again into a committee of supply. The members of that House had been called the trustees of the people, but they differed from all other trustees, for they themselves lived upon the profits of the estate. When the affairs of a private gentleman were deranged,

71
the first thing his trustees did was, to cut off all needless expenses, and to discharge all the useless dependents and hangers-on. But here the trustees of the people were themselves the useless servants and hangers on. He had often thought that as the people of England found it was of no use to petition that House, it would be a good thing, and certainly an entertaining one, to see them represented by delegates at the bar of the House. What would be the natural language of delegates so sent to assert the rights of the people? They would say, "We are come here to talk to you, and we are bold to say, that we entertain a shrewd suspicion that you make a very good thing of us. We are aware that there are snug places to the amount of 150,000 l. a year, which you enjoy, and which you will never consent to forego to relieve the distresses of the people. This may be a very pleasant arrangement for you, but it is no laughing matter for us." Such was the language which the delegates of the people would naturally use. Supposing the people to be so represented, he should like to have seen their delegates in the House during the last ten days. When his hon. friend the member for Essex obtained leave, about a fortnight ago, to bring in a bill for the repeal of the malt-tax, this was considered a great triumph—it was hailed as the beginning of better times. But he should never forget, and the people of England would never forget, the language of the noble lord who was manager of the trustees. "Do not triumph too soon," said the noble manager, "do not halloo before you are out of the wood." The noble lord, however, had made good his threat, he had brought up the trustees of the people from all parts of the country, and his hon. friend's majority of 25 was converted into a majority of 98 against him. This fact spoke volumes; but it was not all; a noble lord, a great northern grandee, the thane of Cawdor, had fallen a victim to his honest vote; he had lost 800 l. a year by it. This was a direct attack upon the privileges of parliament, What had become of the hon. member for Yorkshire (Mr. S. Wortley)? Where was that redoubted champion of privilege the member for Montgomery (Mr. Wynn)? The printer of some poor paragraph against the House would instantly have been laid by the heels by them for a breach of privilege; but let the Crown make the grossest attack on the rights of parliament; and they were dumb and sub-
72
missive. Was not this enough to make a man sick of the word privilege and much more sick of its champions? In the reign of Elizabeth, sir John Fortescue, on an occasion somewhat of this kind, replied to an objection to supply—"All is the queen's by right:" and it might be now asserted that "all is the king's by force:" yet there was much more decency in parliament even in the reign of Elizabeth than now [Cheers from the ministerial benches.] That was rather an interested shout: it was very easy to know from whom it came. It was an historical fact, however, that sir John was treated very roughly for his assertion; the house coughed loudly, and finally smothered his voice in an indignant and continued hoot. Yet, then, it possessed such men as sir Walter Raleigh and sir F. Bacon, and then no man had ventured to tell the people "not to halloo before they were out of the wood." He had drawn up a resolution on the subject expressive of his sentiments, and which he submitted for adoption, though without much hopes of success. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the following Resolution, by way of amendment:
"That during the present session of parliament, petitions have been presented to this House from every part of this kingdom, and from every description of its population, containing statements of distress hitherto unheard of in this nation, and uniformly demanding, as one species of relief to their sufferings, the strictest possible economy in the expenditure of the public money; that the statements so made, have, in every instance, been fully confirmed by the local information of the different members of this House, who have presented such petitions; and yet, notwithstanding such universal applications for relief, the different Estimates for the public service for the year have hitherto been proceeded in, and millions of money voted for such purposes, without any the least possible reduction whatever by this House, although repeated efforts have been made to effect the same:—That this House entertains the strongest possible opinion, that this marked indifference of the representative body to the sufferings of its constituents, is mainly attributable to the following fact, viz. That a very numerous body of the members of this House derive for themselves, their families, connexions, and dependents, large pecuniary provisions from the taxes

73
of the people; and as such provisions for the most part are made either for offices altogether useless or grossly overpaid, and therefore the fittest objects for immediate extinction or reduction, so the holders or disposers of them in this House have a direct personal interest in resisting every species of economical reform whatsoever:—That, in addition to this great permanent bar to all economical reform, the House has lately witnessed, with the greatest indignation, the influence of the Crown displayed by its ministers in this House in a manner the most arbitrary, and with the express and avowed object of interfering with its members in the discharge of their duty to their constituents; the earl of Fife, who lately held the office of one of the lords of the bedchamber to his majesty, having recently declared in his place in this House, as one of its members, that he had been dismissed from his office as lord of the bedchamber to his majesty, in consequence of having voted in this House in favour of a bill to repeal a tax upon malt:
"That, under all these circumstances, this House is of opinion it will better consult its own honour and the interest of the public, by immediately inquiring into the facts before mentioned, than in going any longer into Committees of Supply to vote away the money of the people without the slightest possible prospect of relief to the country."
Mr. Hobhousserose to second the motion. Nothing could be more constitutional than the course pursued by his hon. friend. It was not necessary to go back for precedents so far as the reign of queen Elizabeth; for, in the early part of the reign of Charles 1st, before the struggles between that monarch and the parliament, sir T. Wentworth, afterwards lord Strafford, moved a resolution in that House, that supply and grievances should go hand in hand. The individual who adopted this sentiment was a man of the first rank and talent in the country, and not liable to the imputation of being a heated enthusiast. In the parliament, called the Pension Parliament, the attention of the House was called to what was then considered an extraordinary fact, that 2,400,000 l. were voted in 24 hours; but that House was grown familiar with instances in which much larger sums were voted away in 24 hours. He did not state this from any wish to exaggerate the grievances of which the people had reason
74
to complain, and he begged to call the attention of the House to a declaration of lord Grenville in the other House of Parliament in 1816, "that if parliament continued to support the keeping up of a large standing army, and to lavish the public money as they did, he would not trouble himself to take a part in debates which he could regard as nothing less than a farce." In the time of the Pension Parliament 24 members were posted as individuals who received pensions from the Crown. Now he, on a recent division, had himself counted no fewer than 47 pensioners in a very small majority. Such was the difference in this respect between the present parliament and the notorious Pension Parliament, the measures of which were denounced by Andrew Marvel as calculated to leave neither liberty nor property in the country. As to the dismissal of lord Fife from his office of lord of the bed-chamber, in consequence of the vote which he gave in that House, it was a measure taken in direct opposition to the spirit of the constitution, and in violation of the Bill of Rights, which declared, that freedom of speech in debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned. If the speech of a member of that House could not be questioned, still less ought his vote to be made the subject of animadversion; and if the ministers of the Crown could not get up in their places, and deny the charge, he had no hesitation in saying, that they were liable to impeachment for their conduct.—The hon. member then proceeded to observe upon the operation which the influence of the Crown had1 in that House, which had been growing-up for many reigns, and threatened to overlay all public spirit, and utterly destroy the efficiency of parliament as the organ of the national will. On this subject, he quoted a passage from a famous pamphlet on Hush money,* published in the reign of William 3rd, which complained of the manner in which the House was officered, the effect produced upon its suffrages by emolument and expectancy, the deceptions practised upon honest, mistaken country gentlemen, and other consequences of influence which enabled the king to baffle any bill, quash any complaint of grievance, and carry any measure that the administration might think expe-
*See this pamphlet in the New Parliamentary History, Vol. 5, Appendix, No. IX.

75
dient. It stated, that 200,000 l. had been employed for these purposes, to influence the votes of members by gratuities to themselves and relatives. But what was the case now? Why 150,000 l. a year was devoted to the same purpose, and raised upon the people to be divided among those who were to vote against the people's interests; it was impossible that such distribution of the public money should not have a bias on the minds of those who enjoyed it. He hoped the House would consider seriously of the resolutions before them: he was certain that his hon. friend had not proposed them as any impediment to the public business, but strictly to remind the House of what were its duties, and what the people expected from them.
Mr. Calcraftalluded to the statement made in the House by the earl of Fife, with respect to his removal from office. He contended, that the noble earl stated the ground of his dismissal was, the vote which he gave for the repeal of the malt tax. He understood it to be so; and was sorry the words had not been taken down. He agreed with most parts of the resolution of his hon. friend. It could not be doubted that in the present session, the petitions of the people had been totally disregarded. It was equally true that nothing like economy had been attended to in the estimates. It could not be denied either, that establishments were kept up much larger than circumstances could justify. He likewise agreed, that the influence of the Crown in that House was too mighty and too powerful, to allow any real effect to the representation of the people. But he could not agree with that part of the proposition which went in a sweeping way to deprecate the representation of the executive offices of government in that House. He was of opinion that those offices ought to be represented there, and he did not think the public officers too highly paid. However, although he could not agree with that part of the proposition, he could not withhold his assent to the proposition in general.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he did not consider that he should perform his duty, if he suffered himself to be led into a debate by the motion of the hon. member which seemed to bring back almost all the subjects which had already occupied the attention of the House this session. This species of opposition seemed to be a duty imposed upon that hon. member, and it
76
was the more singular coming from him, as he believed, during the discussion of all the estimates hitherto, the hon. member had never pointed out any one item as too large, or proposed any specific reduction. His business, on the other side, seemed to be confined to that of protestor-general against the measures of government, and libeller-general of parliament. The hon. member had got up this prologue to the committee of supply in such a manner, and had attempted to support it by such comical arguments, that he (lord C.) had determined not to offer a word on the subject. He had not made this determination from any personal feeling to the hon. member. The hon. member had held a situation in the Board of Control, and no doubt had there discharged the duties of his office faithfully; but it was a little worthy of remark, that while the hon. member held that situation, he had never considered it his duty to complain of the influence of the Crown in that House. Not a word on the subject was heard from him during that time; but ever since he had been out of office, he had taken up his present plan and new occupation—in the exercise of which he wished he might long continue. He had come now, for the third time, with his plan against going into the committee of supply. After long preparation he had brought out his prologue to the committee, with little variation from his former ones; but it would not induce him (lord C.) to appear on the stage; nor would he have offered a word on the subject, but for a charge which seemed to be made against himself in the speech of another hon. member, as if he had done something against the privileges of that House. He, however, would not admit, that he was bound to offer any explanation on the subject alluded to. It was, he maintained, the prerogative of the Crown to dismiss its servants at pleasure; and he, as a minister of the Crown in that House, could no more be called upon to explain such dismissal, than he could be to account for the appointment of an individual to office by the Crown. He thought that such a charge as this came with a bad grace from hon. members on the other side of the House. They should be the last to make any such charge, in which must be inculpated some of their most distinguished friends, of whose services the country bad been deprived at a time of great public danger, because they

77
would not accept office unless they got with it the appointment of the officers of his majesty's household, alleging, as they did, that the want of such patronage would go to show that they had not the full confidence of the sovereign. He did not mean to blame them for that determination, as he considered such appointments to be the legitimate patronage of ministerial office; but he thought that such being the doctrine of that school of which the hon. member (Mr. Calcraft) was so able a disciple, any argument against the principle came with a bad grace from him. He must then, protest against being called upon to explain any dismissal from office, when such was merely the exercise of the undisputed prerogative of the Crown. The hon. member would not say that ministers were bound to advise the continuance in office under the government of parties who pulled different ways. £Hear.] He would not pretend to support the doctrine, that an administration could be effective where this principle was admitted. The noble lord (Fife) himself had spoken in the House of his dismissal, and had given reasons for it; but he had only put those reasons hypothetically, and had not directly asserted that it was for his vote. Now, though he did not admit that the dismissal of the noble lord had taken place in consequence of any vote of his in that House, yet he would never admit that ministers had not a right to expect that all who held particular situations under the Crown should be agreed with them in general principles. He did not mean to say that the question of the malt tax was in itself one of paramount importance; but it formed a part of those measures upon which ministers had staked their official existence; as they had declared that they could not continue to administer the government of the country, if such measures were carried as would oblige them to break faith with the public creditor; and any man who voted for the abolition of such a tax was in fact voting for the dismissal of ministers. Taking every view of the circumstance, he could not see that he was called upon to offer any explanation on the subject.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, lie had not complained of the removal of lord Fife, but of the cause assigned for the noble earl's having been removed.
Mr. Tierneysaid, he was never more surprised than when he heard the pre-
78
sent resolution submitted to the House. He thought when he came down to the House that night, that they were going at once into the consideration of the estimates. He had thought so, because the industry of an hon. friend of his had brought such details before the House, that it would be enabled to go into those estimates with greater facility than it had ever done before. Instead of which he found a motion embracing a variety of topics, upon which he was called upon to vote without the least consideration. He might not possibly object to the contents of that resolution in detail; but to be called upon to vote for it altogether, under such circumstances, was more than he deemed consistent with his duty. He would agree with his hon. friend, that petitions had been presented to the House from all parts of the country, complaining of distress, and praying for relief, and that these petitions had not met with the success to which they were entitled. He admitted that there had not been that economy in any branch of our expenditure which the people and the situation of the country had called for. So far he would agree with the resolution of his hon. friend. He would support any reasonable proposition, as far as he could: and indeed he had laid himself open to the charge of giving his support to some matters, which in the opinion of many were not reasonable. He thought that strict economy ought to be attended to; for he was convinced that no set of ministers would deserve the confidence of the country, who did not seriously set about the work of economy and retrenchment, But along with these subjects came that of lord Fife. Now, how could he make up his mind upon this subject; He was not in the House when that noble lord made the statement alluded to. He found no mention of it on the votes, as the words were not taken down. He had nothing before him but unsupported assertion on one side met by assertion on the other. How then could he vote on such a question? If the noble lord bad complained to the House of a breach of privilege in having been deprived of his office in consequence of his vote upon a particular question then there would be a ground for discussion. But it was said that the noble lord opposite had given no explanation on the subject. Really, be did not know how government could be called upon at present to give any expla-

79
nation. If it were clearly made out that the dismissal had been in consequence of his vote, there would be ground not only for complaint, but impeachment; but no such charge was here made. The noble lord opposite had, in the course of his speech, alluded to some of his (Mr. T's.) friends who had refused to take office unless they got also the appointment of the offices in his majesty's household. If the noble lord meant this as an explanation or justification of any thing which had recently occurred, he was entirely mistaken. The two cases were as different as light and darkness. It was true that the individuals alluded to, had refused to take office on the ground mentioned, and for this reason that, if they had not such appointments, there would be two jarring interests in that House—one of the Crown, and the other of the members of government—giving rise to an inconvenience which the noble lord himself must admit. If the noble lord could show that those individuals had refused to take office unless they were allowed to dismiss all those in office who should vote against them, the case would be quite different; but no such thing was contended, or could be shown; and therefore there was no analogy in the case whatsoever. The noble lord had alluded to his hon. friend not having the same view of the power and influence of the Crown when he himself held office; but surely the noble lord would not contend, that because a member once held office, he was never after to open his mouth in favour of any reduction of expense, when the country was in circumstances which called for such reduction? He hoped his hon. friend would withdraw his resolution, and bring on the subjects to which it referred in detail; as they now stood, he could not give them his support.
Mr. Bennetcontended, that the mode adopted by his hon. friend was consistent with the sound constitutional practice of our ancestors, who spoke of grievances before they consented to any vote of supply. Could any man deny that it was the corrupt influence of the Crown which contributed to the majorities in that House? The reason was, that so many in that House held offices under the Crown. He did not allude to the way in which the members of that House were returned; that was another question; but to the way in which they were paid. That it was which occasioned the great grievances
80
which were felt. But for the way that members were paid, such estimates as had been submitted to that House would never have been passed. With respect to the manner of dismissing lord Fife, the noble lord opposite admitted and justified it. The earl of Fife had stated, that he had been turned out of office for the vote he had given, and that he had it from the highest authority that his dismissal had been a punishment to himself and an example to others. Now, what offence had the noble earl committed? The people of Scotland had suffered in the severest manner from the operation of the tax on malt; and the noble earl, from an honourable feeling of humanity and moral sympathy, had felt it his duty to lend his aid to remove such a pernicious law. He hoped his hon. friend would press his motion to a division. He was anxious to have his vote given in support of it.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid, that what he understood with respect to the statement made by lord Fife was, not that the giving of his vote against the Malt-tax was the ground of that dismissal, but merely that his impression was so; he therefore could not agree to a resolution, one part of which he conceived not to be consistent with the fact. Without meaning any disrespect to lord Fife's successor, he should like to ask what degree of credit and character would attach to that successor's votes in that House? Would it not be considered by the country, that he held his office by the tenure of supporting all the measures which his majesty's government might choose to recommend? The noble lord urged the House to have recourse, in the present embarrassed state of the country, to every possible reduction in the public expenditure, and more especially in the military part of it. On this subject, the country was extremely indebted to the hon. member for Aberdeen, who, notwithstanding the taunts of the noble lord opposite, had proved himself to be a most industrious, diligent, and valuable member.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that in the resolution he had merely stated the fact, that lord Fife had declared in his place, that he was dismissed from his office for the vote he had given.
The question being put, "That the word proposed to be left out stand part of the question;" the House divided: Ayes, 120. Noes, 36. Majority against Mr. Creevey's motion; 84.

List of the Minority.

Bárrett, S. B. M.

Milton, lord

Bennet, hon. H. G.

Monck, T. B.

Benyon, B.

Nugent, lord

Bernal, R.

Palmer, C. F.

Bury, lord

Parnell, sir H.

Calcraft, J.

Philips, G. jun.

Chaloner, R.

Ricardo, D.

Crompton, J.

Rickford, W.

Davies, col.

Robinson, sir G.

Denison, W. J.

Sefton, lord

Fergusson, sir R. C.

Smith, J.

Graham, S.

Stuart, lord J.

Harbord, hon. E.

Western, C. C.

Heron, sir R.

Whitbread, S. C.

Honywood, W.

Wilson, sir R.

Hume, J.

Wyvill, M.

James, W.

TELLERS.

Johnson, col.

Creevey, T.

Lushington, Dr.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Martin, T.

The question being then put, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"
Mr. Humeexpressed his regret at the division that had taken place among the gentlemen near him, on the late question. He regretted to see hon. gentlemen, who agreed on a main fact, differ on the words in which that fact was described. It was difficult to couch a motion in terms palatable to two hundred hon. gentlemen: many of whom were, perhaps, anxious to find out a justification for not voting for it. Notwithstanding all that had passed, however, he was about to submit to the House a motion from which he challenged any hon. member to withhold his consent, who regarded his own character, and the interest of the country. Adverting to the civil department of the array, he intreated the House to look at the increase that had taken place in that department. In 1792, the expense of the civil department of the army was 44,900 l. at present it was 133,000 l. being an increase of 88,000 l. When it was considered that this increase took place in the seventh year of peace, and when the distress which the country was suffering was taken into the account, this feet was monstrous. Until the House pledged itself to revise the establishments of the state, and to adopt a principle of economy, wherever that principle could be adopted, he would make motions from day to day to compel it to that issue. For the present occasion he had selected from the Sixth Finance Report, a recommendation, which he meant to move should be referred to the committee. That Report he begged leave to observe,
82
although drawn up either by the chancellor of the exchequer, or with his concurrence, and although recommending various important considerations connected with the army, the navy, and the ordnance, had remained on the table o£ the House for four years, a dead letter. His motion would be,
"That it be an instruction to the committee to take into consideration the recommendation of the Committee of Finance to this House, in their Sixth Report, contained in the following terms:—'What your committee therefore earnestly recommend is this, that the lords of the treasury should call for a return of the present establishments of all the civil offices in the state, the salaries of which have been increased within the last fifteen years; and, with a reference to the circumstances now stated, and such other considerations as the altered situation of the country and the peculiar nature of each establishment may suggest, that they should 'make a revision of the same, and direct such prospective reductions therein as may appear to them reasonable, without impairing the efficiency of the service:—Your committee trust, that the observations which they have submitted to the House, in this and their former reports, are sufficient to show the expediency of this revision: it is not their intention to pursue the subject further at present, except to remark, that the system adopted of late years in some, and now extended to most of the public offices, of a progressive increase of salary by reason of length of services, if not in all cases objectionable in principle, is at least liable to great abuse in practice:—The several scales which have hitherto come under the view of your Committee vary so much, both as to the length and periods of service which shall confer the first and each successive addition of salary, and the proportions which such additions bear to the original salary, that your committee feel convinced the whole arrangement has grown to its present extent without any well-matured plan, or sufficient consideration of the consequences. One proof of this they have already had occasion to advert to in their report on the Ordnance department, in which this practice has been carried to the greatest length, and applied to classes (such as messengers, barrack masters, and others) not entitled to the benefit of it in any

83
other department. As a general measure, it appears liable to the great objection, under the present circumstances of the country, of having placed beyond the control of government, at least without an interference not wholly consistent perhaps with the equitable claims of the parties, the continual increase of official remuneration, when those circumstances would require that all such increase should cease:—Your committee would therefore recommend, first, that the system of gratuity, or progressive increase of salary for length of service, should be suspended altogether, with the exception which they have already stated; and perhaps, also, with the further exception, prospectively, of an addition, not exceeding 20 per cent on the original salary, being allowed to any established clerk in the junior or lowest class of any office, who might have served seven years to the satisfaction of his superior officer, without having, during that period, obtained any step of promotion."
Lord A. Hamiltonseconded the motion. Though he might have wished the instruction to the committee to have been put in a more condensed shape, his hon. friend had perhaps done right in not condensing it, considering the very high quarter from which the recommendation to economy and reduction came.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the strictest attention had been paid by government to the reports of the finance committee. Reductions to a considerable extent had been made in every branch of the public expenditure, and further and more important reductions were in contemplation. The right hon. gentleman pointed out the great hardship which would arise to individuals, as well as the injury which the public service would sustain, from an ill digested and sweeping reduction. He could assure the House, that his majesty's government were most anxious to carry the recommendation of the committee into effect, as far as was consistent with the public interests. The House must at the same time see, that the clerks employed in the higher offices of government, being men of talent and education, were entitled to a more liberal allowance than common clerks. Much evil would arise if persons of a different description were employed in those confidential offices. An unfaithful or negligent clerk might, either from carelessness or from mal-practices, cause
84
more mischief than any reduction to be made in those offices could compensate for.
Sir J. Newport,adverting to the office of barrack-master-general for Ireland, observed, that it appeared from a report of the committee of 1810 or 1811, that there was a considerable deficiency in the accounts of lord Tyrawly.
Mr. D. Brownedefended the character of lord Tyrawly. The noble lord had fully cleared himself from the charge which had been made against him.
Sir J. Newportmeant to cast no imputation upon the character of lord Tyrawly: he had only stated a fact which appeared from the report of the committee.
Mr. W. Polesaid, that the circumstance alluded to respecting lord Tyrawly occurred while he (Mr. Pole) was in office in Ireland. It was found, that not that noble lord, but some persons under him were unwilling to send in their accounts. He was, however, happy to state, that lord Tyrawly had, since that period, made up his accounts much to his honour, and that there was a balance in his favour.
Mr. Elliceexpresed a hope that some measure would be introduced to amend the Superannuation bill. The provisions of that bill were an enormous charge to the country. Every one must be struck with the enormous disproportion between the allowance of 2,000 l. a year as a retirement to a barrack-master-general, and the salary of only 2,500 l. which the chancellor of the exchequer received for discharging the arduous duties of his office.
Mr. Huskissonsuggested, that instead of the present long resolution, it would be better to refer the whole report to the consideration of the committee. Having been a member of the committee which made that report, he cordially concurred in the recommendation which it contained, and thought it the duty of the Treasury to carry it into effect as speedily as possible. He also agreed with those who thought that the 50th of the late king, which regulated the amount of allowances for compensation and superannuation, required some alteration in the present situation of the country.
Mr. Humewithdrew his amendment, and the sixth report of the commissioners of naval inquiry, presented to the House on the 2nd of May 1804, was referred to the committee.

ARMY ESTIMATES.
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Lord Palmerston Lord Palmerston moved, "That 50,418 l. 16 s. 8d. be granted for the charges and allowances of the office of Secretary at War for the present year."
Colonel Daviesobserved, that during the war, when the duties of this office were ten times greater than at present, the expense was only one half of what it now cost the country. In 1806 the expense of the War office was only 25,000 l., and now, in 1821, it was 50,000 l. It was true that since 1806, a new office for arrears of accounts had been created with the principle of which he did not quarrel: the expense of this office was 12,655 l., which, added to the charge of 1806, made a total of 37,655 l. There then remained a difference of 13,000 l., for which he was at a loss to account. He could not see the propriety of raising the salaries of all the clerks to their present amount; and while a general officer had only 400 l. a year, it was difficult to conceive why one of those clerks should receive 1,400 l. The savings effected by the examination of accounts in arrear would never, he thought, cover the expense to which that examination put the country. It was said that 104,000 l. had been recovered by the different agents and paymasters, whose accounts came before the commissioners of; arrear; what part of that sum had been actually received by the country, he did not know; but, taking the whole to be received, the money was recovered at the rate of 33 per cent. The whole cost of the War office in 1806 was 37,355 l., and to confine the expenditure of the present year to that sum would scarcely be thought unreasonable; he, however, was disposed to be satisfied with a smaller reduction, and should therefore move as an amendment, a vote of 45,000 l. instead of 50,418 l.
Lord Palmerstonwould be content to take for the present year the War-office estimate of 1806; the charge of 1806 being, not 37,355 l. but 50,832 l. It should be remembered, however, that in 1806 the constitution of the War-office was adapted only to the transacting of the current business; and that£it was net until 1809 that the department for the settlement of arrear accounts, the charge of which for the present year was 17,000 l., was established by the Treasury. In comparing the expense of the present year
86
with that of 1806, therefore, he had a right to say—take the expense of that part of the War-office which is employed at the present day in the manner in which the whole of the office was employed in 1806; and as the cost of the establishments for current business amounted for the present year only to 34,000 l., it would appear that, as compared with 1806, a considerable reduction of charge had been effected. The gallant member complained of plurality of offices; but the gentleman who filled the office of private secretary, if he did receive a salary independent of that situation, performed duties not connected with it—duties arising out of the applications to the compassionate list. The hon. member expressed doubts as to the actual recovery of the 104,000 l., by the exertions of the office for accounts in arrear; but he would tell him, that 14,000 l. had been actually recovered and paid into the Bank, and that the remainder of the saving consisted in the stoppage of sums which would otherwise have been paid by government. For the last two years, indeed, the War-office might be said to have cost the public nothing; for its whole expense had been more than covered by the savings effected from the examination of the accounts in arrear.
Mr. Humeinsisted, that the noble lord had increased at every point the expense of his department, and was prepared to prove, that if 20,000 l. a year more were voted to that department, the noble lord would find employment for every shilling of it. In 1814, when this country had 236,000 men in arms, the establishment of the War-office, and superannuation list, cost 62,136 l.; and it had gone on increasing, until the cost of 1821 was laid at 64,690 l. The hon. member complained of the management of the arrear accounts, and characterised the raking up of accounts which had lain dormant for twenty, and some for thirty years, as useless, nay, mischievous to the public interest, and cruelly oppressive to the parties concerned: the expense of the examination of those accounts was a flinging of good money after bad. He had no complaint to offer against the conduct of the office of the noble lord. The business was done with great accuracy: all he urged was, that there was three times as much apparatus as was necessary; that it was like a ten-horse power applied to draw a cork. By attention and economy

87
the expense of that office might be reduced nearly one-half; but as half a loaf was better than no bread, he should support the amendment.
Sir H. Parnellcomplained of the amount of the superannuation list, and also of the expenses of the pay master's establishment. He complained of the number of offices connected with the military accounts, which were, he thought, by far too expensive. He particularly referred to the establishment of commissioners of military accounts in Ireland. In the whole military system there seemed a determination to resist all recommendations which had economy for their object. Why were not the allowances consolidated according to the recommendation in the 4th report of the commissioners? If done, it would not only simplify the process of keeping the accounts, but also considerably diminish the expenses.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the Irish board of commissioners were appointed by act of parliament. He thought a consolidation of the accounts alluded to would be very inexpedient.
Mr. Bennetremarked upon the increase of the compensations latterly. These compensations in 1807, were only 6,771 l., whereas now, they amounted to 13,000 l. When the noble lord said he was not the accomptant, he wished to know how he reconciled this with the fact of some 8,000 l. or so passing through his office for the management of the yeomanry, volunteers, and militia. There used formerly to be an office expressly for the purpose of managing these parts of the service, but at present he understood there was a partnership account, in which this was the noble lord's share.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that no part of the money passed through his hands. There was a part of his office which merely examined the accounts of these corps, and the warrants were issued from his office for their payments on the paymaster-general.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that at least one half of the amount of the charge for agency, 30,000 l. might be saved to the country.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that if the House should deprive the army of their agents, it would be a deprivation of a, great part of their comforts.
Mr. Wilsonexpressed his determination to vote for a saving of 5,000 l., which he conceived could be effected under the item of agency.
Lord Palmerstonsaid, that the present vote had nothing to do with the agency department.
Mr. Creeveywas of opinion that the committee were bound to go more into detail. He saw by the estimates that the deputy secretary of war had a salary of 2,500 l. The salary of the first clerk, 1,400 l. The principal clerk 1,200 l. He had a great curiosity to see a clerk with a salary of 1,400 l. a year. He would wish to know at what hours these clerks attended at their offices, and whether they went there in curricles or in tilburies. The most distinguished and successful men in the army had not more than 2,000 l. a year. Generals had about 700 l., a year, major-generals 500 l. whilst clerks had some 1,400 l., and some 1,200 l. a year. He did not know whether he could just at that time have these clerks brought before the House, but have them they must. He was convinced the business could be done as well for 700 l. a year as for 1,400 l.
After some further conversation, the committee divided: For the amendment 67. Against it 106.

List of the Minority.

Althorp, visc.

Johnson, col.

Barratt, S. M.

Lambton, J. G.

Bastard, E. P.

Lushington, S.

Belgrave, visc.

Macdonald, James

Benyon, B.

Maberly, John

Bernal, R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Boughey, sir J. F.

Monck, J. B.

Bury, visc.

Newport, sir J.

Calcraft, John

Nugent, lord

Calthorpe, hon. F. G.

O'Grady, Standish

Calvert, C.

Parnell, sir H.

Cavendish, Henry

Palmer, C. F.

Chaloner, R.

Philips, G.

Chetwynd, G.

Powlett, hon. W.

Colborne, N. R.

Price, Rd.

Creevey, Thos.

Ramsden, J. C.

Crompton, S.

Rice, T. S.

Davies, T. H.

Ricardo, David

Denison, W. J.

Rickford, W.

Duncannon, visc.

Robarts, A. W.

Dundas, hon. T.

Robarts, G.

Evans, W.

Robinson, sir G.

Farqhuarson, A.

Sebright, sir John

Fergusson, sir R.

Smith, John

Gipps, G.

Smith, W.

Glenorchy, visc.

Tierney, rt. hon. G:

Gordon, Robert

Townshend, lord C.

Graham, Sandford

Whitbread, S. C.

Haldimand, W.

Wells, John

Heron, sir R.

Wilson, sir Robert

Heygate, alderman

Wilson, Thomas

Hobhouse, J. C.

Wood, alderman

Honywood, W. P.

Wyvill, M.

Hume, J.

TELLER.

James, W.

Bennet, hon. H. G.