Imágenes de página
PDF
ePub

573]

Committee of Ways and Means,

of trust. It was very natural, as such places were to be filled up, that ministers should attend to th. recommendations of those in whom they placed confidence. For his own part, he could say that his support to the present ministers arose from his conviction, that the system by which they had guided the counsels of his majesty was the best and safest for

the country.

[ocr errors]

Mr. Western objected to the resolution, as he was determined not to vote away any more of the public money until the agricultural distress had been fully taken into consideration. He wished to ask, whether the proposed grant was for the old annual malt tax, or whether a revival of the new tax.

it was

the latter he should oppose it.

If

Mr. Huskisson replied, that it was the same old tax of 1s. per bushel, which always accompanied the land tax.

Mr. Creevey said, he should not divide the House upon the malt tax, but upon the resolution which proposed to continue some excise duties.

Sir W. De Crespigny said, that a most iniquitous system of regulating and collecting the taxes prevailed. He should, in a short time, submit a motion to the House, on the subject. He would prove, that there were gross defalcations, and that many of the defaulters were still in the employment of government. Without a complete change of the system, it would be impossible to make the reve nue equal to the expenditure.

Sir F. Blake wished to make a few observations on the subject of the committee of supply, of which he had been a member. It had been stated to have been a farce, upon no better grounds than that few members had been in attendance. The fact he admitted, and lamented as much as the honourable member for Appleby (Mr. Creevey) him self, but it did not follow that public duty was therefore neglected, or mis managed. There had remained members of as great integrity and independence, as any members of that House. If the proceedings of the committee had, therefore, been a farce, they had been made so by the hon. member himself (Mr. Creevey), who had divided the committee five times without any prospect of success.

The resolution was agreed to. On the resolution for the renewal of the sugar duties being put, the House divided: Ayes, 81; Ñoes, 48.

List of the Minority.

Allen, J. H.
Althorp, viscount
Barham, J. F. jun.
Barrett, S. M.
Bernal, Ralph
Bright, Henry
Caulfield, hon. H.
Chaloner, Robert
Crespigny, sir W. de
Davies, T. H.
Denison, William
Duncannon, viscount
Dundas, Hon. T.
Ebrington, viscount
Ellice, Edward
Farrand, Robert
Fergusson, sir R. Č.
Fitzgerald, Hon. M.
Glenorchy, viscount
Gordon, Robert
Guise, sir Wm..
Haldimand, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Harbord, hon. E.
Hobhouse, J. C.

Honywood, W. P.
Hume, Joseph

Jervoise, G. P.

Lloyd, J. M.

Lockhart, J. J.
Martin, John
Maxwell, John
Monck, T. B.
Moore, Peter
Newman, R. W.
Nugent, lord
Palmer, C. F.
Parnell, sir Henry
Ramsden, J. C.
Ricardo, David
Rice, T. S.
Robarts, George
Smith, hon. R.
Sykes, Daniel
Western, C, C.
Whitbread, Sam. C.
Wood, alderman
Wyvill, M.

TELLER.

Creevey T.

BOARD OF CONTROL.] Mr. Hume rose to submit to the House the motion of which he had given notice, and of which the object was, to ascertain whether the president of the board of Control, had He had no doubt, from vacated his seat. the examination which he had made, that, if the appointment of the right hon. gen tleman corresponded with the time of taking his seat, he was free from the penalty. But that could not be known to the House without the warrant of the right hon. gentleman's appointment. When any motion for reform was made from his side of the House, there was an outcry by the other side against innovation. Yet, by the other side of the House, were the most dangerous innovations made on the constitution. Not one of the four right hon. gentlemen, whom he saw opposite, could hold a seat in that House by the act of queen Anne, or could vote away public money, as they had done in the division which had just taken place. The great objection to Mr. Fox's bill had been, that it gave patronage to the Crown, and occasioned expenses to the India company. When the board of Control was originally constituted, Mr. Pitt gave a distinct pledge to the country, that the commissioners should perform the duties without pay or salary, and that they should have no patronage from the East India company. From the year 1784 to 1793, the commissioners had no salaries, and conse

quently they did not vacate their seats in parliament; but the 33rd of the late king, which gave an allowance of 5,000l. a year to the commissioners, contained a clause that those officers who should receive a salary should vacate their seats in parliament. Accordingly, from 1793 down to the present time, every president of the board of Control had vacated his seat as a matter of course. If, as the right hon. gentleman opposite had stated, he received no salary, he still came within the spirit of the act, for there were large emoluments attached to the office in the way of patronage. There were 500 regular appointments in the gift of the president of the board of Control; and it appeared, that in the last year he had received the appointment of 26 cadets, 2 writers, and 4 assistant surgeons, the value of which patronage amounted to about 12,000l. Now the House was aware of the value of a writership; for it must be in their recollection, that a noble lord, not now in his place, had been convicted of carrying on a traffic, in which a writership was to be the bribe for a seat in that House. A writership was, therefore, equivalent to a seat in parliament; and every body knew what the price of a seat in parliament was. It appeared, then, that the president of the board of Control received patronage in writerships, which was equivalent to the price of two seats in that House. The board of Control, though it had never met as a board, had cost the East India company not less than 800,000l. He trusted, that as they had now a patriotic president, who would do the duty without a salary; and as the other commissioners were of no use, the company would shortly be wholly relieved from the burthen of this board. He begged leave to move, for "Copies of Letters Patent, or Commissions, appointing the commissioners of the board of Control, and of which the right hon. George Canning was president, and of which the right hon. Charles Bathurst is president.'

[ocr errors]

Mr. Bathurst did not rise to object to the motion, but to observe in the first place, that it would have been more consistent with parliamentary practice, if the hon. gentleman had waited till the documents were laid on the table, before he commenced his general remarks upon the character and functions of the board of Control. The hon. gentleman quarrelled, first, with the particular appointment in question, then with the construction put

upon the act of Anne, and, lastly, with that by which the board of Control was established. Now, the last act expressly said, that there was to be no forfeiture of a seat in parliament, unless the individual appointed should receive the salary, or part of it. The only question now was, whether his seat had been vacated by his acceptance of the office without any salary annexed to it. It would, he thought, appear, on an examination of the returns, that he fell under the same description as the rest of the commissioners of the board to whom no salary was assigned, and to whom it was deemed that the spirit of the act of Anne, which referred only to offices of profit, did not apply. It had been urged, that patronage was power; but, without admitting this proposition, he must deny that any patronage necessarily or directly attached to the president of the board of Control. What was, in fact, enjoyed by him, was received as a compliment from the court of directors. If it was wrong to receive it, that ought to be declared; but this had no bearing on the present question. With regard to the duties of the two other commissioners receiving salaries, he could only say, from his own observation, since he had held the office of president, that their appointments, so far from being merely nominal or honorary, required very considerable labour. As to himself, he held an office previously, the emoluments of which he regarded as a sufficient remuneration for the discharge of his new duties.

Mr. Creevey said, he did not mean to insinuate that the patronage enjoyed was turned into money, but it was presented by the directors upon an understanding, and was, of course, used in the ordinary way. It should be remembered, also, that cadetships and writerships were provisions for life, and of more value than a few thousand pounds which the president might himself receive. He was inclined to think, upon a fair construction of the different acts, that the office must be considered as one of profit and emolument.

Mr. W. Smith acquitted the right hon. gentleman of all suspicion that he re ceived any salary for the office. But the question to be considered was, whether the gift of that office did not increase the power of the Crown? No one could suppose that the right hon. gentleman would support administration any more than he had done before; but the question was upon the principle, and with

out any personal reference to the right hon. gentleman. The price of a writership was about 3,000l.; and could any one suppose that the gift of an office, with the disposal of a certain number of writerships was not a gift of profit? Could it be supposed that the influence in question would be exerted for any other purpose than that of strengthening the government? He hoped the House would not be satisfied with a denial that the office was a place of profit, merely because it was not attended with a direct salary.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald contended, that the right hon. gentleman's appointment was an evident violation of the act of parliament. All his predecessors had vacated their seats on receiving it; and he could see no security against the object of the act being defeated, if so important an office as the one in question could be held without vacating a seat during the session of parliament, on pretence that no salary was received during that period. Such a precedent might be extended to other offices, and the salaries taken whenever parliament was not sitting. But without reference to this possibility, the appointment in question was a constant source of influence. Many would be very glad to exchange the lucrative advantages of office for the enjoyment of extensive patronage. For his own part, he had no doubt he should materially increase his influence among his constituents, by distributing among them now and then a few writerships and cadetships, and he would do the right hon. gentleman the justice to believe that he would prefer the acquisition of influence to that of money. He should be sorry to accuse him of disingenuousness, when he said that no patronage was attached to his office, because it belonged, in the first instance, to another body, with whom the Board of Control maintained a civil understanding. The president of that board, he understood, had always in effect a greater portion of patronage than was annexed to any other office in the gift of the Crown. When lord Melville, a distinguished Scotchman, was at the head of the board, aspiring young Scotchmen were to be found in every corner of India. Under one of his successors, Ireland had sent forth her sons to the same quarter; and now he presumed the right hon. gentleman meant to give England her due share. At all events, he trusted VOL. IV.

that the example of saving the salary would be carefully followed in future.

Lord Althorp understood the act of Anue to have been passed, not so much for the purpose of depriving the Crown of any influence which it might derive from the offices which it held in its gift, as for the purpose of affording the constituents of any member who might accept office an opportunity of deciding whether they would re-elect him.

Mr. T. Courtenay explained the routine of the business attached to the board to which the hon. member is secretary. There was no salary attached to the office; and as to the argument respecting patronage, he should not condescend to reply to it. There could certainly be no doubt that the patronage of the Crown created obligation; but the same argument would apply to ribbands and all other honours which emanated from the King. In short, if the argument could hold, there would be no point to which it might not be carried.

Mr. Denman wished to know, if the right hon. gentleman did not receive the salary usually attached to his office, what became of it? It was rumoured, that the right hon. gentleman received no part of it himself, but reserved it for another right hon. gentleman who had lately held the office, and who was now absent from the country [Cries of "No, no"]. If that were the case, was it distributed amongst the other commissioners? Or was it saved to the public?

Lord Binning would not have troubled the House on this question, had it not been for the allusion just made to his right hon. friend, the late president of the Board of Control. Where, in the name of God, had the hon. gentleman heard of this rumour? Why had he mentioned it? Was the character of public men to be thus loosely sported with? His right hon. friend would be the last man in the world to receive the emoluments of an office, the duties of which he did not perform.

Mr. Denman ştated, that he had made no insinuation. He had only alluded to that which was generally reported, and which had appeared in the newspapers.

Mr. S. Bourne said, he could not envy the feelings of the learned gentleman who could impute to his right hon. friend, in his absence, a participation in so corrupt an arrangement. Where was his authority? Who had dared to state it? He

2 P

had never, during the whole course of his political life, heard such an insinuation come from any political malignant. Mr. Denman said, he had made no insinuation against the character of the right hon. gentleman, but had put what he conceived to be a fair question. Political malignity to that right hon. gentleman's predecessor he felt none. The soreness which the two hon. members had exhibited was no very great compliment to their right hon. friend.

Mr. Astell did not see any thing reprehensible in the manner in which the question had been put. He bore his testimony, as an East India director to the efficient and cordial manner in which the late president of the Board of Control had exercised the duties of his office. He had heard, with great satisfaction, that the company would be benefitted to the amount of the salary by the present appointment.

Colonel Davies wished to know what was to be done with this salary.

Mr. Bathurst said, that it would be a saving out of the sum granted by the East India company.

The motion was agreed to,

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, February 12. MACHINERY-PETITION OF ROPE MAKERS.]-Sir R. Wilson rose to present a petition from the Journeyman Rope Makers of the metropolis, signed by 700 individuals. The petitioners stated the deep distress into which they were plunged in consequence of the application of machinery to certain branches of their profession. By the introduction of machinery into the trade, two-thirds of the workmen formerly employed were prevented from earning a livelihood. The machine of which they complained was called "The Devil," which, with the assistance of six or seven men, performed the same quantity of work, which previously occupied ninety-seven, The petitioners stated that the work so done, was extremely imperfect, and would of course injure the character of that manufacture in foreign countries. In conclusion, the petitioners expressed a wish to place this "devil" in more immediate connexion with the chancellor of the exchequer to whom they recommended the propriety of laying a tax on it. The question for the consideration of the House

was, whether the present system of extreme taxation could be continued? whether a competition in trade and commerce could be hoped for, when the burdens of this kingdom were so great, while other countries were in a state of growing prosperity? If some efficient measures were not taken, the time must come when they would behold the greatest of all possible calamities, not only a suffering, but an idle people.

Mr. Curwen observed, that on a former occasion, when a petition was presented remonstrating against the undue use of machinery, and praying for a restraint upon it, a long discussion had taken place, in the course of which, it appeared to be the unanimous opinion of all the most intelligent members of the House, that the discouragement of machinery would be highly injurious to the country; an opinion in which he believed the petitioners themselves afterwards concurred.

Ordered to lie on the table.

PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] Mr. Serjeant Onslow rose to present a pe, tition from the inhabitants of Guilford, setting forth the deep alarm they felt at what they conceived to be a great infraction of the law of the land, namely, the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, which they viewed as likely to lead to other infractions. They called on the House, therefore, to interpose; and also, to take into consideration, the present distressed state of the country, and the necessity of effecting a reform of parliament. The striking of the Queen's name from the Liturgy was one of the most important circumstances that had occurred for years. After hearing all the arguments that had been adduced respecting it, he felt more and more confirmed in the opinion that it was an illegal act. Much reliance had been placed on the case of the queen of George 1st, but that case was not at all in point, as there had been a dissolution of the marriage in the Consistorial court. At that time also, there were two very strong factions in the country, one in favour of the house of Hanover, the other in favour of the house of Stuart, and history plainly showed how powerful the influence of the latter was. In such a state of things, care was of course taken, not to do any act that seemed likely to increase that influence. Besides, the wife of George 1st, never was recognised as possessing any of the rights of the queen of

Great Britain, while her present majesty was admitted to be Queen-consort, and was so spoken of. Now, if her right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy was denied, what was there to prevent the abstraction of her other rights? He called the attention of the House to the Act of Uniformity, as being decisive on the subject. What did that act say? It provided that in all those prayers, litanies, and collects, which do in any way relate to the king, queen, or royal progeny, the names be altered, and changed from time to time, and fitted to the present occasion, according to the direction of lawful authority." On these grounds he conceived the omission to be illegal. With respect to parliamentary reform, he thought that a wholesome reform was necessary.

Mr. Butterworth presented a petition from Dover, praying that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy, that a reform of parliament might be effected, and that the House would turn its attention to the business of the country. He begged leave to correct a gross misrepresentation of a few words which he had used in that House a short time since. An hon. member for Yorkshire had stated, on the night to which he alluded, that many individuals had been actuated by party views in supporting the motion of a noble lord. On that occasion, he (Mr. B.) felt himself called on to state his motive for giving the vote he had done on the noble lord's motion; but, in doing so, he did not say one word respecting the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, although he had been represented as giving a very strong opinion on that subject.

Mr. Littleton, as the hon. member had entered into some explanation of his own opinions, in consequence of a misapprehension which existed with respect to them, hoped he might also be permitted to explain a very general misrepresentation as to what had fallen from him on the might on which the petition from Birmingham was presented. What he had suggested on that occasion was, whether it might not be possible, with reference to the relief of the agriculturists and the poor manufacturer, to substitute for some of the existing taxes a tax on land and on the holders of the national debt, which should have the shape of a modified property tax? The proposition of the hon. member for Cumberland,

to reduce the interest of the debt, was a distinct proposition, in which he utterly disclaimed all participation or partnership. Without, of course, meaning to impute to the hon. member any intention of an unjust nature, he must say, that he thought the proposition to reduce the interests of the national debt highly dishonourable, and subversive of all those principles by which a great nation ought to be guided in the maintenance of its public faith.

Mr. Curwen said, that what he had stated on the occasion alluded to, resolved itself into two points. He had stated, that he conceived funded property to be equally liable, in reason, law, and principle, as any other species of property, to be applied to the exigencies of the state. He knew of no distinction of property that should exempt that of the fundholder; and if that House had thought proper to call on him to support the expenses of war, he did not think it was at all unfair to call on him to contribute towards the expenses of peace. The Bank Restriction act had raised the value of funded property, and depressed that of land at least 25 per cent. An hon. member had, some time since, observed, that the land ought not to be let at such high rents. If the hon. member had examined the subject, he would have found that the rents had been very much lowered. He thought it was nothing more than just that the funded proprietor should fare as other bodies did, and that they should share in that depreciation which every other species of property had suffered.

Sir C. Burrell said, he would be one of the last men in the world to propose any thing that might appear to be a breach of the public credit. At the same time, he thought a remedy might be devised for the existing evil without any such breach. An intelligent individual had suggested to him that a considerable sum might be raised by imposing a tax, perhaps to the value of a shilling per cent, on the transfer of stock. It would assist in discouraging speculation, would afford some relief from the pressure of existing taxation, and would do no injury to public credit.

Mr. Grenfell did hope his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, had risen to explain some misapprehension of his meaning on a former night. To reduce the interest of the national debt would

« AnteriorContinuar »