Commons Chamber

rose, pursuant to notice, to submit a motion to the House on the subject of the increase or diminution in the number or amount of the salaries and emoluments of different public offices. He was aware that it was not to small savings that the House was to look for any beneficial effect on the finances; but it was due to the people to show them that all that was raised from them by taxes was expended for their advantage. He was not, however, convinced, that by an accurate inquiry into the public expenditure a large saving might not be made. It was needless to press economy on the attention of the House, or to press the claims which the urgent necessities of the country had on their attention, but he could assure the House that it was from a strong feeling on the subject that he had been induced to come forward with his present motion. When on a former occasion he had presented a petition against the property tax, he had recommended as strongly as he could an inquiry into the expenditure of the public departments, and he had alluded to one or two offices, which, from his own knowledge, he could say were perfectly useless. He had then said, that if his majesty's ministers were disposed to enter upon the investigation of useless offices, they would be the fittest persons to undertake it. He had not, however, found them inclined to act upon that advice, neither had he ever been very sanguine in his hopes from them, especially from the way in which the proposition had been received. He had been convinced that retrenchment was practicable, and finding that nothing had been done, he had thought proper to bring the question before the House, that he might not have been supposed to have made his remarks unadvisedly. To conduce to the better understanding of his observations, he should state the nature of the motion with which he meant to conclude; it was for a committee to examine and consider the increase or diminution of salaries and emoluments of different public offices since the year 1798, and to report what measures might be adopted to make further reductions in the salaries of public offices without detriment to the public service. He did not propose to extend the committee to Ireland, because it would be better to appoint a special committee, to inquire into the public establishments of that part of the united kingdom. He was convinced, from experience, that there were some offices so ineffective, that the public business would be done quite as well if they were abolished. He should propose that the committee should report all such offices, without going into the question of patent offices, because that subject had been already discussed by the committee of 1806, and because he believed it was agreed that those offices should not be abolished during the lives of the present occupiers. He proposed this, not from any partiality to those offices, because there was no one more eager than he was for their abolition. The reasons which he should urge to the House for inducing them to accede to his motion, were, that frequent inquiries into the public expenditure had been of the greatest service, by repressing the abuses which, without such a check, were likely to arise. In 1786, a parliamentary commission had been appointed, in consequence of which some very valuable regulations had been adopted. In 1797 a committee had been appointed, which went through a laborious and satisfactory investigation. In 1806, a committee had been again appointed, which had inquired into and almost exhausted the question of sinecures, and reversions, but it had not inquired into the state of many offices, such as the admiralty and secretary of state's offices, which therefore had not been examined for nearly twenty years. Notwithstanding the pledge which had been given on the subject of economy, no one step had been taken to put it in practice. The only argument which he anticipated against his motion was, that a commission had been appointed by the treasury, composed of his noble friend (lord Binning) and two right honourable gentlemen; and that this commission was better calculated to inquire effectually into the subject than a committee of the House. He saw, however, by the minute which constituted this commission, that it was only empowered to inquire into offices which had been created since 1793; but it was as necessary to inquire into other offices as into these new establishments. Besides, though the commissioners were very respectable persons, he did not like the time of its appointment, or the auspices under which it was appointed. The minute which constituted the commission was dated two days after he had given notice of his motion [Hear, hear!]. Though it could not be a discovery of his that a saving might be made in the public offices, yet before that notice had been given no step had been taken towards it. If the commission was necessary, it should have been appointed before; if it was not necessary, it should not have been appointed at all. Neither could he have any confidence in a commission appointed by ministers who had shown such a wanton disregard of economy by the increase of salaries, and unexampled establishments, and who had made not even a show of retrenchment, until it had been forced upon them by the votes of the House. As the ministers would not do their duty, he hoped the House would not be unmindful of its own. He should therefore move, " That a select committee be appointed to examine and consider what increase or diminution has taken place since the year 1798 in the number or the amount of the salaries and emoluments of different public offices, and from time to time, with all convenient dispatch, to report what farther measures can be adopted for diminishing the amount of such salaries and emoluments, without detriment to the public service."

said, that the noble lord had expressed his sentiments with great clearness and propriety, and the only question was as to the best mode to be pursued. He did not think that the noble lord had stated any reason whatever for taking the management and direction of the public offices out of the hands of his majesty's ministers, which would not go the length of changing the whole administration itself. The noble lord had not stated any circumstances of just suspicion; but he had told the House, that no reduction had been made by government. He trusted, however, that, before he sat down, lie should be able to convince them that the noble lord was completely mistaken. The noble lord had moved for a committee to inquire into the increase and diminution of the salaries in public offices since the year 1798. Now, for the purpose of inquiring into this matter, the appointment of a committee was perfectly superfluous, as a return had been regularly made to parliament in each year. From June 1782, down to the present period, repeated commissions, or committees had been appointed, either by the Crown or parliament, to make inquiry. In 1797 a committee was appointed, over which the first person in that House (the Speaker) presided, in the first instance, with a view of inquiring into the state of the public revenue, and of the national debt; but their inquiries were afterwards extended over the different public offices, and for two or three years they continued to make reports. A committee was subsequently appointed, on the recommendation of an hon. friend of his (Mr. Banks), with a view of ascertaining the extent to which the committee of 1797 had proceeded, and from its labours under the conduct of his hon. friend very important benefits had been derived. Now, presuming for a moment, which, however, he did not concede, that the labours of these committees had not produced an actual saving to the country, they had operated at least to prevent the growth and increase of the establishments. There could be no doubt that if they had not been appointed, there would have been a very considerable increase. Considering, therefore, the present circumstances of the country, with reference to the times in which those committees had been appointed, he thought the motion of the noble lord quite unnecessary. In his opinion, it would be much better to leave the inquiry in the hands of those who were responsible for the discharge of their duties. He would beg the House to judge what practical good could be derived from inquiry into these matters at so late a period of the session. If the House were to accede to the motion of the noble lord, it would then be a just reason for ministers to say, parliament having taken the direction into their own hands, it is not for us to make reductions—it is not for us to prejudge the decisions of the House, it is our business to wait for the report of the committee and to obey such instructions as the House may give us. He would leave the House to judge what probability there was that any practical advantage could be obtained in the present year from such a course of proceeding. With regard to the pledge to which the noble lord had referred, it would remain in full force on the responsibility of ministers, if that responsibility should not be removed by the interference of parliament. He had said, that, before he sat down, he would show that they had not been unmindful of that pledge, nor neglectful of the duties which it imposed upon them. He would endeavour to convince the House that they had done their best, and it would then remain for parliament to determine whether they could have done better. It should be always kept in mind, that, after an expensive war of twenty-five years, the establishment could not at once be altered; the reduction must be gradual; and the House would recollect that we had now a revenue of 70,000,000l. to manage and collect; which was fourfold the amount of our expenditure previous to the war. The principle of reduction must always be the same, whether it came from the recommendation of a committee, or from the direction and management of the Crown. The noble lord would find, that since the peace, greater reductions had been made than at the close of a war in any preceding period. As to the increase of salary in the revenue boards, he could only say, that it had been long in contemplation, and was only suspended in consequence of the expense attending the war. What he wished then to state was, the reductions which had actually taken place, in order that the House might consider whether it would not be more advantageous to leave the inquiry in the hands of government. He should tire the House if he were to go through all the details connected with this subject, and would therefore pass over the office of secretary of state, the commander-in-chief, and the war-office. As to the agent-general's office for the local militia, it had been abolished. In the department of the paymaster-general there had been a reduction of 37,000l.; in the commissariat, 14,000l. The barrack department was ordered to be reduced one-half. In the navy office, the reductions amounted to 400,000l.; in the victualling office, to 25,000l. The transport office was entirely abolished. Having stated these facts, it appeared to him that the only object of appointing a committee would be, to inquire into the reductions which might have been effected. The committees on former occasions Seldom took upon themselves to recommend reductions till after examination of the several persons employed in the different departments. Now, by leaving the reductions in the hands of government, it was probable that they would be carried to a considerable extent during the course of the year; but very little could be done by a committee, as their operations would be suspended by a prorogation of parliament, and could not be renewed till the opening of another session. This was a very material advantage which the commissioners chosen by ministers would have over any committee the House could select. At the time of appointing that commission, circular letters were sent to the heads of different departments, directing them to report to the treasury what reductions could be made, and what was indispensably necessary for the public service to be retained. Under these directions several reductions had been made, and more would be effected. He felt it necessary, however, to observe, that, previous to the appointment of those commissioners, many of the reductions which he had mentioned had either taken place, or been ordered; and this, it would be remembered, was stated by his noble friend (lord Castlereagh) in the month of March last. For these reasons, therefore, he thought the present motion quite superfluous, and should take the liberty of moving the previous question.

observed upon the recommendation of the chancellor of the exchequer to leave this subject in the hands of government, and to rely entirely upon its disposition to economy and retrenchment. But he should be glad to know the grounds upon which such confidence was claimed. If the House had relied upon the disposition of government towards retrenchment, would the property tax have been rejected? Would the military and ordnance estimates have been reduced below the scale at which they were drawn up in the first instance? The chancellor of the exchequer had no doubt stated that a reduction to the amount of 400,000l. had taken place in the naval department, and for this reduction the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues were entitled to his thanks. But then it must be recollected that all this reduction applied to underlings in office. For the salary of no one in the higher departments of official service had been touched. No—not one branch of any high family, nor any member of that House, had had his salary or emoluments in the slightest degree reduced. For amidst all the professions of economy it was not deemed expedient, in any instance, to lose sight of ministerial influence—that influence which Mr. Burke in his wonderful speech in 1780 so ably exposed, was steadily kept in view. The various reforms which that great man sought to establish, but which his endeavours to attain, were still to be looked for. And if those reforms were so desirable, in Mr. Burke's judgment, with a view to diminish the public burthens at the close of the American war, how much more desirable were they at present, when those burthens pressed with such aggravated weight—when the distress of our agricultural interest was considered, which distress was in no degree relieved by the late lamentable rise in the price of corn; for that rise was one of the consequences of the public calamity. In order to promote the reforms alluded to he was an advocate for the appointment of a committee of inquiry. The right hon. gentlemen, however, opposed this proposition, and upon very extraordinary grounds, for instance, lest such a committee should supersede the commission nominated by the treasury. But where would be the harm if even such a supercession took place? for the members of this commission might be introduced into the proposed committee. Nay, the chancellor of the exchequer might contrive to have half a dozen more of his friends appointed upon that committee, who might adduce all the information they could derive from their connexion with government, and thereby point out the fox for the other hounds to follow [a laugh]. But, upon the whole, the appointment of this commission was extremely suspicious, for this appointment had taken place within a day or two after his noble friend gave notice of this motion. This, unfortunately for the credit of those who made the appointment, was evident from the date of the treasury minute upon the subject. The appointment of this commission, then, it was fair to infer was suggested, or at least hastened, by the proceeding of his noble friend, and it was not unfair to suspect that the object of that appointment was, to prevent a committee; that, indeed, it was intended as a mere delusion, to avert an effectual inquiry by a committee of that House. The country could not therefore repose any confidence in the proceedings of such a commission, and if the House did not adopt his noble friend's motion, it was easy to conclude what their constituents would think of them. If after the number of petitions presented to that House, stating the distress of the country, and earnestly praying for retrenchment and economy, it should be found that the House had only in one instance (no doubt a very important one), evinced any attention to those petitions, what opinion were the people likely to entertain? When it was found that no considerable reduction had taken place in the public expenditure in compliance with these petitions, and that all that was done with a view to reduction, was the appointment by ministers themselves of a commission to inquire into any unnecessary expenditure in their own offices, the people would surely have reason to murmur. If that House wished to satisfy the country, it should appoint a committee of its own to inquire into this important subject; and still more, as the existing commission was not to extend its inquiry to any of the higher offices of state. Among those offices it was notorious that reduction was very desirable and practicable. For instance, the salary enjoyed by some of the puisne lords of the admiralty ought to be reduced. At least their case was such as to call for inquiry. But this was a case which the commission was not, it appeared, at all to consider, for such consideration might interfere with ministerial influence. The chancellor of the exchequer was no doubt as well disposed to economy as any other person likely to occupy his office; but, with all his disposition to economy, when opposed by influence, he apprehended that the right hon. gentleman's economic disposition would yield. For the influence of the Crown was too powerful for the right hon. gentleman to withstand. That influence had indeed grown of late years to an enormous height. There was not, perhaps, a private family in the kingdom which had not occasion to say, " thank you," to the commander in chief, for granting a commission or promotion to some of its younger branches. But this was only one of the many means by which the influence of the Crown had been of late years so much advanced. He did not mean to say that the government should have no influence, but he thought that its influence should depend upon its respectability of character and conduct, instead of resulting from favour or corruption. But if ministers were not to resort to favour or undue influence, he apprehended that the attendance of their partizans upon an occasion of this nature would not be so numerous. [Here lord Castlereagh looked at the benches behind him, which were not very full.] The noble secretary might look round him, but no doubt the attendance of his supporters would be numerous enough by-and-by, when the House was about to divide. Among that attendance too, there could be no apprehension that the puisne lords of the admiralty would not be found. Hence the salaries of all these lords would be left untouched by the existing treasury commission. Mr. Burke had once observed, that the revolt of thirteen bedchamber lords would alarm ministers more than the revolt of thirteen colonies, and the present ministers would no doubt feel it inexpedient to provoke the revolt of the puisne lords of the admiralty, or any of their supporters in that House. Therefore, an inquiry with a view to reduce any salaries or emoluments enjoyed by those members, should not be left to the conduct of ministers. The House itself should undertake such inquiry, or it could not be effectual to the end in view. If left to the treasury, there might be some scraps of saving in minor offices, but the House might rely upon it that no attempt would be made to reduce any of the sources of ministerial influence. The House, in order to appreciate the character of ministers, and the sincerity of their professions of economy, should recollect that no measure of economy was actually taken until they were deprived of the means of expense by the rejection of the property tax [Hear, hear!]. As the House then had set those ministers one great example, let it only set them another example, and they would be obliged to go still farther in actual economy. They would do so no doubt with a view to say " see, we are as good as you—we are ready to go with you step by step." For those ministers were heard now to say—" You desired inquiry, and we have appointed a commission for the purpose." But with this commission he was by no means satisfied, nor did he think it calculated to afford any satisfaction to the Country. The commissioners were not, to be sure, in place. The noble lord (Binning) was not yet a placeman; but then the noble lord had some sort of honorary connexion with the government. To use an expression of Mr. Burke, the noble lord was placed in that political hotbed where it was hoped to ripen him into something more effective for the public service. The House could not expect that such a commission would institute any very rigid inquiry into the expense of any public department. It would, indeed, be absurd to indulge such an expectation. Therefore the House should, for its own credit, and for the satisfaction of its constituents, take the subject into its own hands, and appoint a committee, agreeably to the motion of his noble friend.

said, that as to the case respecting the lords of the admiralty, he would refer the noble lord to his noble friend who had made the motion, who was so competent to afford any necessary information upon the subject, and who, no doubt, when a lord of the treasury, acted from motives quite as honourable as those by which he was actuated on the other side of the House. That noble lord would, he dared to say, tell his noble friend, that when in office his votes were not influenced by any spirit of corruption. Why, then, should the noble lord imagine that such a spirit influenced the conduct of other individuals? With respect to the commission of which he had the honour to be a member, he would only say, let the result of the labours of that commission speak for itself. He could assure the House, that he entered into that commission, as he came to the discussion of the present question, with as strong an impression of the necessity of economy, and as lively a sympathy for the distresses of the people, as any individual could possibly entertain. He remarked upon the inconsistency of the gentlemen on the other side of the House, who, while they uniformly maintained heretofore that government was bound to institute inquiry, and promote reform in every branch of the public expenditure, and who argued that government was most competent to produce an effectual reform, to which ministers were pledged by the Regent's speech at the opening of the session, now loudly objected to an inquiry instituted by that very government. Now, forsooth, those gentlemen held quite a different language from that which the House had always heard from them, previous to this evening. How would the country appreciate such inconsistency? The very gentlemen who constantly called upon ministers to inquire and reform, now complained of those ministers for complying with their call. Ministers had appointed a commission of inquiry, but those gentlemen said—" We do not like this inquiry—it is brought forward under unfavourable auspices—do not wait for the result of its labours—do not repose any confidence in the government that has appointed it;" and yet, without confidence, it would be impossible for any government to go on. But those gentlemen would deprive government of any degree of confidence, and would transfer to a committee of that House, an inquiry, instituted by a commission, which was assured of the co-operation of the heads of every public department, and which had therefore the best opportunity of obtaining every necessary information. The rational part of the public would, he had no doubt, disapprove of a proposition, which he trusted that House would decidedly reject. He was an advocate for the most jealous inquiry into the public expenditure. In that spirit he would indeed conduct himself in the commission, for the result of whose investigations he trusted that House would wait, before it decided upon the character of that commission. The House would also, he had no doubt, in its candour, give due credit to the disposition of government towards economy, from what it had already done to prove its sincerity. With regard to the proceedings of the commission, it naturally commenced its operation by inquiry into the offices created in consequence of the war. This was a course of which he thought no rational man could disapprove. For it was, in the first instance, material to ascertain whether, on the conclusion of peace, any of those offices could be dispensed with, or their emoluments reduced. In looking to this point, it was obviously necessary to consider what duties were to be performed in the several offices; and who so competent to afford adequate information as the heads of those offices, who co-operated with the commission? The commission did not propose to inquire into the salaries or emoluments of the high officers of the state, because the commissioners felt that ministers were themselves the best judges. These salaries and emoluments were, indeed, matter of notoriety, and it was open to any member to bring forward a specific motion respecting them. For instance, it was open to the noble lord, or any other member, to submit a motion with respect to the salaries of the puisne lords of the admiralty, of which so much had been said, and the House could judge of the case upon its own merits. But it was not proposed to extend the inquiries of the commission to subjects of that nature. As to the date of the commission, he could not speak precisely as to the noble mover's assertion. But he was enabled to say, that long before the treasury minute upon this subject was dated, circular letters were addressed by the treasury to the heads of the several public departments, desiring a return of what reductions might be made in their offices consistently with the due discharge of public business, and whether any offices could be conveniently suppressed. This fact served to demonstrate the economic disposition of government, and that that disposition was not suggested by the notice, or by any speech of the noble mover. Therefore the allegation of the noble lord who spoke last, was not correct. But, notwithstanding the high ground which that noble lord had taken, no doubt with a view to produce an impression out of doors, he would ask, whether he could seriously think that any practicable reduction in the expenditure of the public could produce any material diminution of the taxes of the country? The noble lord who spoke last had insisted that the sole object of government was, to retain all the influence in their power. He (lord B.) did think, that when he stated what had been done, the noble lord might think he had gone too far in that sweeping accusation. He did assure the House, that many offices had been reduced that were productive of much and extensive influence, and he was not ashamed to say, that the reduction had been a most painful effort;—he meant in consideration of the distress it occasioned to many industrious individuals; for he was not stoic enough not to think that any circumstance which was the means of depriving persons of a subsistence, who, in the state of things which then existed, had every reason to look for a continuance, was in itself highly unpleasant. Mr. Burke had most truly observed, that parsimony had much of the quality of un-kindness, and that retrenchment ever fell somewhere as a punishment: nevertheless he admitted the necessity of these retrenchments, how painful soever they might be. He agreed that the honour of parliament ought to be as dear to ministers as any consideration whatever, and that every practical economy should be carried into effect. He had stated that the government of the country had put themselves on their trial in this question, and he was convinced that they would redeem the pledge that had been given. The noble lord concluded with expressing his intention not to give a direct negative to the motion, since he approved of inquiry, but to vote for the previous question proposed by the chancellor of the exchequer

said, that much as he was before disposed to concur in the motion of his noble friend, and in the arguments urged in support of that motion, he was still more inclined to that concurrence after having heard the speech of the noble lord who spoke last, for a tissue of arguments more tending to the support of a motion which they were intended to oppose, he had not often heard within the walls of that House. The noble lord with much apparent simplicity, had asked what reason there was for distrusting the government? Had they not pledged themselves to carry into effect the most rigorous retrenchment? He would answer, Yes; they had indeed given pledges, but they had not redeemed them, and therefore it was that he should support the motion of his noble friend. They had talked of economy and retrenchment, but they had done nothing. [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches.]—Why, what had they done? Would they venture to allude to their foiled attempt to increase the salaries of the two secretaries of the admiralty? Or to their actual increase of the salaries of the commissioners of excise and customs? An increase which had taken place at a moment when every ground for such a proceeding was absolutely Cut from beneath their feet; when the burthens of the Country were most oppressive, and when there was neither an overflowing treasury, nor any augmentation in the articles of subsistence. With facts like these before the House, what use was it to talk of pledges? Three whole months had elapsed, since the meeting of parliament, and not one retrenchment of any importance had yet taken place. [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches.] The hon. gentlemen opposite, by their cheering, denied his assertion, and upon that point, he and his friends were at issue with them, and were willing to rest the whole merit of the present question. There was now on the table of the House, an account showing the progress which had been made in the increase and diminution of the public offices, and the salaries annexed to them; and the first thing which excited his attention upon examining that account was, that a total increase, to the amount of 136,000l. had taken place. The public were burthened with that sum, in addition to what they already had to sustain. The 136,000l. was independent of the retrenchments which had been made. Without making that allowance, the gross amount of the sum would be 200,000l.; and thus it was that the government went on, from year to year, increasing the number of office-bearers, and augmenting their salaries and emoluments. And what were the boasted reductions which had been made? Many of them arose from circumstances which the ministers could not control. Salaries, which there were no persons to receive, either from their having died in the course of the year, or from a change in the circumstances of the country, in consequence of passing from war to peace, that it would be too glaring and bare-faced to attempt their continuance. And upon such inevitable retrenchments as these, ministers now presumed to ask for the confidence of that House in their intentions. There was one item in that document, for example, classed under the head of savings, to which mere necessity had driven them. It was 300,000l. charged in the department of the master of the horse; and it was physically impossible to continue that charge, for it had arisen inconsequence of the visit paid to this country by the allied sovereigns in 1814. When they returned to their respective kingdoms, and we had no longer emperors and kings among us, the expense incurred by their presence necessarily ceased; and yet that item formed a part of the vaunted economy of government; and credit for it was taken by the noble lord as if it were a voluntary diminution on its part, in redemption of the pledge given at the commencement of the session.

He did not wish to detain the House at any great length; but there were one or two parts of the account already alluded to, which he was anxious to press upon their attention, by way of sample. In the commissariat department, which it might be supposed would naturally be reduced upon the return of peace, if not wholly abolished, he found two persons added, and an increase of salaries to the amount of 5000l. a year. He certainly could not understand the reason of this augmentation; and it was because he could not, that he wished to have a committee appointed, who might, by their inquiries, elucidate the transaction. It might be said that all this was on account of the last brilliant campaign; but was it not extraordinary, that the battle of Waterloo was over last Midsummer, that six months had elapsed, and that then, instead of any diminution, two officers and 5,000l. salary were added? In the department of the storekeeper there was an increase of six persons, carrying with them an expense of 4000l. and there was no decrease. Upon that point also, he had no doubt a committee would be able to afford some explanation. In the department of the ordnance he found another item which equally required explanation. A new office was created; or if not absolutely a new office, at least the salary had been increased. He alluded to the secretary to the master-general of the ordnance, whose allowance had been augmented by 500l. a year. There were several other cases of increase in the same column, and reasons for some of them were assigned; such as the establishment of new stations, the erection of a powder magazine, enlarged duties, and in one instance, in order to put the individual upon the same footing as the first clerk. The last reason, if it might be called one, was certainly rather odd, and he was not aware before that it was any object, in making out the accounts, to have a perfect symmetry and beauty in their proportions. But for the increase to the master-general's secretary, no other reason was assigned than the warrant of the prince regent. Now this was no reason at all; stet pro ratione voluntas; such a warrant was no justification whatever. In the customs there had been an enormous increase both of office—bearers and of expense; no less than 134 new offices were created, with an expense of 137,000l. a year. Allowing, however, for the diminution of offices and salaries, during the same period, and striking the balance, there would still remain 110 new offices created, and salaries to the amount of 60,000l. per annum; the whole of which augmentation had taken place during the last year. In the excise, 48 new offices had been added, and no diminution on the other side. The salaries of those officers were 24,000l. a year. There was another department, the mint, in which it might have been thought, after the repeated discussions in that House, respecting the state of the currency of the realm, that no attempt would be made to enlarge the expenses. It might have been imagined, if there was any department under government, any recess into which the spirit of augmentation and expenditure, for the sake of patronage and increasing the burthens of the country, would not have penetrated, the mint was that precise department. And, indeed, so little pretext had they for any increase,—so little work was there to do:—that they were not able to make any material enlargement. It bore no proportion to the increase of salaries and offices in the other departments; nevertheless, new appointments had been found out. There was the master's porter, with a salary of 52l. per annum, and an office sweeper, with somewhat less, being, he supposed, inferior in dignity to the other personage. He did not complain of these places or emoluments, as adding much to the public expenditure; he mentioned them only in answer to the challenge of the noble lord, and to show how far the government were really deserving of the confidence of parliament, in their disposition to retrench and economize.

But, said the noble lord, what reason was there to distrust ministers? Why should the matter be taken out of their hands, when it was admitted they were so much more capable of effecting the necessary retrenchments? He would reply to that, that it was not because he doubted the power of ministers to enforce practical economy that he withheld his confidence; it was not because they were worse qualified to accomplish it; but because he doubted their inclination. He believed they had no intention to retrench. He knew, at least, that they had not retrenched, and he could judge of their intentions only from their conduct. All the steps which they had taken in the business were towards one part only; limited in their direction and carrying them onwards only a very short space. In fact, no steps at all had been taken until their table was covered with petitions, and the government shook under the ferment which their conduct had excited throughout the country. The season of economy commenced only with the season of public indignation, and with the rejection of the property tax. Even the three inquisitors of the noble lord, little as he valued their labours, and worthless and nugatory as he was sure they would be held by the country, were never appointed, he believed were never thought of, until the notice of his noble friend for the present motion,—a notice which it was well known would experience the greatest favour in that House, and the most unanimous concurrence out of it. Remembering all these things—beholding in the conduct of Ministers nothing but the tardy, reluctant efforts of compulsion,—convinced that they would retrench only so far as they might be driven to it, and no farther,—how could it be expected that he, individually, how could it be expected that parliament, should confide in their assurances? Words cost them nothing, and words they freely bestowed. Promises they lavished in profusion, because promises they hoped would lull the vigilance of that House. But he trusted the decision of that night would prove to them, and to the country, that the solemn duty now devolved upon them would be faithfully discharged. There were other proofs which he could cite, to establish the insincerity of government upon the question of public economy. When the estimates were first brought forward, they were stated to be a minimum. A noble lord, whom he was sorry not to see in his place, said that they were framed upon a calculation of the lowest penny. There could not be a man less; not a farthing less. The existence of the country, the safety of her colonies, required every regiment, and every hundred pounds. Yet, after the money was gone which was to supply that expenditure, when our establishments at home and abroad were to be the same, when our colonies were to be continued as before, when no idea was entertained of surrendering any portion of our territory, the estimates were taken back for further consideration, and were considerably reduced. Why were they reduced? Because that House and the country began pretty loudly to express its sentiments [Hear, hear!]. The petitions which came up from all parts, took a new turn. They did not confine themselves merely to the property tax; they spoke, in firm, but respectful language, of the large military establishments; and not till then did the government (because they durst not do otherwise) revise and retrench those estimates, which they before said were perfect and reduced to their lowest [Hear, hear!]. That, he thought, was another reason for supporting the motion of his noble friend.

In the document before the House, some important details were afforded respecting the board of works. That department appeared to have undergone a little revolution, commencing from the month of April in the preceding year. Comparing the present with the former establishment, great changes had been introduced, especially in regard to salaries. The surveyor-general, for example, instead of having 500l. a year, now had 1,500l. Why? He should like to know the grounds of that alteration; but he could never know them from vague assertions made in that House. The information could be obtained only in a select committee. No papers, no returns, no desultory debate, could afford the requisite information—that information which the people, which the situation of the country, and which the condition of the finances had a right to exact from ministers. Then, there was an assistant surveyor-general and cashier, with a salary of 1,000l. a year. There might be a good reason for that salary and appointment, but he should like to have the reason. It did not appear that there was any other officer, with the same salary, whose appointment had ceased. Whether, therefore, it was to be considered as a clear addition in the expense of that department, or a substitution, he could not say. There were also two engrossing and copying clerks, with a salary of, 250l. a year each; and two assistant examining clerks, whose salaries amounted to 550l. A new office was created, too, for what were called the three attached architects. What the meaning of attached architects was, he did not pretend to know; he supposed it had one meaning, that the individuals were cordially attached to their salaries, for it turned out that they had 1,500l. a year of the public money. There were five clerks of the works, with salaries amounting to 1,600l.; twelve labourers in trust (another official term which baffled his comprehension), with a salary of 100l. a year each. Ignorant as he was of the arcana of office, he could not be expected to understand the nature of the service performed by those persons, which rendered them necessary; but he knew that more offices were created by the new arrangement than what had subsisted under the old. Again, therefore, he would repeat, that nothing but a committee could enable the House to sift these matters to the bottom. The explanations of the hon. gentlemen opposite would not be at all satisfactory. The scrutiny of a committee was the only true course of proceeding. There they could bring assertions to the test of evidence. There they could examine persons, and receive depositions from them, which, though not upon oath, yet they knew that what they said would be taken down, and they were responsible for the truth of their evidence.

But it was said a parliamentary inquiry would be so tedious. He did not see why a select committee should be so slow. And, indeed, his noble friend had introduced a clause into his motion as if to anticipate that very objection, requiring the committee to report from time to time, with all convenient dispatch. So that if the committee were to sit to-morrow, and find a department capable of retrenchment and modification, they might report immediately to the House, and a bill might be brought in in the bourse of the present week for regulating it. Could as much be said of the commission which the noble lord had appointed? What had they done? Nothing. Had they made any report? No—[Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. To whom had they reported? Was their report upon the table of that House? If they had reported to government, why had not government acted upon their report? In one way or other, therefore, a delay of four weeks had taken place, during which time it did not appear that any thing had been done towards the practice of that economy about which so much had been said by ministers. He would venture to predict, that if any important office or salary had been abolished, or any considerable reduction made, in consequence of the labours of that boasted commission, the noble lord would not have gone through his speech without stating the extent of those retrenchments. There was one material defect in the appointment of the commission. They acted under instructions which were wholly incompatible with the attainment of the real objects of the inquiry. They were confined to a limited period, having to inquire only into offices which had been added since 1792. But there were many establishments, many great salaries, existing prior to 1792, which ought to be subjected to the most rigorous examination. It would well become them, when carrying their retrenchments into minute branches of the public service, when cutting down salaries of petty clerks, and putting others upon superannuated pensions, to see whether there were not persons in greater stations, occupying larger offices in the country, endowed with more ample salaries, who might justly come under the investigation of that House. He called upon the noble lord to say whether any salary had been saved to the public, which salary amounted to a considerable sum, the holder of which was an individual of rank, or where the salary itself gave patronage to the Crown, and influence in parliament? Why were not the lords of the admiralty, for example, overhauled, if he might use the expression? There were a first lord and six others, three of whom were lay-lords, or landlords. He was not very well acquainted with their proper designation; but, whether they were to be called lay-lords, or landlords, or by whatever other title they were called, he was certain they were useless lords [A laugh]. The noble lord who spoke last had referred him to his noble friend who brought forward the present motion, for an account of the duties of the puisne lords of the admiralty and treasury, and desired to take his opinion on the expediency of reducing their numbers. The noble lord had made this reference with a kind of triumph, and certainly anticipated an answer unfavourable to his (Mr. Brougham's) argument [Here lord Binning said across the table, that he merely requested the hon. and learned gentleman to apply to lord Althorp for information, and had manifested no desire of triumph]. He had obeyed the noble lord—he had conversed with his noble friend upon the subject, and found that his opinion, and the information he afforded, entirely concurred with the policy which he was now recommending. That information, with all the weight attached to it, his noble friend was well calculated to give, from his near relationship to a noble statesman (earl Spencer), who, at the head of the board of admiralty, swayed the naval resources of Great Britain, to his own immortal honour, in one of the most trying situations, and during a series of the most tremendous conflicts that this country ever witnessed. He was authorized to say from him, that during a season of the most active warfare, when the enemy had powerful fleets at sea, when we were obliged to defend our extensive commerce from hostile aggression in all quarters of the globe, and when our shores were threatened with invasion—in short, in the very heat, and bustle, and exertions of the most vigorous naval contest, lord Spencer had given it as his opinion, that he had more lay-lords than he had any use for. If, then, as he had found upon the inquiry recommended to him, he was authorized to state, that in the most important war that this country had been ever engaged in, and when we had more than 1,000 ships to be directed, two or three of the puisne lords of the admiralty could be spared, in the opinion of a competent judge, what reason was there for supposing that the full number was now necessary? As a great part of our naval establishment had been reduced, their number should likewise be diminished. This inference he was authorized and compelled to draw. He might recur to another authority in support of this conclusion; namely, the authority of a report made by a committee of the House of Commons, of which the present Speaker was chairman. He, indeed, owed some apology to the noble lord, and the right hon. gentleman opposite, for presuming to appeal to authority which they so much disparaged, and for taking any assistance from that slow, tedious, indecisive, and inefficient instrument, a committee appointed by the House, which, in comparison with their own treasury commission, they were disposed so much to vilify and oppose. He would, however, state the opinion found in this document, which was the 17th report of the committee of inquiry into the civil department of the admiralty. After giving its opinion against any reduction of establishment during the continuance of active hostilities, it suggested it as a subject for future deliberation, whether, at the termination of the war, and the consequent diminution of our naval force, it might not be proper to carry retrenchment of office into the board of admiralty itself. Here was an admission that peace would allow a reduction of the board of admiralty. He was willing to confess, however, that such an opinion, as it merely emanated from a committee of the House, and not from a government commission, might not carry great weight along with it: but if it was of any use, it entitled him to infer, that the salaries of two of the lay-lords might be saved to the country without detriment to the public service, and that a commission appointed by the treasury, with instructions not to extend their inquiries into places that might so beneficially be abolished, was to be considered as a mere mockery.

He would next advert to the board of treasury: and here he was happy that he had his noble friend's authority, founded not, as in a former instance, on his father's experience, but on his own, for stating that he thought the places of some of the puisne lords useless. There were here six lords, and only two, the first lord and the chancellor of the exchequer, were effective. Like the lay-lords of the admiralty, the rest were required to do nothing but sign certain minutes, which might be as well signed by any other individuals, or without any signature at all but that of the effective members of the board. There were other offices to which, if he were not trespassing on the time of the House, he might advert. He could not pass by the board of control, as a fit subject for economical reduction. The secretary's office here was a sinecure [Hear, hear! from the ministerial benches]. If it was not a sinecure now, he could say that it was so considered both during the administration of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Addington. A change must lately have taken place by which it was rendered effective, for, before it was filled by the hon. gentleman who now enjoyed it, no duties were attached to it. Some of the commissioners might be reduced, as the president was the only active member, and was capable of fulfilling all the duties of the board. But if we might judge from late occurrences, even his employments were not very urgent. It was now nearly three months since the death of the earl of Buckinghamshire, who lately presided over that board, and no successor had been appointed. For some time before his death he had been disabled from giving that close and regular attendance which an efficient situation would require; but, notwithstanding this long virtual and actual vacancy, there was no complaint that inconveniences were experienced. What was the language of such a statement as this, but that there was no great pressure of business at the India board, and that the duties of that establishment might, by some arrangement or other, be transferred to the colonial department, without detriment to the public service, and be a great saving to the public purse? Much of the public money would thus be saved; but the most important saving would arise from that reduction of influence in a government that was already too strong for the constitution. Not one of those places which he had spoken of would be touched by the treasury commissioners: not one office which gave an influence in the House would come within the scope of their inquiries. Yet all these situations ought to be abolished in time of peace, because they were useless, and the money that they cost the country should be given up to the people, or expended on active and beneficial services. They should be abolished, because the country required relief, and because there would thus be a saving: but it was not alone on account of the value of the salary which their reduction would save that they ought to be abolished, but for the value of the liberty that they saved to the country [Hear, hear!].

He might be asked why he seized the present moment to go back to the consideration of offices that our ancestors had sanctioned, and which had existed so long without scrutiny or challenge; and he was not at a loss to return a satisfactory answer. The last war had been so long and so extensive—it had altered so much the habits of our political constitution, and made such inroads upon our liberties—we had arrived at such a state which was called peace, but which entailed upon us all the expensive establishments of war, and was connected with distress which in war we did not feel—our debts had increased to such an overwhelming and alarming amount, and had changed so much the property of the country—our colonies had been so greatly (he would not say disproportionally) multiplied—the establishments of government, and consequently government influence had been so much extended beyond what our ancestors could have conceived or permitted—the patronage of the Crown had acquired such increase, that it was now high time to take some steps to restore the constitution, to its former vigour, to recommend a return to the spirit that appeared in the better days of our history, and to ward off the ruin that threatened our national character, our institutions, and our privileges. If the necessity was now urgent, the occasion was likewise favourable. The noble lord had boasted of his negociations; and, certainly, if his treaties were worth the value of the paper on which they were written, or if our victories were worth the money that had been expended in celebrating them, we had now arrived at a period of profound repose. No enemy threatened us from without, and not the slightest whisper of tumult or disorder was heard from one end of the country to the other. There was nothing, therefore, to alarm us in any quarter, or to draw our minds off from attempts to rectify and ameliorate our condition by salutary reform. We could not be met by the terrifying phantom of the dangers of innovation, nor could our endeavours be paralyzed by pointing out the appearance of popular excitement or disturbance. In God's name, then, let us apply ourselves in earnest to restore our institutions, to improve our national character, to return to the maxims of economy, and to heal the wounds of the country—that at the end of the session, members may have the consciousness of having conferred substantial benefits on their country, and, when the prorogation arrives, may meet their constituents with the consciousness of having performed their duty, and of haying, to a certain extent, repaired the injuries which war had created [Hear, hear!].

said, that the commission of which he was a member could not report to the House, as they were instructed to report to the treasury; but they had not been idle—they had already made several reports.

said, that the hon. and learned gentleman had made a very ingenious speech, but a complete fallacy ran through the whole of it. The hon. and learned gentleman had argued on the papers now before the House, as if they referred to the state of the offices to which they related at the present time; whereas he must have known, that they were framed in the last session of parliament, and framed with a reference to a State of war rather than to a state of peace. Having stated this, it would be seen, that the arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman fell at once to the ground, unless the hon. and learned gentleman could show, which he defied him to do, that no alteration had been made in the course of the present year. On the subject of the office of the secretary of state for the colonial department, the hon. and learned gentleman had wasted a great deal of his eloquence, as very considerable reductions had taken place in that particular office. The same observations could be made, if he were to follow the hon. and learned gentleman through all the other statements which he had advanced. In so doing, he could prove that the documents on which the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman were founded, had been framed to meet a state of war. The increase of expense, to which the hon. and learned gentleman had alluded, would be found to have been greatly diminished, and consequently, what had fallen from him that night was a complete fallacy. In the pay-office, last year, there was a diminution of expense, amounting to but 7,000l. Since last January, a further reduction had been made to the amount of 30,000l. It certainly appeared, that there were some additions in the customs and excise. These had no reference to a state of war, but to a state of peace. During peace, the practice of smuggling became more general than in time of war, and in consequence, greater efforts were necessary to repress it, and to protect the revenue. This alone would be sufficient to account for the increase of expense under the heads he had mentioned; but he was prepared to contend, that because additions had been made to an efficient office, it by no means followed, that a primâ facie case had been made out against ministers of being negligent of economy. On the subject of the office of the surveyor-general of the works, the hon. and learned gentleman had enlarged, as if he considered this to be a most outrageous job; as if it furnished the fullest evidence of a total disregard of economy on the part of ministers: indeed, from the manner of the hon. and learned gentleman, he hardly knew what he thought of it. He had dwelt particularly on the 500l. and on the 1,500l. which were put down against this office, as if the most extravagant waste had taken place with respect to it. The hon. and learned gentleman had not been in parliament for several of the last years, or he must have known more than he appeared to know about this office, in regard of which he had been so loud in his censures of government. Had he been in the House, he must have known that in the session before last, a bill had been brought in for creating this very office, and that the salary now attached to it, which he considered as being most extraordinary, had been attached to it by act of parliament. Before the office was created, those who performed the business of it, instead of the salary by which it was now remunerated, were allowed a percentage on all the materials purchased for government; and the amount of the produce of this percentage was so great, that the salary now given in lieu of it, instead of being an increase, actually constituted a diminution of expense. On the same principle on which he had defended the office of the surveyor of the works, he might defend several others which had been subjected to the animadversions of the hon. and learned gentleman, namely, on that of their having been established by act of parliament. Under these heads, if an increase of expense should appear, it did not follow that a committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the cause of such increase, and it could not be shown that there were any grounds for censuring ministers. It should seem from the observations of the hon. and learned gentleman, that he was not aware of the existence of that act of parliament to which he (Mr. Robinson) had particularly alluded. [Mr. Brougham intimated that he was no stranger to the act mentioned by the right hon. gentleman.} The hon. and learned gentleman, if he knew of that act, must have forgotten it at the moment; or else it was very odd that he should make those remarks which had escaped him. The act he had mentioned furnished a satisfactory justification of the office which had been objected to, and he should like to know if it was a sufficient ground for the House to institute an inquiry, that the hon. and learned gentleman had little or no information on the subject. If the hon. and learned gentleman was at all acquainted with the act to which he had so frequently had occasion to refer, it was odd that he should have complained of the " attached architects," as these were established by the same bill—He complained of the course pursued by the hon. and learned gentleman in the strictures which he had made on this subject, and on the artifices to which he had had recourse, in order, unfairly, to make out such a case as would answer his purpose. He had noticed the twelve "labourers in trust," and had commented on this phraseology. It might be very bad grammar, but still it was the language of an act of parliament, and he believed it to be an old English mode of expression. He did not, however, mean to stand up for its correctness, but at the same time it appeared to him as intelligible as many other phrases which were allowed to pass current. Whatever difficulty might be in the way of understanding this, he should be quite as much at a loss to comprehend what was meant by a " professor of medical jurisprudence." That phrase might be a very proper one; but if it were allowed to pass unquestioned for its singularity, the hon. and learned gentleman ought not to be quite so hard on the wording of our acts of parliament.—He now came to notice what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman with respect to the three lords of the admiralty, who it seemed so long ago, as when earl Spencer was in office, had been found perfectly useless. Of earl Spencer he was sure he had as high an opinion as the hon. and learned gentleman, or any man in the country could have, but he was a little surprised at hearing the statement that that noble earl had thought the three lords in question wholly useless. All he could say was, that from the experience he had had, he could not agree with this assertion, and felt himself called upon most positively to deny that the situations of these lords were sinecures. While he was at the board, he had found that constant duties were attached to them, and when he had retired for a little relaxation, it was found necessary to employ others to perform them. If the hon. and learned gentleman who had complained of these offices as useless, were to try one of them, he would soon find it was no sinecure. Some of the duties which he (Mr. Robinson) had had to perform were of a most painful nature. The proceedings of courts martial in cases of life and death (as there was no reference to the Crown) were brought before the lord high admiral and the board. These he had been obliged to read over; attentively to consider, and finally to report on them; and this duty he thought it would easily be conceded to him, was nothing like a sinecure, either in labour or in feeling. It would also be admitted, that this was a duty of some importance: whether he had performed it well was another question; but what he had said would prove that the office was not wholly a useless one. He felt it necessary to offer a few words on what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman towards the close of his speech, respecting the board of control. In the first place, he denied that the members of that board who received salaries had nothing to do. He could appeal to an hon. friend near him, who had given up almost his whole life to the service of the board, if he found his situation bore any resemblance to a sinecure. The hon. and learned gentleman had endeavoured to prove that the office of public secretary was a sinecure some years ago, but his hon. friend, who, in effect, did much of the business of the board, could testify that such was not now its character. During the administration of lord Sid-mouth, the gentleman who was appointed to that situation, he hardly knew how to describe him, but he might say, he was an hon. member who had made himself very useful by the part he had taken in promoting the erection of penitentiary houses, had, he believed, found the office to be no sinecure. If he had found it one, he must have discovered some means of relieving himself from the duties of it, which others had not been so fortunate as to hit upon. The hon. and learned gentleman was totally mistaken if he supposed the illness of lord Buckinghamshire had at all interrupted, or suspended the business of the board. He, notwithstanding his illness, was unremitting in his attention to business, and though it required a great effort on his part to perform it, all the endeavours made to induce him to desist, and to take some relaxation, were in vain. He was not content to perform it at home, but, in opposition to the intreaties of his friends, persisted in going regularly to his office. Though in the last few weeks before he died, he was compelled to leave London, yet during the whole period, while labouring under the greatest affliction, in which he had ever seen any man, the noble earl's mind was wholly bent on the duties of his office, which he continued to perform, so far as this could be done while he was under the necessity of residing at a distance from London. During his abode at Bath he arranged the embassy to China, and transacted besides much business. Mr. Robinson said, he had seen him go through it while there, till in common with all the friends of that noble lord, he became alarmed for the consequences of such exertions on the part of a man in his declining state. This statement, he trusted, would be sufficient to correct the error into which the hon. and learned gentleman had fallen with respect to the board of control. It would, he trusted, prove that he had been greatly mistaken, and that the offices in question were far from being the sinecures he had supposed them to be. Under all the circumstances, he could see no reason for adopting the motion of the noble lord; and he trusted he had made good the assertion with which he had set out, that the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman furnished an ingenious fallacy, but no argument in its favour.

thought that, after all the explanations which had been given, strong grounds for inquiry still remained—an inquiry which, without any disrespect to the members of the new commission, would be better executed by a committee of that House. The right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had founded his objections on the lateness of the session, and the tardy progress of a committee. He did not think that technical arguments like these were suited to a period of such severe and general pressure, or that they were such as could weigh with a House of Commons anxious to discharge its duties to the country. The House was now called upon to consider whether they would at length give to the people those benefits which they were expected to confer. It was said, on the other side, that confidence ought to be placed in the pledges offered by the Prince Regent's ministers; but he believed the pledge to which the public looked, and on which they founded all their hopes, was the solid and substantial one given by that House in its defeat of the minister's project for renewing the property tax. If the House did not redeem the pledge then given, they had only excited idle expectations, and acquired a delusive popularity [Hear, hear!]. He could assure the noble lord, that his absence from a seat in that House, to which he had only returned this session, had but served to confirm his conviction of the embarrassed situation of the country, and of the extra-ordinary symptoms which had accompanied the return of peace. It was not, he admitted, surprising that a war which had shaken every throne in Europe, and driven every system of finance except our own, through the ordeal of bankruptcy, should in its conclusion be atttended with extraordinary effects. Such multiplied and disastrous occurrences could not pass over own heads like a summer cloud, and leave no trace behind. The country, however, had done its part: nothing was to be seen but a spirit of cordial cooperation, and mutual desire to accommodate. A noble lord opposite had talked of attempts at propagating a base delusion. He had seen with as much regret as the noble lord a few exaggerated statements in different publications; but in that House, and on the part of his hon. friends, he denied that any practices had been adopted, or any topics adverted to, which were calculated to produce erroneous impressions. In point of fact, he did not believe that any delusion existed in the public mind in relation to this subject. The public were as little led astray into wild expectations, and had as clear and distinct a view of what was practicable in retrenchment, as the noble lord. What was looked to was example, and the effect of just principles adopted with sincerity, and carried into operation with vigour. Since the period when he had first the honour of a seat in that House, he had never seen in it so much apathy to considerations of economy—an apathy too well corresponding with the disposition of the government. He begged, however, to warn ministers, and to implore the House not to entertain the belief that a similar apathy was to be found in the present silence of the people [Hear, hear!].

It was an unfortunate coincidence, that this indifference hitherto manifested, except on one memorable occasion, should occur at a period when popular meetings were suspended, and the expression of the public voice was consequently relaxed. Friendly as he was to such declarations of public feeling, he should be sorry to see the functions of the executive assumed on these occasions; and it would be most painful to him to find that a persuasion prevailed, that, without the constant superintendence of the constituent body, there was no security for the public service. Should such an opinion however prevail, it would be owing solely to the conduct of ministers. In ordinary times, inquiries of this nature were better intrusted to the government; but under extraordinary circumstances, and when retrenchment was to be carried far, and to be directed to great objects, he was satisfied that ministers had neither the courage nor the means of carrying it into effect by their own influence; and he submitted, therefore, the propriety of arming them with the authority of that House [Hear, hear!]. He believed indeed that no inquiry or reform instituted under the sanction of the present ministers could be effectual, or give satisfaction to the public [Hear! from the treasury bench]. It was true, perhaps, that no possible system of retrenchment or reform could satisfy all the hopes which sanguine spirits might conceive; but the mere mention of the word inspired nothing but distrust, when applied to the existing administration. He had had many opportunities of marking this impression on the public mind. It was chiefly founded on the attempt to impose unconstitutional taxes, and to procure the consent of parliament to exorbitant estimates, both of which they bad been compelled to relinquish. This feeling gave a new colour to the language universally employed, and created an opinion, that it was necessary to watch every motion of the government, and that the best and only security for their conduct was, to withhold from them the public supplies. He begged them to reflect, that they held in their hands not only their own character and responsibility, but the character of the country and the safety of the constitution. Their measures most certainly, instead of exciting confidence or affection, had hitherto produced nothing but alienation, jealousy, suspicion, and distrust.

said:—Mr. Speaker; I beg to assure the House, that I have listened to the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just sat down, with all the satisfaction which I used to derive from hearing him address to the chair, when he had formerly a seat in this House, and I do not differ from him as to the general principle on which he is disposed to discuss the question now under consideration. I am perfectly willing to join issue with him on this point—that no administration can or ought to exist in this country, which has not founded itself on a rational and well-considered system of economy, and which does not exert itself to carry that economy into all parts of the state, so far as the circumstances of the times, and the nature of the offices necessarily kept up, will admit of this being done. I perfectly agree with him in the feeling, that that government must be short-lived, as it ought to be, which does not effect every thing in the way of retrenchment and economy, that can safely be attempted; but I differ from him with respect to the present feelings of the people of this country; as I am confident, that, however strong their wishes may be in favour of a proper system of economy, they are not to be led away by the clamour raised on this subject, to wish that government, which has conducted the country so happily, and I may say with so much glory through the war, should now abandon those sentiments which they have always professed, and those principles on which they have hitherto acted, and on which they now depend to carry the country through the difficulties of peace, and thus to lose the most interesting reward for all their exertions—that of seeing the complete triumph of the opinions they have uniformly maintained. From the inference which the hon. gentleman seemed inclined to deduce from the supposed state of feeling in the country, that there exists any party which the country would prefer to that now in power, to have the administration of its affairs, I totally dissent. I deny that any wish has been proved to have been expressed in favour of any other party that may be opposed to the present government, and I hope it will not be contended that no party can be found to whom the people would willingly confide the authority of a government. If no party can be found in whose economy the people can place confidence, as none can govern them long without such confidence being reposed in them, I shall think the situation of the country bad indeed. This is a doctrine which I cannot suppose the hon. gentleman disposed to maintain. If, however, he is inclined to think that in economy, or in any thing else that ought to distinguish the administration of a country like this, the gentlemen about him stand higher in the estimation of the public, than their political opponents on this side, of the House, I sincerely wish that he would endeavour to supply some practical proof of the fact. If this can be done—if it can be shown that the gentlemen in opposition to the government, and not the government, possess the confidence of the people, in God's name let the present ministers retire from their situations to make room for their adversaries; but do not continue them in office, and withdraw from them that confidence and those means of forming its own arrangements which the executive government ought to retain so long as it is permitted to exist. The suggestion of the hon. gentleman, that by the appointment of a committee to inquire what reductions may be effected, the interests of economy and the wishes of the people, would be better consulted than by leaving in the hands of ministers that power which now belongs to them, I deny to be correct, and I spurn at the protection which he offers by this committee, to save ministers from the weight of that responsibility which they must otherwise be content to bear. I seek no such cover as is here held out to me for what I may take upon myself to recommend to parliament; and I do not desire the impunity the hon. gentleman proffers. It is my wish to do my duty to my country, and to submit my conduct to the decision of parliament. The hon. and learned gentleman and his friends may attempt to delude the country by their statements on the subject of economy, retrenchment, and reform: but if they believe they have succeeded—if they think they have shown that the present ministers are less anxious on these points than themselves, and that the nation is satisfied with their showing—I desire nothing more than that this may be practically brought to issue. Till this is done, I shall fearlessly do my duty, by giving the Crown that advice which I think the interests of the country demand should be given, and cheerfully submit the result to the decision of parliament.

Having thus explained the principle by which I am guided on this occasion, I shall now proceed to consider the substance of the proposition made by the noble lord. In looking at the case before us, important as it is to the best interests of the country, it divides itself into two questions perfectly distinct in themselves. They are both most important, but they are distinct considerations. There is that which relates to the patronage and influence of the Crown, and there is that which relates to the reduction of expenditure—to the subject of public economy. I will first offer a few words with respect to the consideration of economy. The speech of the noble lord was distinguished, as the noble lord's speeches in this House always have been, by the mildness of its tone and the moderation of its character; but certainly the noble lord has been induced to countenance the delusion attempted to be practised by the hon. gentlemen opposite, and more particularly by the hon. and learned gentleman, when they inculcate the notion that any degree of economy would afford a practical relief to the country. Sir, there cannot be a greater delusion than to declare that any economy which it is possible to observe, that even the sweeping away of all official situations, would afford a practical relief to what are called the sufferings of the country. I do not state this in order to diminish the responsibility of ministers on this subject, or to discourage carrying economy to the greatest lengths to which it can prudently be carried; but I state it, because it is an abuse to say that the greatest economy which it may be possible to introduce in our public expenditure can make the difference in the country between suffering and not suffering.

I now beg leave to make a few observations on that branch of the question which touches the patronage and influence of the Crown. Many gentlemen certainly entertain the opinion, that even before the war the patronage and influence of the Crown were excessive. No doubt, therefore, there are some who entertain that opinion at present. But this I can say with confidence, that it has not been the opinion expressed by parliament. I ask the hon. gentleman on the lower part of the opposite bench, if, on the discussion of this subject the general understanding of parliament was not this—that the patronage and influence of the Crown were not felt by this House to be excessive, and that the object was not to reduce that influence, but to introduce a principle of activity rather than a principle of sinecure. This, Sir, is the opinion of parliament recorded, after repeated discussions, in the resolutions of this House, which stated, that the influence of the Crown was not more extensive than was consistent with the interest of the country, but that it was expedient to convert the sinecure offices into some other modes by which the Crown might be enabled to reward merit in the various departments of the public service. Whatever, therefore, may be the sentiments of the hon. and learned gentleman and his friends on the subject of cutting down the patronage and influence of the Crown, that which I have already described is the extent of the opinion expressed by this House on the subject. If the noble lord means to endeavour to convince parliament that the patronage and influence of the Crown have grown up with the increasing expenditure, until it has become too great with reference to the liberties of the country (which, for my own part, I consider to be deeply interested in preserving the just patronage of the Crown), let him submit that principle to the consideration of parliament; but let him not, with a view to economy, strike at that legitimate and necessary patronage and influence of the Crown, which is recognized by the constitution, and which has always received the sanction of parliament.

But to come to that which is the true question before us; what is the course which parliament ought to take for the revision of those public offices, which are either of ancient establishment, or which have been created for the better conduct of the public service in that new state of things occasioned by the extraordinary course of events in Europe for many years past? I apprehend that to be the scope of the motion which we have to-night to consider; and the question is, how the desired reform can be most rapidly accomplished, and how the existing excesses can be controlled, until we arrive at that ultimate point which the interests of the country require. Sir, on this part of the subject I entirely concur in the opinion of an hon. friend of mine, who has said that if we mean to do this well, and to do it quickly, parliament ought not in the first instance to take on itself that which, properly speaking, is the function of the executive government. For, were a committee of this House appointed conformably to the motion of the noble lord, that committee must necessarily apply to persons in office for information, and must in a great degree be guided by their judgment. Is it, therefore, the course prescribed by common sense, to take the question in the first instance out of the hands of those who are the most competent to consider it, and to throw it, with all its crudities, into the hands of a committee of the House of Commons; which committee, having no knowledge whatever of the interior organization of the offices which it is required to examine, must seek for information from those who are alone able to communicate it? The objection made by my hon. friend to the appointment of the committee proposed by the noble lord, is not a permanent objection. My hon. friend did not maintain that parliament ought at no time to enter into the proposed inquiry. All that he contended for was, that the executive government should first be left to do all that it could on the subject; and that parliament should not in the first instance institute an inquiry; as it was by no means the most competent authority in which that inquiry could originate. A great part of the difficulty of the present question arises from the impossibility of reducing the expenditure of the various public departments instantly. Can a committee of this House judge of the best day, or week, or month on which such or such offices ought to cease? Are not the persons at the head of those offices, acting on their responsibility, and under the eventual control of parliament, better qualified to say when the day is likely to arrive on which the abolition of such offices may take place, without detriment to the public service? Would it not be better to refer the subject to those persons, rather than to appoint a committee of this House for the purpose of extracting from its proceedings a cover for his majesty's ministers, to screen them from the proper responsibility of their situations? Sir, I feel that I should insult the good sense of the House, by arguing this part of the question any further. On the face of the subject it is evident that it ought, in the first instance, to be left to the consideration of his majesty's government. If parliament should be dissatisfied with our conduct, then in the next session let the omissions of which we may be conceived to have been guilty, be pointed out. But nothing can be more absurd than that the hon. and learned gentleman and his friends should endeavour now to run a race with his majesty's government in this task. If the hon. and learned gentleman and his friends were in the government, they might perhaps do so with effect, but in a committee of the House of Commons, they would find themselves quite unequal to the undertaking. All this is, in my opinion, so obvious, that I shall abstain from troubling the House with any further observations upon it. If the House should think differently from me upon the subject—if they should be unwilling to leave the responsibility of this inquiry, in the first instance, in that quarter in which, according to my judgment, it ought to be left, namely, in the executive officers of his majesty's government—if the arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman should lead to a want of confidence in that government on the part of parliament, the best course which they can adopt is, to address the Crown to remove the ministers whom they cannot trust, but not to act towards them in a way which must embarrass and entangle the public service.

Sir, I protest against the course of argument adopted by the hon. and learned gentleman, in hostility to his majesty's ministers. We have done nothing that I know of which ought to deprive us of the confidence of the House and of the country. It ought to be no disqualification for the discharge of our other duties, that we discharged one of the most painful, (but which with our opinions was the most imperative), in advising parliament, after relieving the country of a burthen of eleven millions, to continue a productive tax, not for a permanency, but for two years only in order to sustain the credit of the country, and by that means more effectually to relieve the pressure on all classes of the community. I beg leave also to contend that we have not been justly exposed to the loss of the confidence of parliament and the country, by the mode in which we arranged the estimates submitted to the consideration of this House, and by the reductions which we conceived might with prudence be made in the public expenditure. The hon. and learned gentleman asks what ministers were about between June and the beginning of the session of parliament. The battle of Waterloo, he says, decided the war. Sir, the hon. and learned gentleman is one of those who are great prophets after the occurrence of the events which they predict. For myself, although I certainly thought that the battle of Waterloo would in all probability put a complete end to the war, I did not, until the actual conclusion of peace, consider it prudent or wise on the part of Great Britain to reduce her military establishments, whatever might be done with respect to our naval establishments, which, in fact, began to be reduced from the moment of the arrival of the news of the battle of Waterloo. As to the rate of the subsequent reduction of our military establishments, I do believe it was as rapid as was consistent with prudence and with the true principles of national economy. In one week after the ratification by France of the treaty of peace, the expenditure of the country was reduced from eighty millions to thirty millions. All reduction of this nature requires time. At the close of a war involving such a complication of objects, the movements towards a diminution of expense must be deliberate. Every thing must be done with order and accuracy. Nothing ought to be unduly accelerated.

What is the next reproach which it is attempted to cast on his majesty's ministers? That, in the course of the discussion which took place on the estimates of the army, we disclosed to parliament proposed reductions which, in the first instance, we did not particularise. Sir, if the hon. gentlemen opposite wish for it, I have no objection to give them credit for the active discharge of their public duties on this occasion; but then they must on the other hand allow me to say, that in my conscience, I believe the great mass of the reductions which have taken place, would have equally occurred had that activity never displayed itself. The hon. and learned gentleman founds his attack on his majesty's ministers on this subject, on the observation made by my noble friend, the secretary at war, who, when he introduced the estimates, said, that they were the lowest in amount which the circumstances of the time would admit. If the hon. and learned gentleman applies his remarks to the numbers of the army as stated in those estimates, I am ready to confirm the declaration of my noble friend, that the number was not too great as applicable, not to future years, but to the present year. In point of fact, parliament concurred in the reasons given by his majesty's ministers in the discussion on that subject; for no reduction took place in the number of the troops. But if the hon. and learned gentleman means to say that my noble friend did not allege that it was in the contemplation of his majesty's government to make various reductions not comprehended in the estimates in the collateral branches of the military expenditure, I am so far from allowing the truth of the statement, that I appeal to the House whether, on the very introduction of the estimates, my noble friend did not announce that they had been prepared under circumstances of much difficulty, when his majesty's government had not an opportunity to look with sufficient accuracy at their minor details, or to make up their opinions as to the precise periods of the year, when various reductions of them which were in contemplation, could, without inexpediency to the public service, be carried into effect? I do protest, therefore, against this attempt on the part of the hon. and learned gentleman to create a false impression, by the attack which he has made on his majesty's ministers for bringing under the consideration of the House supplementary estimates different from those originally proposed by them. It was from the first moment distinctly declared by my noble friend, that in many cases the number of men which it was proposed to vote was not intended for the whole year, although, in the peculiar situation of the country, at the close of a long war, and with so many foreign dependencies, it was impossible at that moment to state the precise period at which that number could be diminished.

Sir, his majesty's government have been, and are most zealously employed in the active review of the various departments of the public service, in order to effect such reductions as may be advantageous to the country. The House must be aware, that a very extensive reduction has already taken place. It may be necessary to apprize those who do not sufficiently consider the consequences to the country of these measures of reduction, that there is not a branch of the public service, in which it is not necessary to continue the current expenses for a period longer or shorter, in order to close and wind up the outstanding accounts. It may also be necessary to apprize such persons, that there are a great number of branches of the public service, which notwithstanding the exercise of the utmost diligence, cannot be so closed and wound up neither in a week, nor in a month, nor in a year, nor even, perhaps, in two years; and that a very long period indeed is necessary properly to decide on the expenditure of a country like Great Britain, at the termination of a war of such duration and extent. All the reductions that are practicable, however, are in the course of being effected, and there is no degree of diligence which will not be used by his majesty's government, to complete them as speedily as the various circumstances of difficulty by which they are impeded will permit. His majesty's ministers, Sir, will actively and steadily pursue the conduct which they have thus prescribed to themselves, under the sincere and strong impression that they will and ought to lose the confidence of parliament and the country, unless they introduce into the different departments of the public service all the economy of which they are susceptible; but at the same time they will never run a race with the hon. gentlemen opposite for the attainment of a spurious economy, calculated to compromise the best interests of the empire. If, sir, the hon. and learned gentleman, and the hon. gentlemen who surround him, mean to found their reputation, and their claim to public favour on an endeavour to run down and revile his majesty's ministers, by the assumption on their part of some imaginary standard of public retrenchment, I tell them that we are resolved to pursue the course of economy, as long as our consciences will allow us to do so; but that we will never aim at temporary popularity, by any abandonment of the public interest; trusting that the same means by which we have the good fortune to carry the country through the dangers of war, will with equal felicity enable us to carry her through the difficulties of peace. We are always ready to submit ourselves to the judgment of parliament and the nation; we entertain the greatest respect for that awful tribunal, public opinion; but in peace, as in war, we will found our conduct on the solid basis of principle, and will never be tempted to mislead the country in the one state, as we were never tempted to betray or sacrifice it in the other [Hear, hear!].

said, that he felt considerable anxiety to rise after the extraordinary speech which the House had just heard from the noble lord. From all his experience and knowledge of parliament, he felt that no House of Commons could have listened to it without a heartfelt indignation. If he had ever seen real fear disguised under the assumption of a lofty tone—if he had ever seen an attempt, by the affectation of a strut to hide real degradation—if he had ever seen a man endeavour to look tall by walking about upon stilts—if he had ever seen a minister betray a consciousness that he was tottering to his fall—he had witnessed those sights that evening, and in the person of the noble lord [Hear, hear!]. The noble lord had accused him and his friends, of an attempt to run down his majesty's ministers, and to make them unpopular. He denied this. He and his friends did not deal in sinecures, and that would be one. The noble lord and his colleagues were quite unpopular enough without any effort on their part. It was not himself and his friends who attacked the noble lord's measures; it was the country. The parchments with which the table was so loaded, that it seemed scarcely able to bear the enormous weight, afforded a tolerably good estimate of the confidence of the country in his majesty's ministers, praying parliament, as those petitions did, to save them from the extravagance of a government, known for its profusion, and from past pledges unredeemed, not to be believed in its assurances of future economy [Hear, hear!] The noble lord accused those opposed to him, of running a race with his majesty's ministers. What kind of race was it? Three weeks ago, his noble friend had given notice that he would move for a committee to consider what reduction might be made in the expenditure of the public departments. There was no race there. But when a minister came down two days after with a similar notice, then the race commenced. His noble friend who never before thought of running, finding the noble lord get on horseback, deemed it necessary to call for his nag too [A laugh]. It now, however, turned out, that in the opinion of his majesty's ministers, nothing could be more monstrous—more unparliamentary—more unconstitutional—than the proposition made by his noble friend. That it was unparliamentary he denied; and he wished to God that the House was in the committee, in order that he might appeal on that subject to the Speaker, for whose constitutional knowledge, although he had unfortunately differed from him on some minor points, he entertained the greatest respect. The noble lord declared, that in voting for the committee, hon. members would be withdrawing their confidence from ministers. For himself, he should not withdraw confidence, never having had any in them; but if he had, he should not conceive that by acceding to the motion he should withdraw it. He could not help suspecting that they had just heard in parliament a speech which, if his information was correct, had been previously made by the noble lord in private, at one of those political drills now so frequent, at which a chosen few—a particular description of individuals—usually attended, and at which (if he was rightly informed) such language as this was used, to those who ventured to start objections to the plans of ministers—" True, there is a great deal in what you say; we allow that things are not exactly as they ought to be; but then consider, that if you vote against them, you will remove the existing government" [Hear, hear!]. It was on these, or on any terms, that the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman persisted in retaining their places. Under every variety of circumstances, whether with the property tax or without it, whether with a large army or a small army, whether with a rich or with a poor exchequer, it was no matter—if nothing was left them but a corporal's guard and a bank token, the noble lord and the right hon. gentleman opposite would try to continue to sit on the bench opposite, to the end of time [A laugh]. The motion of his noble friend was, that a committee should be appointed in the ordinary terms, and without any unusual powers, to examine and report what reduction could be effected in the various branches of expenditure. The noble lord opposite replied, that such a proposition was unjustifiable, and why?—because it betokened a want of confidence in his majesty's ministers. Parliament, he contended, had nothing to do with the disbursement of the public money; it belonged to government to spend it, and to parliament to provide it; and the House of Commons was not even to be allowed to take care that the money was properly expended. These were sacred and secret matters with which ministers alone had concern; and the noble lord had proposed that a commission of his own choice should be appointed to make investigation. This commission was not to be directed, but to be requested to examine into the various matters, and then they were to advise with the lords of the treasury. Nothing could be more opposite than the two modes suggested: the commission of the friends of the noble lord were to wait upon the lords of the treasury, and to request information—the committee of the House of Commons would require the lords of the treasury to wait upon them; all the witnesses would be obliged to give evidence; and any man who refused, though a peer of the realm, would be sure of finding his way to Newgate. If a beneficial result were in view, who could doubt which was the better mode of proceeding? But the noble lord had different objects than the effectual promotion of economy. The noble lord had asserted that his mode of proceeding was the most constitutional. He would not enter into any discussion with the noble lord as to what was and what was not constitutional, for upon that subject, as upon most others, the ideas of the noble lord were not a little confused. If, however, uniform usage was any criterion, the case for a committee of the House was the strongest that could be made. Very early in our parliamentary history, notions, which the noble lord had no doubt deemed very absurd, had found their way into some minds, that the Peers and the King were to have no influence over the pecuniary votes of the House of Commons. Upon this principle was formed the parliamentary commission during the administration of lord North, as well as the committee appointed in 1786 at the instigation of Mr. Pitt, over which the late sir Francis Baring presided. At that time Mr. Pitt (whom the noble lord always professed most scrupulously to follow—certainly at a very humble distance) entertained no apprehension, that, by the nomination, he should forfeit the confidence of the country. On the contrary, he well knew that it was the only way to deserve and secure it, and on that account he took the start of his opponents, and himself made the proposition. The same steps had been pursued by him in 1796–7: he knew that the country had a right to expect it; yet on that day no clamour, as the noble lord termed it, existed in the country—no universal cry for economy, and no distresses under which all classes of the community were suffering. Mr. Pitt then saw no danger of losing the public confidence by taking care of the public money: he knew that the committee was the only way to obtain it: he proceeded in an open and a manly manner, and did not resort to petty private meetings to frighten ministerial members into a belief of imaginary dangers [Continued cheers from all sides]. Mr. Tierney said, he most ardently wished that the forms of the House would allow the Speaker, who was chairman of the committee of 1796–7, to state to the House the advantages he conceived it to possess over the commission of the noble lord; such an opinion could not fail of producing a striking impression against the noble lord and his little triumvirate of adherents. Another committee had subsequently been appointed, with which lord Grenville was connected, nor were its labours deemed useless or unpopular; and if the noble lord's reasoning was just, how had he ventured to sanction the finance committees at the head of which the hon. gentleman below (Mr. Bankes) had for five years been exerting himself? Had they accomplished nothing even in point of money? In consequence of their reports, the chancellor of the exchequer would have no more private dealings with the bank—no more secret engagements for the benefit of the directors, who were brought down to the House to be examined, and by which a saving of not less than 150,000l. a year had been effected. But while the noble lord argued that committees of the House had done nothing, he asserted that his commission of the treasury were to perform wonders. No doubt the members of it would do their utmost, but the minister would take care not to give them too much power; and, however respectable, their actions could not but be viewed with a certain degree of distrust, when the noble lord who named them admitted that it was only to gain a little temporary popularity. Was it to be expected of human nature that they would not consult with their friends of the treasury, before they ventured upon any point that might be annoying to their feelings, how far they were to proceed? Who were the masters of the commissioners?—the lords of the treasury. Who were the masters of the members of the parliamentary committee?—the Commons of England; the representatives of the very people that demanded retrenchment. The commission would have no will of its own while in the committee. The collision of party and the union of intellect would secure a result that could not fail of being advantageous. The commissioners of the noble lord were three very respectable individuals, undoubtedly; but where did they sit?—by the side of the noble lord. It was true that none of them were actually in office, and it was to be regretted that they were not, for (notwithstanding the noble lord's assertion, that his administration was so firmly seated that no man but in a dream could suppose that it was unpopular) their support and services might ere long be found extremely useful. His majesty's ministers, notwithstanding all the confidence expressed by their leader, might shortly find it necessary to employ a little of their spare strength, and to re-import what for a time they had exported [Continued cheers]. The administration which now set all advice at scorn, and would rely on nothing but its popularity and the confidence of a rich and happy nation, might in a few-weeks deem it prudent to bring back into this country a right hon. gentleman, whom but a short time ago they sent out of it; and that right hon. gentleman, partly out of gratitude, and partly out of compassion to his friends in adversity, would no doubt persuade one or two of his connexions to lend also their aid to the servants of the Crown—The chancellor of the exchequer had intimated, that the question regarding the office of the third secretary of state had been disposed of—that it was never again to be agitated, because he (Mr. Tierney) had been unsuccessful in his motion regarding it. Why had he not succeeded?—because no means were allowed of proving the facts he brought before the House. If the committee now sought were appointed, the result would be very different: then the question might be thoroughly investigated—the noble lord himself might be examined [Lord Castlereagh shook his head]. The noble lord opposite need not be alarmed—he did not allude to his place—that was quite safe—he referred to the office of lord Bathurst, who was only a friend of the noble lord, and with regard to whose office, therefore, he felt little interest.—In the next place it was said, in opposition to the motion, that the inquiry before a committee would occupy too much time, and that the commissioners would proceed with greater celerity: but admitting that the operations of the latter would be more rapid in the first instance, their labours were afterwards to be submitted to parliament for discussion; and then where was the gain in point of dispatch? The committee was not only the shortest, but the most effectual mode. The noble lord might refuse to accede to the recommendation of his own commissioners, but he (Mr. T.) would be glad to see the minister hardy enough to maintain an office which the House, by its committee, had declared ought to be abolished: he should be glad to see even the noble lord, with all his confidence in his popularity, throw himself in the gap between the placemen and parliament. Practically, no man living could doubt that the inquiries of the committee would be directed more sincerely and heartily to the important object than those of the commissioners of the treasury. The House had already before it a specimen of what would be accomplished by them, in the account printed of the increase and diminution of the salaries in the public offices. From whence did it emanate?—from the lords of the treasury at their board; and the first page was a curious instance of the sort of retrenchment they had effected. These economical lords in the last year had augmented the expenses of the treasury no less than 10,000l. and these were the reformers in whom parliament was to confide—these were the men who were to begin a system of retrenchment, in whose favour all other modes were to give place—and who, according to the noble lord, were to work wonders. Wonders they no doubt would work—such as would make the nation stare, and exclaim, that all former extravagance was economy and parsimony—such as would soon add new weight to the burthen of the national debt [Hear, hear!]. The document to which he had referred, contained, among other reductions, the addition of an entirely new place, with a salary of 1,400l. a year; the office might be necessary or it might not—papers might have accumulated or they might not—but it was a singular indication of a spirit of retrenchment. Besides this, 500l. per annum were given to the assistant-secretary in addition to the 3,000l. per annum he before enjoyed; and although his pay was thus increased, he was also to have his assistant at a salary of 1,400l. per annum. These were the reforming gentlemen, the rigid economists, in whom the noble lord was anxious the House and the country should confide! [Hear, hear!]. He would not go through the items, but gentlemen would find that the contingent expenses had been raised 6,000l., and, to their astonishment, that 5,000l. of that sum was for pecuniary remuneration: such conduct was without parallel, unless it were equalled by that of the noble lord who had recommended such lords of the treasury to confidence. Not content with outraging the public feeling by printing such statements, the noble lord completed the insult by approving their extravagance, and terming them reformers and economists.—He would not go beyond the first page of this account, since that afforded the most perfect conviction, and exposed the authors in their true colours to the eyes of all mankind. If the House of Commons would submit to such a proceeding as government had suggested, it would submit to any thing. It had been said that the two modes might be concurrent, and that the commissioners might begin their inquiry; if so, the very first step he would recommend to the committee would be, to order these commissioners to attend, that they might show upon what they had been employed. If the House submitted to be told by a minister, in his place, that parliamentary inquiry betrayed a want of confidence in the servants of the Crown, and that it was unconstitutional to investigate the mode in which the public money was expended, all hope was at an end, and the nation had nothing but destruction to expect: from the 7th of May, 1816, it might be said that all the functions of parliament had ceased. On behalf of the people of England, he claimed that much more should be done than ministers had suggested. If the noble lord thought that the country did not understand him, he was miserably mistaken; at least as far as respected economy, the people of England were not to be deceived in the intentions of the noble lord and his colleagues. " What," said the noble lord, " will they desert us now, after we have won for them so many glorious battles, and after we have conquered for them such a happy peace?" To this he (Mr. T.) could only reply, that one distinguishing characteristic of Englishmen was their great good sense, which opposed itself to all sorts of imposition. It might be truly said, that no man in our history had ever gained for a time an unmerited reputation, that had not soon been exposed by the national penetration, and degraded to the low level from which accident had raised him. The natives of Great Britain could easily distinguish between such people as the noble lord opposite and such men as the duke of Wellington. The cloud which had hitherto surrounded the noble lord, and the intervention of which, like a mist, had " made him but greater seem, not greater grow," was now fast dispelling, and leaving him exposed as he really was. The presence of a right hon. gentleman, who was on his way to reinforce the ranks of the treasury, would throw back the noble lord to the place he had originally occupied. It could not be said of the noble lord, that " he was great ere fortune made him so:" the noble lord had been very successful, and he recommended him to retire with submission, and thank God for his good luck. The noble lord would find that he could no longer ride the people of England; and that, if he proceeded with the system he had declared himself determined to pursue, he would raise a storm of resentment which he would find it impossible to allay [_Loud cries of Hear, hear!].

as soon as tranquillity was restored, begged the House to do him the justice to recollect, that he had not contended generally against parliamentary inquiry, but that the present occasion was ill chosen: immediately after the restoration of peace, the House had not hitherto interfered with the executive government [The noble lord was interrupted by cries of Spoke, spoke! question, &c.].

congratulated the right hon. gentleman on the singular equanimity and calmness which he had displayed in the course of his speech, considering the excessive joy he might have shown at the confidently anticipated removal of ministers. Whether this tranquillity was produced by the convincing speech of the noble lord, or by the vote of last night, he would not pretend to say. An hon. gentleman had contended that the inquiry ought not to be left to the executive government, because the result would not be satisfactory to the sanguine spirits of this country. He (Mr. H.) begged to ask what measures even of the most rigid economy would satisfy those sanguine spirits, or rather those mischievous and deluded people out of doors, who only sought to introduce confusion and destruction into the state? An hon. and learned gentleman, had, with much triumph endeavoured to prove that in the department of the customs an increase of ministerial patronage to the extent of 61,000l. had been effected; but the fact was, as appeared from the details which had been carefully kept, out of sight, that the whole additional expense was for stationary, for the further enforcement of the quarantine laws, and for law expenses, which had nothing to do with patronage. The same hon. and learned gentleman had made similar remarks upon the board of works and the augmentation of a few of the salaries, forgetting that certain perquisites had been relinquished by the officers, which made the augmentation an economical arrangement. He had defied ministers to show that, in a single instance, they had abolished any place of patronage; but he had forgotten the places of the under-secretary of state and of the commissioners of transports, which had been found unnecessary. From the very nature of war, the lower offices principally in the departments had been increased; and on the return of peace, of course those would be the first to be abolished. As to the injury sustained by the constitution of late years, he was prepared to contend, in detail, that the growing influence of the Crown had always been met by a more than corresponding proportion of influence in the people.

observed, that the influence of the Crown must be extended in proportion to the number of officers paid by it: of course a considerable reduction must be made in time of peace; and the question seemed to be, who was to ascertain the proportion of that reduction? He was in favour of the committee of the House, and was astonished at some of the doctrines laid down by the noble lord and others, to prove that a practice so long established was not the fit and constitutional mode of proceeding. He apprehended that many important benefits had flowed from the labours of the committees on public expenditure. He assured the House that he did not now vote in favour of the motion for a committee, in hostility to his majesty's ministers. A committee of inquiry had, indeed, been already appointed by the treasury: and although ministers had been rather tardy in their proceedings, yet he sincerely hoped that the committee would make up for the delay by expedition. The work had been begun, and he would call upon the House to decide whether the members of the House of Commons were not as fit persons to judge upon this question as his majesty's ministers. Why should parliament be shut out entirely from considering the subject? It had been also asserted, in answer to the arguments urged by his hon. friends, the supporters of this motion, that this was not the proper time to bring forward such an inquiry. It was, then, fit and proper for the treasury, who were admitted into all the secrets of the subject, who alone were admitted into the light, to institute an inquiry; but it was to be understood, that parliament was to wait the pleasure of that committee until the treasury had given its wise decision. In every government there was an inherent love and desire to keep up a large establishment; and he was perfectly conscious of all the powerful motives which might be urged against dismissing deserving and meritorious men: but he begged to remind the House, that nothing but a firm regard to the interests of the people, could control that destructive desire of luxury and extravagance. Parliament should always keep a watchful eye over the conduct of ministers, and it was under this very feeling of parliamentary jealousy that he now voted in favour of the motion. Where business was to be done in which the public were interested, parliament should be awake to the interests of the country, and take the matter under their own direction, if they conceived they could perform it better than those who were then engaged in it. He did not wish to take from the government one tittle of its responsibility, or deprive ministers of one atom of that praise which would be due to them, provided they put in execution the promises which they had made; but if they did their duty, it was incumbent upon parliament to do its duty also; and if they shrunk from it, the day would not be far distant when they would repent their want of zeal for the public welfare.

denied that his noble friend had said, that if parliament showed any disposition to inquire into the subject, it would evince a want of confidence in ministers. One hon. gentleman had gone so far as to say, that nothing which could be done by the present ministers would be satisfactory to the country. In reply to which, his noble friend had said, that if this was the real opinion of the hon. member who had said so, it would be more manly and proper at once to move an address praying for a removal of ministers.

rose, he said, merely to resist a personal attack which had been made upon him by an hon. member over the way in his official capacity. Nothing but the situation in which he was placed, as holding a department which had been censured by that hon. member, could have induced him to offer himself upon this occasion; and he could assure the House that never had an assertion been made more unfounded in fact than that by the hon. member, namely, that the office of secretary of the board of control was a sinecure.

junr. also denied the aspersions thrown out by the hon. and learned gentleman against the office he had the honour of holding, to be founded in fact. It would, he said, be more manly for the gentlemen opposite to move for the immediate removal of ministers, than thus to attack them by a side wind.

said, he was as desirous as any man to promote economy and retrenchment, but he considered that there was a certain point beyond which violent and intemperate zeal would defeat its own object. A pretty large dose had already been given to ministers, and he was anxious to see how that dose worked before the House proceeded farther. The motion for a committee of inquiry, he conceived could only be considered as having been brought forward from party motives. The conduct of ministers during the last war, and particularly the war in the peninsula, deserved the highest praise; and he thought that this was not the proper time to interfere with the line of conduct they were now pursuing. It was known that measures were in progress by the committee already appointed, and he believed no man could doubt but that those who had official knowledge on the subject were the most competent to judge. It was impossible that two suns could shine in the same hemisphere; and he could not consent to vote for a committee, the object of which was, not economy and retrenchment, but merely to declare that the confidence of the nation had been withdrawn from his majesty's ministers.

in reply, insisted that the business of the admiralty might be conducted as well as it was at present without the assistance of so many junior lords; and conceived that four junior lords would conduct the business as well as six. He admitted the necessity of a board of admiralty as well in the country as in town; but he thought many arrangements and alterations might be made in the dockyards, which, without a committee could not be done. The same was his opinion also of the lords of the treasury; and he could assure the House, that when he held a place in that department, the business might have been as well done by any one who could sign his name as by himself. The increase of salaries also in the customs and excise he could not but reprobate, as being a gross abuse of the powers vested in the hands of ministers, and of the declaration of the Prince Regent in his speech from the throne. On a former occasion, when a reform was made in the board of works, in what manner was it accomplished? Not by a treasury committee, but by a committee consisting of different members of parliament; and it was they alone who produced the reform. Upon the whole view, therefore, of this most important question, he did really think that a committee of inquiry was absolutely requisite to examine into the conduct of ministers, and to plan certain measures to be pursued by government, not as temporary expedients, but as a permanent system of economy and retrenchment to be adopted by all succeeding administrations. The question appeared to him to lie in a very narrow compass—whether the inquiry should be conducted by the treasury, or by a committee of the whole House.

The House then divided:

For the motion	126
Against it	169
Majority	43

List of the Minority.
Abercrombie, hon. J.	Cavendish, lord G.
Acland, sir Thos.	Cavendish, hon. H.
Anson, hon. Geo.	Cavendish, hon. C.
Atherley, A.	Caulfield, hon. H.
Bankes, Henry	Carew, R. S.
Babington, Thos.	Chaloner, Robt.
Barham, Jos. F.	Cocks, hon. J. S.
Baring, sir T.	Coke, T. W.
Baring, A.	Curwen, J. C.
Barnard, lord	Dundas, hon. L.
Bennet, hon. H. G.	Duncannon, lord
Birch, Jos.	Douglas, hon. F. S.
Brand, hon. T.	Elliott, rt. hon. W.
Brougham, Henry	Fynes, Henry
Browne, Dom.	Fergusson, sir R. C.
Burrell, hon. P. D.	Fitzgerald, lord W.
Byng, Geo.	Fitzroy, lord J.
Calcraft, John	Foley, hon. A.
Calvert, Nic.	Foley, Thos.
Calvert, Chas.	Fane, John
Campbell, Gen.	Folkestone, lord
Campbell, hon. J.	Grattan, rt. hon. H.
Gordon, Robert	Peirse, Henry
Grant, J. P.	Pelham, hon. C. A.
Grenfell, Pascoe	Pelham, hon. G. A.
Halsey, Jos.	Philips, G.
Hamilton, lord A.	Piggott, sir A.
Heron, sir R.	Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Hornby, E.	Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Horner, F.	Powlett, hon. W.
Howorth, H.	Prittie, hon. F. A.
Hughes, Wm. L.	Pym, F.
Jervois, G. P.	Richardson, Wm.
Knox, Thomas	Ramsden, J, C.
Lamb, hon. W.	Rancliffe, lord.
Law, hon. E.	Ridley, sir M. W.
Lambton, John G.	Romilly, sir S.
Langten, W. G.	Rowley, sir Wm.
Lefevre, C. Shaw	Russell, lord G. W.
Lemon, sir Wm.	Russell, R. G.
Lyttelton, hon. W.	Scudamore, Robt.
Latouche, R.	Sefton, earl of
Methuen, Paul	Shelley, sir John
Macdonald, James	Sharp, R.
Markham, Admiral	Sebright, sir J. S.
Martin, H.	Smith, Abel
Martin, J.	Smith, Wm.
Milton, lord	Smyth, J. H.
Molyneux, H. H.	Stanley, lord
Monck, sir C.	Tremayne, J. H.
Moore, P.	Thompson, Thos.
Morland, S. B.	Talbot, R. W.
Mostyn, sir T.	Tavistock, marquis
Morpeth, lord	Taylor, C. W.
Newman, Rt. W.	Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Newport, sir John	Townshend, lord J.
North, Dudley	Waldegrave, hon. cap.
Nugent, lord	Warre, John A.
Osbaldeston, Geo.	Wilson, Thos.
Osborne, lord F.	Wynn, C. W.
Ossulston, lord	Wright, John A.
Protheroe, Edw.
Portman, E. B.	TELLERS.
Palmer, Charles	Althorp, lord
Parnell, sir Henry	Fremantle, Wm.

Hansard

Volume 34: debated on Tuesday 7 May 1816

House of Commons

Forged Notes

Resolution of the Bank of England Respecting Cash Payments

Motion for Appointing a Committee Respecting Public Offices