Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

up to London witnesses and deputies whenever their interests were at stake, he gravely moved, "That it is expedient the Imperial Parliament should be occasionally holden in capitals other than London”—that is, in Edinburgh and Dublin. Of course no person was found to second so crude and impracticable an idea. It would have been as expensive to carry deputies and witnesses from Middlesex to Dublin or Edinburgh as to bring them from Dublin or Edinburgh to London. Such a migration implied a transference of the Court, and the Court establishments, to the temporary capital, and it would have been necessary to conquer physical impossibilities. How was the English bar to be carried to Edinburgh, for a session of parliament, to argue cases of appeal before the Peers, and be practising, on the same day, in the courts of Westminster? How was the chancellor to sit as judge at Lincoln's Inn in the morning, and preside in the evening, in the House of Lords in Holyrood? How were the Attorney and Solicitor-general to move the King's bench at 10 a. m., and at 6 p. m. be replying in Dublin to a speech just made by Mr. Brougham, who, a few hours before, had returned from a trial for libel at Guildhall? One of the satires on the bubble schemes of 1825 was a Joint-stock company for propelling stage coaches and their passengers through a tube, in which a vacuum had been created, at the rate of an hundred miles per minute. Until this, or some equally efficient application of mechanical power can be discovered, a proposal like that of the hon. member for the county of Salop will continue to be impracticable.

The attention of the House of Commons was drawn to what seemed to be a violation of its privileges, by its members being summoned to serve on juries, and being visited with penalties for failing to appear. Mr. Holford, member for Queenborough, stated (20th February) that he had been, so summoned on a jury in the Exchequer; believing that he was exempted by his parliamentary character, he had paid no attention to the sub-pœna, and the consequence was, that he had been fined for non-attendance. Mr. Ellice stated that he had been fined under similar circumstances. A difference of opinion prevailing in the House as to the right of exemption, Mr. Scarlett thinking that all persons were liable to be called on to discharge the duty of jurors, and Mr. Wynn and Mr. Peel arguing that the duty of a member of that House was paramount to all other duties, the matter was referred to the committee of privileges. The committee next day presented their report, stating their opinion that it appeared to them to be an undoubted privilege of the House, that no member should be withdrawn from his duties as a member of the high court of parliament, to attend on any other court; and that the right to refuse attendance upon juries had been repeatedly asserted, of which three instances were cited in the report. The privilege thus claimed certainly seems to follow from the same principles which are the foundation of other unquestioned privileges of the Commons. The civil duty of serving as a juror, is not higher than the civil duty of paying a debt; yet a member cannot be called from his duty in parliament to auswer to civil process. Such pro

cess like the sub-poena is in the name of the king; and so is the royal proclamation by which parliament is convoked, and which imposes a more general and imperative duty. Besides, it seems to be more than doubtful, whether it would not be a manifest breach of privilege to commit a member to prison because he refused to pay the fine imposed upon him for non-attendance as a juror and if so, then the court issuing the sub-poena would have no means of asserting its jurisdiction, and the whole House of Commons might be in contempt from one end of the session to the other.

:

During the session, acts were passed restoring the Scottish peerages of earl of Carnwath, earl of Airlie, lord Duff, lord Elcho, and the baronetcy of Threipland of Fingark-all titles which had been forfeited by rebellion in the preceding century. The only expression of disapprobation of these acts of grace came from lord Milton, who avowed that his opposition to them was founded upon political sentiment. He said, that, from the first moment these bills were introduced into parliament, he had entertained an opinion, probably confined to himself, that they were measures which ought not to be allowed to pass. The individuals interested might, for aught he knew, be most meritorious characters, and qualified to grace any rank to which they might be elevated: nevertheless, he must say, that the restoration to titles forfeited, not for treason against the crown, but for treason against the liberties of the subject, was a selection of cases, in his opinion, little entitled to approbation. If a bill had been brought in for the restoration of all titles against the effects of attainder,

whether incurred during the sway of the Brunswick family, or of any preceding dynasty, he would have been the last man to oppose such a proposition; but it was a little too much to select for peculiar favour those whose only claim was their having stood in rebellion to the constitution by opposing the revolution, and aiding the cause of tyranny and arbitrary power. Why was not the duke of Buccleugh restored to the dukedom of Monmouth? Why were not similar forfeitures restored? He confessed that the selection which had been made appeared to him to be most unfortunate. He would not say, that it betrayed a disregard to the liberties of the people, but he would say that it was injudicious; and if, in that opinion, he stood alone, he should not be ashamed of his singu larity. All that he lamented was, that he had not stated his objections when these bills first made their appearance. He could not sit down without intreating the individuals whose interests he might appear to oppose, to believe that he had not the slightest intention of objecting to them personally. It might be advisable to create new peerages for them; but he could not concur in the removal of the attainders in question. Sir John Newport, likewise, expressed his regret that similar acts of grace had not been extended to old Irish families of the greatest honour and highest respectability. Mr. Peel replied by the simple statement that these reversals of attainders had commenced with that of lord Edward Fitzgerald, and that he himself had made the motion that the descendants of lord Stafford should be restored to their family dignities.

A question connected with the

constitution of the House of Commons was raised by a proposed increase of the salary of Mr. Huskisson as President of the Board of Trade, to enable him to resign the office of Treasurer of the Navy. Prior to the year 1782, the duties performed by the Board of Trade were not under any systematic regulations, and the individuals composing it received no stated salaries. In 1782 many of the arrangements connected with it had been altered by the reform of Mr. Burke: but the mode adopted to remunerate the president was, to pay him scarcely any thing in that capacity which required from him services of the greatest difficulty and importance, and award to him what was deemed compensation, under some other character. A few years ago, a fixed salary of

and the high value of his public services; nor did any member insinuate that the remuneration proposed was too large. But the proposal, when moved by the chancellor of the Exchequer in a committee of supply (6th and 7th of April) was met by a very decided opposition on the ground that the disjunction of the two offices was unnecessary, as no active duties were attached to the Treasurership of the Navy, or, at all events, its duties might, without inconvenience, be transferred to the paymaster, the real officer in that department; that by adding 2,0007. to the present salary of the Treasurer, or giving 2,000l. a year additional as the salary of the Presidency of the Board of Trade, the same amount of remuneration to the individual holding both

hata

2,000l. had been attached to the offices would be made up and,

office of vice-president; but that of president remained upon its old footing, the person who held it receiving nothing from it but receiving along with it another office for which a stated salary was allowed. Mr. Huskisson, who at present filled it, was paid by the salary of 3,000l. which he received as Treasurer of the Navy. It was now proposed to disjoin the offices to give the President of the Board of Trade a distinct salary of 5,000l. per annum, and not encumber him with the duties and responsibilities of any other office. This, it was said, was necessary, because the duties of the office required the undivided attention of the person who might fill it; and the sum could not be reckoned too high for a situation of so much labour and importance. 1

[ocr errors]

By all parties in the House, the most willing homage was paid to the great talents of Mr. Huskisson,

smaller cost to the public; and, above all, that the scheme of dis joining the offices was merely a cloak for the introduction of a new placeman into the House. Instead of one member holding both with 5,000l. a year, there would be a President of the Board of Trade with 5,000l., and a Treasurer of the Navy with 3,000l.

Mr. Huskisson himself said, that, whether it arose from incapacity of mind for the duties required to be discharged, or from whatever other cause, he did feel considerable anxiety and hardship arising out of the union of the two offices. It' was altogether erroneous to suppose that the occupation of the Treasurer of the Navy was merely to pay money. He was called upon to exercise his discretion in every instance of a demand, and to sift the grounds of every claim. Much anxiety, likewise, he could not help feeling in that character,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

from the great pecuniary responsibility attached to the office. The paymaster was an officer fully acquainted with all the details of business, and perfectly familiar with all the operations necessary for the proper and effective management of the department; but he had often asked himself whether, if any casualty were to deprive him of the services of that assistant, he was himself sufficiently informed on all subjects connected with the office, to conduct the business with no better aid than that of the person whom he might appoint his successor? Such a person coming in a novice, it would devolve upon the head of the department to instruct him in his duties; and he candidly confessed, that, although exposed to all the pecuniary responsibility, and all the care, anxiety and loss of time, which attended it, he was utterly incompetent to the instruction of such new officer. He could not say from his s own knowledge, whether, at that moment, matters were going on right or wrong in his own office. From his entire confidence in the pay-master he had not the slightest doubt that the business was conducted in the best possible manner; but that persuasion arose from his knowledge of the particular officer, not from any acquaintance with the business itself. The office itself was perfectly agreeable, provided he could devote due attention to it; the patronage attached to it, was of course desirable, and in its character there was nothing that could be reckoned repulsive; but,although he certainly could not say that he had not time enough to discharge the duties of both offices, he could most truly declare that, to whatever cause it might be owing, he was

"

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

Mr. Tierney admitted that the Treasurership of the Navy was a situation of much trust and anxiety, though certainly not a laborious one. While he himself held it, he never found that he left any duty unperformed by attending one hour daily. The abolition of the office was the very last thing he would propose; and, certainly, the next last thing was, to give to government the disposal of two great offices, one of 5,000/ and the other of 3,000l. a-year. He remembered that when sinecures were under consideration, the Treasurership of the Navy, and some other offices, were let alone, on the ground that some high sinecures should be continued for the purpose of remunerating the discharge of duties to which no salary had been attached. It was then understood that the President of the Board of Trade was sufficiently paid by the Treasurership of the Navy, which was worth 4,000l. a-year. When Mr. Dundas filled the two offices of Presi dent of the Board of Control, and Treasurer of the Navy, he received only the salary of the latter office. So it went on for six years; and, during that time, not the least difficulty had been felt by that gentleman in executing the duties of both. Perhaps there might be more trouble in the performance of them at present, as the management of seamen's wills had been transferred to the latter office,

[ocr errors]

For his own part, he thought that an arrangement might be entered into which would have the effect of satisfying all parties. It might be so arranged, that, whenever the two offices were held by the same person he should have a salary of 5,000l. a-year; that the President of the Board of Trade should be allowed 3,000l. a-year, and an additional sum of 2,000l. when he executed the duties of Treasurer of the Navy.

Mr. Calcraft, Mr. A. Baring, Mr. Abercromby, and Sir John Newport, all acknowledged, that the proposed remuneration was well deserved, and they would be glad to see a vote to that effect carried unanimously through the House, to mark the sense universally entertained of the great public services of the present President of the Board of Trade; but they could not aid a plan for increasing the patronage of the crown, under the cloak of his character and merits, by the creation of a second office. The impossibility of performing the duties of both offices was now discovered for the first time, and had no existence in fact. Even the pecuniary responsibility attached to the Treasurership of the Navy was an easy burthen; for the principal was never made liable for defalcations, where the frauds committed by his subalterns were duly explained. They felt the unpleasant nature of the situation in which the committee was placed; they entertained no desire to say any thing which might seem to impeach the deservedly high opinion of the great zeal and singular talents of the officer in question; and they would gladly be relieved from the dilemma of either appearing to under-rate his value, or of

compromising the interests of the public, by submitting to an undue extension of the influence of the crown in parliament. This might be effected by raising the salary of the conjoined offices to 5,000l., or by attaching a salary of the same amount to the Presidency of the Board of Trade, and allowing the duties of the Treasurer of the Navy to be performed by the paymaster.

Mr. Canning said, that most of the difficulties which members had found, or conceived they had found, in relation to this proposition, arose from considerations which were connected exclusively with the Treasurership of the Navy; but, if it could be made to appear that the President of the Board of Trade had more than sufficient occupation for one man, in the discharge of the duties connected with his situation in the government of the country-and that that situation was one which from its nature, could never be dispensed with in a commercial country like ours-it would follow that an adequate provision should be made for the individual who held it; and that, inasmuch as it was an office which could afford to stand on its own grounds, it ought also to have attached to it a salary payable in its own name. With respect to what has been said of the Treasurership of the Navy (continued the Foreign Secretary) and the assertion so repeatedly made, that it is an office frequently held in connexion with other situations of a public nature, I admit such has been sometimes the case; but the practice has been by no means invariable. On the contrary, it has been as often (indeed I might say oftener) held separate from, as jointly with, other official situations. True it is, that lord Melville held it at the same

« EdellinenJatka »