Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub

Mr. John Latouche fupported the original motion, upon the ground that this which he confidered as an increase of their falaries was entirely defrayed by Ireland; whereas, as it was a part of the joint expenditure of the empire, England ought to defray the proportion ftipulated by the union.

Mr. Windham difapproved of making diftinctions in regard to those in the employ of Ireland, and argued in favour of the original motion, that in fo far as you take off a minus you neceffarily add a plus. He had very ferious objections to the prefent practice, both in regard to the perfons to whom, and to the mode in which that indulgence was fhewn. In regard to the perfons to whom the indulgence was fhewn, he put feveral cafes, among which one was, that if a perfon fhould be fent on military duty from a cheaper county to a dearer one in this country, would any allowance be made? Such allowances were not ufual. If they were poor and could not afford any loffes from a temporary exchange, he certainly would not object to the prefent practice. If they were only poor Chancellors that were in queftion, and that required fome immunities to enable them to fubfift, he should not perhaps fupport the prefent motion. To perfons of this defcription fome compenfation might be allowed. But it unfortunately happened that thofe who ftood moft in need of fuch compenfation were the laft to receive it. You allow this advantage to people coming over of their own option, and deny it to many whofe duty is fuppofed to require their attendance in this country, and to many whofe duty prevents their coming here. They are exactly in the fituation of a man who should wish to borrow another man's bellows: No, fays the man, if you wish to blow up your fire, you must come over to my house and do it. I fhall willingly allow you the use of my bellows, but I cannot lend them out of my own houfe. (A loud laugh.) He did not think it preper that fome fhould be exonerated from the depreciation of the paper currency in Ireland, while others, who had no lefs title to exemption, fhould be fubjected to that inconvenience. This diftinction was the more objectionable, he conceived, as it was permitted to refide, according to the prefent practice, in the power and difcretion of the Lords of the Treasury.

The Mafter of the Rolls faid, that the noble Lord who had brought forward the motion, had laid down as a general principle that no officer of the Irish Government, who was employed in this country, fhould receive his falary, except fub

je&

ject to the lofs, by the exchange between this country and Ireland other hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in fupport of the motion, had admitted that there might be cafes entitled to more or less indulgence; but the noble Lord made no fuch diftinction, he had afferted generally, that whether an officer had been ordered over here by his fuperiors or not, ftill his falary ought to be paid in Ireland, in order that he might lose 10 per cent. by bringing it over to England. He would not enter into an inquiry how far it was neceflary for any of the principal officers under the Irish Government to come over to this country; nor would he now confider whether it was right to compenfate any officers in a particular manner: he fuppofed that fome of the officers, who before the union could difcharge the duties of their offices in Ireland, were now obliged to come over to England. If he was correct in his fuppofition, it appeared to him clear that the officers who engaged in Ireland to ferve for a certain fum, ought to receive the fame falary if they were ordered to come to England. He did not mean to contend that there ought to be any compenfation; he only meant that there ought to be no diminution of the falary. A man who received 100l. a year in Ireland, had no occafion to inquire what would be its value in London, he would have nothing to do with the rate of exchange, because he would not want to bring it over to England; but if the Government change that man's fituation, if they bring him over to England where he performs the fame duties, is he not then entitled to the fame falary? If he is compelled to fuftain the lofs by exchange, then he has not the fame falary, and he fuftains a lofs of 10 per cent. on his falary, merely because Government think it right to employ him in one place rather than another. It appeared to him clear that the officer ought to be paid where he performed his duty. It had been argued, that because a man performed bufinefs for the Government of Ireland in England, that therefore he muft of neceffity be paid in Ireland; upon the fame principle, the members of the Board of Controul ought to be paid in India. It had been contended that taking off a burthen was equivalent to an increase of a falary; but in this infance, it was not taking off a burthen, it was only placing the officer in the fame fituation, with regard to the amount of his falary, as he would have been in if he had remained at home. If the fervice of the public required that he fhould perform the duties of his office at York, he fhould expect to be paid at York. The cafe of half-pay

officers

officers which had been put, did not in his opinion apply, becaule the principle contended for, in this cafe was merely this, that where the duties of any particular office required that the perfon holding it fhould come to England, that he fhould receive the falary of that office in England.

Dr. Laurence argued that fuch payments were made without any conftitutional authority, and therefore, independently of their equity, he found himself called on to oppofe the general principle. He contended particularly that the proportion ftated by the right hon Gentleman oppofite (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was by no means obferved, if any credit might be given to the papers on the table. The learned Doctor here turned up an article where Mr. Wickham had received an order to draw his falary in this country to any amount, not exceeding the whole for the year, which was four thousand five hundred pounds. From fuch an order he argued any perfon here might receive the falary, and tranfmit it to Ireland at fo much additional profit. He laid confiderable ftrefs on the periods neceffary for their reftdence in this country, and that their payments might be made and really were made, as appeared from the papers before them, without regard to the proportion or neceffity of fuch periods.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that Mr. Wickham was only empowered to draw at the rate of his whole fulary.

Lord Henry Pety objected to the Members of the Irish Government taking their own cafes into confideration, and making their own remuneration, however juft the principle might be on which they had acted; he inftanced particularly in the cafe of the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Francis faid, that among many weighty arguments, which determined him to vote for the original motion, there were two, which he wished particularly to flate and infiit on, because they were of a plain and obvious quality, and not liable to be perplexed and confounded by technical skill or fophiftical diftinctions. To thefe, Sir, (faid the hon. Gentleman) I expect to hear a plain and rational anfwer," which hitherto has not been attempted. In the firfi place, I hold it to be a principle infeparable from the duties of all Government, and from the duties of this Government more than any other, that the perfonal interefl of every individual trufled with power fhould in all cafes be one and the fame with the intereft of the community. If a general calamity

should

fhould exift, or a general burthen is to be endured, to the remedy or relief of which the labour, the industry and the fkill of perfons in high office ought to be unremittingly ap-> plied, it is not wife, it is not fafe to exempt fuch perfons from their fhare in the general preffure or fuffering that falls upon all the reft. You take away a principal motive or ftimulus to fuch perfons to exert themfelves in the public fervice, when you tell them, that, whether they neglect their duty or not, they are fure to be borne harmless in the receipt of their own income. Leaft of all, is it prudent or fafe to fuffer fuch parties to form the measure and to diftribute the amount of their own relief. But, even if the contrary were true, if it could be maintained that perfons in high and lucrative offices ought to be fpecially and exclufively exempted from any thare in a public fuffering, ftill the courfe which has been taken ought not to be endured. It is afferted that the payments in queftion have not been fecret-have not been clandeftine. My answer is, that they have been made not only without the authority, but without the knowledge of Parliament. I, for one, never heard of the fact, until it was introduced by the noble Lord on this fide. If the thing be proper, it ought to be done by a vote of this Houfe, or in fome other regular parliamentary way. Whenever the general principle of reimburfing individuals for loffes on exchange of falaries comes to be confidered, you will have other cafes infinitely more preffing to provide for. I thall state only one, which I think could hardly be refifted, and which has frequently occurred: I mean that of an English regiment difbanded in Ireland, and of which the officers, all English, are compelled by their fituation, circumftances, and connections to refide in England on their Irish half pa.. Out of that pittance they lofe ten per cent, on the remittance from Ireland. Would you refufe to indemnify fuch perfons, while the principal officers of Government are permitted to reimburse themfelves out of the public purfe? Now, Sir, I afk for information on a point of parliamentary conftruction, in which I think the honour, because I am fure the duty of this Houle, is effentially concerned. Suppofing the motion of the noble Lord fhould be fet afide, with fuch facts brought into the view of the Houfe, and fo immediately connected with our first duty as guardians of the public purfe, and that This should be done by an expedient fo difgraceful, and I believe in fuch a cafe fo unprecedented in the proceedings of Parliament, as that of moving the order of the day, in what VOL. II. 1803-4. 30

ftate

ftate will this bufinefs be left? Will it not be concluded that the Houfe renounces its duty, and abdicates its jurifdiétion over a money queftion? Will it, or will it not, be taken, by the parties who have hitherto acted in their own behalf, by their own authority, for an acknowledgment of the power they have fo affumed? What is to check or to limit them in the future exeicife of that difcretion, when Parliament, with the cafe before them, refufes to inquire into. the paft, or even to lay down any rule for the future? Certainly the gentlemen who have taken good care of themfelves, may act with more referve, and be lefs indulgent to the claims of others full as good as their own. Or they may choofe and fele&t the objects of their favour. I afk, is it fit that fuch a queftion fhould be left undecided? In fact, I fear it will amount to a decifion in favour of the abuse, and furnish a pretence for other practices of the fame nature. When a House of Commons refufes to inquire into an unauthorized application of public money, and when the fact is not denied, it gives an approbation to the thing done, and makes it a precedent for greater abuses.

Mr. H. Thornton thought that the prefent practice was perfectly confiftent both with law and equity, and therefore oppofed the original motion.

Mr. Barham, upon the principle that 100,cool. received in this country and fent to Ireland would be worth 110,cool. opposed the fyftem that was now acted on, as giving an additional income to thofe that were fo paid, while others muft neceffarily labour under a deficiency to the fame amount. He argued, that whenever either civil or military officers should be on their duty, there was no queftion but they were to be paid by the treasury of the country by which they were employed.

Mr. Fofter argued, that whatever money was subtracted from the Treasury was fo much taken from the public, and that the House therefore had a right to inquire into it. If the profits derivable from the rate of exchange were not returned to the Treafury of Ireland, the public muft neceffarily be deprived of thofe profits. He argued against the neceffity of the refidence of the Members of the Irith Government as fuch in this country.

Lord Caftlereagh, in explaining, was called to order by Lord Folkestone.

Mr. Fofter begged to adduce an inftance which came within his own knowledge. When he was connected with the evenue of Ireland, the Counfel for the Commiffioners had only 100l. a year, whereas in the papers now before the

Houle,

« PoprzedniaDalej »