The Sun.
London, England, 1850-09-19 00:00:00

Ct-

_Qut~

i~

-*
P",t,
,

,~
;G -~~y'~% j ~

'Government. Now, such a man as Mr. Macaulay I
should have been very sorry not to have asked to take
office in the Government when the present Govern-
meut was formed. I think it is a great loss not bay-
ing Mr. Macaulay, but I do not think he would have
taken an office of great labour if I bad proposed
it to him. Ido not think be would have returned to
his laborious duties as Secretary-at-War. But there
is another reason, I think, which is, that you must
look at this Government altogether as a Parliamentary
Government; if you were framing a Government as
the Emperor of Russia might frame a Government,
to conduct the business of the several departments, you
would certainly frame one somewhat different from
that which we now have; but, considering that every
measure that is proposed by the Government has to be
proposed to the House of Commons and to the House
of Lords, and that the policy of the Government bra
to be defended in the House of Commons and in the
House of Lords, I think it very desirable to base
persons who can take part in that defence, and are
qualified to do so, even though they are men who
would not aecept offices of great labour; I think it
would not be a good thing if the Government of this
country were much weaker than independent Mem-
bers of the House of Commons and of the House of
Lords in defence of their measures; for example, if
you want to alter the navigation-laws, you require to
have persons to defend the measure in the House of
Lords as well as in the House of Commons ; if yon
want to reduce the copper duties, or anything of that
kind, you must carry your measure both in the House
of Commons and in the House of Lords; and I think
for that purpose it is necessary, though it seems a
clumsy expedient, to have some of these offices with-
out the amount of work that fully employs the time
of the persons holding them.
In point of fact, have the individuals chosen to fill
those offices which have so little labour connected
with them, been generally selected for their capacity
to aid the Government in the way you speak of in the
House of Commons ?—I should say that, generally,
they have been ; I do not say that it is universally
so, because, of course, a Minister has his own reasons
for offering a particular office at a particular time to
some particular person ; but I should say that that
was the general plan.
Can you give the Committee some general idea of
the direction in which the patronage goes, that is, as
to how far the First Lord of the Treasury has the pa •
tronage, or his colleagues ?—ln the first place the
patronage of the Church, so far as the bishoprics and
deaneries are concerned, devolves upon the Prime
Minister, whose duty it is to recommend to the Queen
the persons whom he thinks fit ; that is a very im-
portant kind of patronage. Then there are all the
chief offices of the Executive Government. Tben,
likewise, if there is any very important appointment
to be made, whether it is in the diplomatic service, or
in the colonial service, or with regard to the govern-
ment of India, the Prime Minister is always consulted,
and he concurs in the appointment. For instance, last
year when there was to be a Commander-in-Chief in
India appointed, it was my duty to consult the Duke of
Wellington ; I had a good deal of correspondence
with him, and saw him frequently; and then with
Sir John Hobhouse ; and then I saw the chairman
and deputy-chairman of the East India Company, and
stated to them that I had come to the conclusion that
I must advise the Queen to appoint Sir Charles NI a-
ier • that is an office of 18,0001. a year; a very !) ,
con-
siderable office ; but, in the vulgar way of considering
patronage, it certainly was of no value to me, but it
was a great responsibility to have to advise the Queen
as to the person named.
What portion of the Church livings in the hands of
the Crown are at the disposal of the First Lord of the
Tieasury, and what portion are in the gift of the Lord
Chancellor ?—There is a much greater proportion in
the gift of the Lord Chancellor ; I think that there
are about 700 in the gift of the Lord Chancellor.
Without being able to say how many there are in the
gift of the First Lord of the Treasury, I should say
there are perhaps three or four in the year.
Mr. Deedes—lndependently of deaneries and
bishoprics ?—Yes.
Mr. Cobden—ls rot that vast extent of patronage
considered a very large share of the remuneration of
the office of Prime Minister in this country ?—That
depends upon how parsons consider it. I think it an
exercise of power, like many other kinds of power ;
like proposing a great public measure, or carrying
into effect a change in the particular mode of admi-
nistration. It seems to me much more an exercise
of power than any particular advantage. I remember
hearing a person who was very intimate with Mr. Pitt
say, that Mr. Pitt had told him that it never but once
occurred in his long and powerful administration,
Wilt he was able to place exactly the man he wished
in the office that he wished.
Mr. Cobden—Your Lordship spoke just now of
the difficulty of placing a person who was not of a
rich family in the office of Prime Ministerße-
foul, a ut.o a perSilll nave 11. 11l 11x`3p la if tbßs r
ower, yee
the patronage at his disposal, to confer very large
benefits upon his own immediate family and de-
pendents without in any way compromising himself
as Prime Minister ?—I doubt as to that, es-
pecially in these times. Even in times a
little gone by, I should say that if a man had any
profession he would have a better prospect tof pro-
viding for his family by pursuing it than by taking
office. Take the instance of Mr. Percival, he was
a very eminent man in point of abilities, and had a
standing at the bar as Attorney-General ; I should
say that he would have had much greater means of
savir, g some fortune to provide. for members of his
family if he had gone on in his profession than if he had
taken the chances of political life, and accepted office,
even though he held the Duchy of Lancaster with
other offices; Mr. Percival, I have no doubt, had very
high -minded reasons for taking 'the course that he
did ; but I do not think that a man looking to his in-
terest would have taken the course that Mr. Percival
did, of abandoning the law for political office.
Is not it considered a legitimate exercise of the pa-
tronage of a Minister to appoint to vacant offices
members of his own family, or his friends or de-
pendents, provided they are in other respects tolerably
well suited to fill the offices; and, in point of fact, is
it not the practice for Ministers so to use their patron-
age ?—I should say that if a Minister has relations
who are qualified for office, they being persons known
to him to be qualified, and of course belonging to the
same political party, and holding the same political
views, it generally has happened that a Minister has
appointed some of his relations to some offices or
other, for which be conceived they were qualified.
They have generally been offices held during pleasure,
as well as his own.

Then, do not you consider that in that respect the
Prime Minister of this country has a far greater
amount of patronage at his disposal than the Prime
Minister of any other constitutional country, espe-
cially seeing that we have a rich Established Church,
which does not exist in any constitutional state be-
sides ?—I cannot compare this country with other
constitutional countries. I believe in France there
are an immense number of offices which do not exist
here ; but the amount of patronage in the gift of the
First Minister, in one way or other, either by nomi-
nation or by recommendation, is, no doubt, very large.
It i 3 subject, of course, to responsibility, and subject
to public opinion.
Mr. Bright—There are 951 livings in the Church
in the gift of the Crown. What proportion of those
are strictly in the gift of the Chancellor, and what are
in the gift of the Prime Minister ; is there a distinc-
tion ?—I believe there are upwards of 700 which are
absolutely in the gift of the Lord Chancellor that be
does not take the pleasure of the Crown upon.
Mr. Ellice—Are not all that are below a certain
valuation in the King's books in the gift of the Lord
Chancellor ?—Yes, all below 201. in the King's books ;
but that does not show the real value ; you will find
the real value in the Clergy List.
Chairman—lt is the value as it stood in the time of
Henry VIII.; all below 20/. in the King's books
being in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and all above
20/. being in the gift of the Prime Minister ?—Yes ;
but there is this difference, that the Prime Minister
takes the pleasure of the Crown upon every living ;
he never disposes of any living, except some very
small ones created by Sir Robert Peel's Act, without
taking the pleasure of the Crown.
Sir J. Trollope—Can the patronage be any pecu-
niary benefit to the First Lord himself, personally ?
—lt cannot be any pecuniary benefit to the First
Lord at all, and I do not see that it can well be an
inducement to a man to take office. No doubt, when
a particular party is in office, the First Lord has an
opportunity, from time to time, of conferring certain
offices, held during pleasure, upon persons who may
be related to him ; but that is no pecuniary advantage
to him.

Mr. IValter—Supposing official salaries were re-
gulated by the amount of patronage at the disposal of
the Minister, does not your Lordship think that in
the eyes of the public it would be thought rather an
excuse for the abuse of patronage, if the deficiency of
the salaries were attempted to be supplied by a par-
ticular mode of distributing the patronage ?—I think
it would be pretty certain to lead to abuse of patron-
age, because then a person holding office might say
with great fairness, " I have been given an inadequate
salary, bt cause it is understood that the patronage is
to be of use to me and to my sons."
Mr. Henry Drummond—Your Lordship has
spoken of patronage generally, as meaning by that,
whatever is in the gift of the Crown ; but it is, of
course, only that portion of patronage which happens
to fall during the particular administration of the
First Lord over which he has any control ?—Yes,
that is certainly the case. In the formation of the
Ministry, if there are any offices of those held during
p!easure, to which he thinks that his relations can be
appuinted with benefit to the public service, he can
do so; but during all the rest of his administration
it is only those that fall vacant of which he has the
patronage.
Is not it the principle generally acted upon, that