Star.
London, England, 1824-03-05 00:00:00

. • .

~,

lion of the time of the House. • It was well known that
formerly the occupation of all maces, nay, the existence
of Parliament itself, terminated with the life of the
King ; and this circumstance having occupied the en-
lightened mind of the late Mr. Ponsonby, he, wished to
take away the large revenue which was unfairly levied
on that event, and put into the pockets of a few indivi-
duals, without reference to their character or talents.—

He could well imagine that Mr. Ponsonby, finding op-
position to his Bill, was prevented from perfecting the
measure • The only difference in his Bill and that of
Mr. Pensonby was, that the latter did not apply 'to the'
County Magistrates. He (Sir It. Heron) could not con-
ceive any principle on which his views could be opposed,
for every ground of opposition which applied to them,
attached with equal force to the temporary one of Mr.
Ponsimby, which was passed. It could not surely be
necessary that the vast emoluments which fell to the
Chancellors or Attorneys-General, or any other Officer
of the kingdom, should continue. If any officers were
not sufficiently paid, let their salaries be raised, for it
would be bad policy to withhold a sufficient remune-
ration from the effective officers of the Crown. Yet
it could not be pretended that they were deficient in
pi oper salaries; bue even if the fact were otherwise, it
was surely a very improper mode of increasing their
emoluments in this accidental manner, which might not
occur in an immense space of time. It seemed to him
utterly impassible that the Bill could be considered as
affecting the practical exertion of the'Royal preroga-
tive. At the accession of the King, it was the custom of
the principal officers' to tender their resignation, 'out if
his Majesty wished to dismiss them, he could at any pe-
riod signify his Royal pleasure. As to the officers in the
Army or Navy, it was known that the slightest difficul-
ties never occurred in dismissing them when his Ma-
km's Ministers thought proper. It were easy also to
dismiss County Magistrates, if they were guilty of cor-
ruption. But the accession of the King was not the
propel time for introducing these changes; for then the
parties would also have all the advantages of knowing
the motives which caused their dismissal. He had
heard something of a Constitutional principle which
would mar his Bill. • It seemed impossible, however,
that Ministers could speculate on a particular accession
to the Throne. When Mr. Ponsonby's Bill was passed,
in 1817, the King was in a good state of health.—
It might be argued, indeed, that the late accession was
only a transition from Regency to Royalty ; but still
there was no ground for speculating on the certainty t f
the event. But if he (Sir R. Heron) was opposed on
the prerogative or constitutional principle, the House
would agree with him in thinking, that the sums which
were levied upon the King's death, should not go to-
wards an accidental emolument - for persons in office,
but be voted to the public advantage.' If the Bill were
thrown out, what would be the consequence ? ig We
shall have refused," said the Honourable Baronet,
" great emoluments to a Chancellor who has grown
grey in the office, and toiled in the public service for
half a century, for some upstart of the day. I will not
suppose that the Chancellor cannot longer exercise the
duties of his profession, but there is every chance, ham
his advanced age, that he will not live so long as to
enjny this advantage. How much better would it be
to afford the emoluments to one against whom corrup-
tion.has never been charged, instead of giving them to
another who has not the security of experience, and who
might be the most profligate of the human race:'—
[The ATTORNEY-GENERAL whispered across the table.]
bir R. HERON, in continuation, said that he did not al-
lude to any individual. He merely 7. gued a hypothe-
tical case.—The Honourable Baronet concluded, by
moving that leave•be granted for bringing in a Bi:1 to
prevent the necessity of renewal of Official Appoint-
ments on the demise of the Crown.
Mr. Secrttary CANNING said that he would follow
the example of the Honourable Baronet in troubling
the House with few observations. He thought that them
was • noprinciple-more sacred in the Constitution than
that which threw on the Crown a duty which it was
most agreeable to execute, and took away from it that
which was harsh and disagreeable. The Honourable
Baronet wished that the King should begin his reign
s. ith executing a task which was harsh and severe. The
Honourable Baronet had said that all official appoint-
ments and Pailianient itself must he extinct With the
life of the king. It was true that Parliament was ex-
tinct on that event, but six months were allowed in order
to prevent the confusion and inconvenience which would
arise from too sudden a dissolution. It was precisely the
same with the offices; they too ceased on the demise of
the Crown, but the same period was allowed in order to
guard against these consequences. He did not see how
the general ground now taken up was affected by what
• passed in the year 1817 ; for Parliament did not then
sanction a change of persons or things—(Hear). The
Prince Regent had made his choice of his Ministers,
and when he became Sovereign he was surrounded by
these Ministers. The change from Regency to the
Throe was one in name but not in substance ; it did-
not affect the quantum.of power, but the title by which
that power was exercised. Mr. Ponsonby's Bill, there-
fore, had no application in the present case—(Hear).—
On the broad constitutional ground then—without re-
ference to the minor details of the Bill—he would not
consent to change the character of the Royal Preroga-
tive, as he wished to see the King inherit a situation
v. !rich began with acts of favour,instead of tying himself
to acts of unkindness in the very honeymoon of his reign.
Mr. HUME hoped that whether the Bill passed or
not, the fees to the Army and Navy at least should not
be repeated.
Mr. BROUGHAM said that the argument of the
Right Hon. Secretary applied to the form not to the,
substance of the motion. The compensation due to cer-1
taro offices might be the object of further consideration,'
when it was determined to what offices this was to
apply. As the subject was one of great and minute de-
tail, he would suggest to his Honourable Friend the pro-
priety of withdrawing his motion for the present; and
moving for the appointment of a Committee in order
that the facts might be ascertained on which the House
v. ou Id afterwai ds legislate.
Mr. TIERNEY approved of the principle of the Bill,
but he agreed to the propriety of appointing a Commit-
tee for determining the rights of the parties who were
subjected to the operation of the measure. The major
part of the fees was paid to those who held their offices
from the Crown during pleasure ; but there were public
officers, those of the Privy Seal for instance, who had
vested rights, as they held a patent of appointment.
Mr. Secretary CANNING said that Honourable Gen-
tlemen opposite had brought forward propositions dif-
fering from those of the Honourable Baronet. The
Honourable Baronet had-eons•lpoward with a measure,
for. the
after taking two years to concoct it,
Constitution—(4 laugh)_ and he must feel citsdan at

r- .. ~\

the pitiful and paltry meanness of his flinch, who had
converted his noble purposes into so insignificant a result.
' Mr. BROUGHAM did not think the joke of the,
Right 'Honourable Secretary quite in point. The Bill
was one`of detail, referring to the fees which were levied
in the demise of the Crown.
Mr. Secretary CANNING said, that the best proof
of his not having misunderstood the Honourable Baronet
would be found in that Gentleman's own speech, for he'
bad there said, that the question of fees and stamps
were matters for after consideration.
Mr. DENMAN took a different view of the subject
from any that he had yet heard. There were some
offices which did not reqdire renewal upon the death of
the King. The office of Judge, for example, was, by
the first Act of the last Reign, rendered indepeq3ent of
that event, in order to keep the power and integrity of
the TribunAs from being diminished. Ile could not see
why other Commissioners should not• be on the-same
footing; for it surely was not to be wished, that they
should expire at the demise of the Crown.
Mr. Secretary PEEL thought it singular, he grould
draw an opposite conclusion from the fact alluded to
by the Honourable Gentleman opposite (Mr. Denman).
As to one description of these offices—the judicial, Par-
liament had certainly stepped out of its way in render-
ing them independent. But this was no reason why the
army and navy should be placed under the same
rule. Hence came the constitutional objection which
muststrike every one, and seemed to him (Mr. Peel) to
be the very reason why the Bill ought not to pass.
Sir R. HERON shortly explained, and the Bill was
afterwards withdrawn. ' r