Star.
London, England, 1814-03-29 00:00:00

COLONIAL OFFICERS.

On the second reading of the Colonial Officers' Re-
sidence Bill ;

Mr. A. BROWN said, though not aware of the
necessity which existed for such a Bill, and though
not satisfied, that the principle of the 22d of the
King would he more secure of being carried into
effect, if the responsibility of suffering Officers to
hold Colonial situations, who were not resident in the
Colonies, were shifted from those with whom it at
present rested to the Executive Government, yet
still he was so friendly to the principle of compelling
personal attendance, that he was very unwilling to
oppose a Bill which had for its object the making of
this more certain. But it appeared to him this Act
might have another object, or having no other ob-
ject, might be used for a purpose very different from
that for which it was proposed to be passed. In his
humble opinion, the Act of the 22d of the King was
not only founded in a beneficial and unexceptionable
policy, but was sufficient for all the purposes it had
,been intended to answer. That which had been com-
plained of, arose not from any deficiency in the Act,
but from a deficiency in the application of it. He
did not :wait to cast any censure on the present Go-
vernment, but the principle of . the Act to which he
referred had been violated under successive Admini-
strations by persons high in the State, whose duty it
was to see it enforced. He did not wish to reflect on
those who had accepted situations under such cir-
cumstances, and from the .esteem he had for some
who had been so appointed, he would have abstained
from touching on this subject if he thought it would
wound their feelings. He would contend, that if the
present Government wished to carry the principle of
the 22d of the King into effect, that Act was of it-
self sufficient, that would have given better security
for the accomplishment of their design than all the
provisions of this Bill. The Bill- before them was
objectionable and suspicious, particularly the last
clause, which set forth that nothing contained in this'
Act shall be construed to the prejudice of any exist-
ing grant or appointment. Was it meant by this to
declare, that any appointment made in defiance of
the 22d of the King, should not be disturbed ?
Was it meant thus to make the Parliament lega-
lize that which had been done against the law ?---
Enticing declared in the. 22d of the King, that such
'appointments shall not be made, were they now to
come forward' and say, those which in spite of that
Act had been made, should be legalised ? The 22d
of the King, which the immortal abtatesman, with
whom it originated (Mr. Burke) fondly hoped would
save his cgiuntry from the evils now complained of,
ought to have been enforced. If it Were enforced
now, any new enactment was unnecessary, and the
Bill now before them ought not to leplize proceed-
ings which had taken place in defiance of that Act.
He hoped what he had said would draw the attention
of others to the subject, who were more competent
to &scam its merits.

Mr. GOULDBURN begged to inform the Hon.
Gentleman that he was mistaken in supposing Co.lonial appointments to have been mide in defiance
of the act. They were usually granted, not by pa-
tent, but by commission. This might be called an
evasion, but he thought it hardly deserved such a
character. Whatever might be thought on this sub-
ject, he apprehended the Hon. Gentleman could not
wish to complain of this Bill, because it went to
make evasion itnpossibie. The provision objected to
in the last clause, was supported by the authority of
Mr. Burke himself, as he, then regulating patent of-
fices, had thought it unfit to touch existing interests
—on the same principle he, in bringing in this Bill,
had thought those whose services had been rewarded
by appointments under warrant or commission, ought
not to be disturbed. It was proper to be stated, that
the Noble Lord presiding over the Colonial Depart-
ment, had not granted an appointment by patent
without enforcing the clause of residence.
Mr. CREEVEY thought the 22d of the King was
the last precedent on which the present Bill ought to
have been founded, as that Act had been systemati-
cally violated ever since it passed. As it was said
that no place had been granted in defiance of that
Act under a patent, he wished to know, whether the
appointment of Sir Evan Nepean in 1789, was under
a patent or commission ? He having left this coun-
try for his health, had proceeded to Bombay as Go-
vernor, and had held that situation 25 years. If the
appointment was given under a patent, the Act was
violated,' and, it under a commission, the spirit of it
was departed from. He noticed in the same tvay the
appointment of the Master of the Sales of Malta, of
Lord Bra ybrook and the two Wyndhams. He was
glad to hear the appointments under.commission
were so numerous, as these could be got at soon.
The House had last year resolved, in cases where
Colonial offices were performed by Deputy, only to
continue the salary of the Deputy. This act ought
to be enforced, but the present bill only went to make
them reside when they ought to resign. He thought
its provisions foolish, and when it came into the Com-
mittee, he should mc.ve that the former Resolution
of the House should be acted upon. •
Mr. MARRYATT was of opinion the Bill would
remove many serious grievances. It would prevent the
diminution of the white population in the Colonies,
and what was of more importance, it would uphold
the respectability of the white population. The
more he considered the Bill, the more he felt the
importance of it, and he thought the House and the
country ought to feel obliged to his Hon. Friend for
bringing it in.
Mr. STEPHEN approved of what had fallen from
the last Speaker, and bore testimony to the con-
duct of the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial
Department, who, much to his credit, had never given
his patronage under a patent without enforcing the
cl ruse of residence. He could not think the appoint-
menu which had taken place under the Commission,
since the passing of the 422 d of the King, ought to
be considered as criminal, and as such reversed. It
was n9t to be said a law wxs violated because its
spirit was not extended to offices not touched Upon
in the Act. There might be more public spirit in
acting as the Noble Lord who now possessed the
patronage did, than in acting as his predecessors
had done, but lie could not think that all those
now in office ought, on this account, to be deprived
of their situatiun. The Bill of last Session did not

rights. Its operation, he believed, was to be as that
of such Acts always had been, and always ought to
be, purely prospective. In some instances there was
one advantage which arose out of colonial duty being
performed by deputy,from the additional personal re-
sponsibility which was (always a perishable commo-
dity in colonies) afforded, and in the superior appal-.
tunities presented in this country of proceeding against
the parties, the principals being always answerable
for the conduct of their deputies.
Mr. BARING approved of the object of the Bill,
though its provisions did not, so far as he thought
they ought to have been extended.
Mr. WHITBREAD said, the Learned Cryntle.
min (Mr. Stephen) in applying the words 44 vested
rights" to offices held by commission, had given a
licence to them, which surprised him in a legal man.
Against this language being applied to offices he thus
held, he wished to enter his protest. That any
a vested rights" were there to be found had never
been maintained before. Could not the Crown re-
cal these offices at pleasure ? What of the nature
of a freehold could be in them ? If he had misun-
derstood the Learned Gentlemen, he was 'glad he
had given him an opportunity of explaining what
he had said. If he had heard aright, he would enter
his strong protest against the doctrine. Had this
been passed over on the present occasion, they would
have been told hereafter on the precedent thus estab •
lished,_ not only of the freehold tight attached to a
patent office, but of that attached to an appoint-
ment under a commission. The last clause he
must give much consideration to before it could
have his support. He did not know after all, whe-
ther the Learned Gentleman considered the Bill to
be a gcoi or an evil ? From what he had said of
the superior responsibility 'afforded by persons residing
in this country, who had colonial appointments, it
should seem the parties who possessed responsibility
here would lose it by being transplanted to the West
Indies. From this it was to be inferred the parent
stock ought always to be kept in this country, and
only a graft sent to the Colonies. He should hence
have concluded the Learned Gentleman thought the
Bill would be an evil. He (Mr. Whitbread) could
not think personal responsibility so frail. Where an
appointment were deserved, as in the case of Sir
Evan Nepean, he could not think such a person would
lose his responsibility by being transplanted to another
shore. He thought the Bill ought to go to a Com-
mittee, where he hoped it would he so altered as to
become a measure of real reform.

Mr. STEPHEN explained what he had said on
the subject of personal respon3ibility, and contended,
that it would be unjust to deprive persons of their
appointments, because they were not given under a
patent. In the sense in which he used the words
,s vested rights," he thought a person holding an of
rice, as he himself did, fur lite or during good beha
viour, would have to complain of injustice, if depri-
ved of his situation by any retroact:ye law.
Mr. WHITBREAD repeated, it was the first time
that such a doctrine had been broached in that House.
He had not meant to touch on the appointment of
the Learned Gentleman. If he wished it, which he
did not, he had no doubt there would now be as much
difficulty in getting him out of his situation, as his
4riends formerly experienced in getting him into it.
The Bill having been real a second time, was or-
dered to be committed on Thursday.