The following paragraph a...
The Times, 1824-02-11T00:00:00

The following paragraph appeared in an evening paper of yesterday:- " H. V. VINcENT, Esq., is appointed King's Remembrarlcer,in the Excbequer, o*ce Right Hon. Mr. STEELE, deeea"ed" This short notice must eithier contain an error in point of fact, or lay the ground for a serious charge against the au. thors of the appointmnent. We shall not here stop to in. quire who this Mr. H. W. VINCENT is, what have been his previous services, or what is his present reconi. mendation to Treasury p1atronage. Thcse are questions of nio great moment to the public when a sinecure is concerned, as one man is just as capable of doing nothing and spending a bountiful salary as another; and while the sinecure exists, the nominee and bis patron may be left to settle the matter of qualificatior, (a tbing, to use a familiar expression, frequently neither here nor there) between them. But the public have a right to know why Mr. H. W. VINCENT, or any other in. dividual for whom the First Lord of the Treasury may have a feeling something a2kin to paternal, is to have a place reserved for him, the abolition of which has been recomi. mended by Committees of Parliamnent, and even sanctions. ed by the approbation of Ministers themselves. It is only necessary to look at two no very curious or recon. dite documents-the Red-Book of the present year, and the report of tbe Ministerial Finance Committee-to compre. hend the impropriety and profligacy of this appointment. In the first wve read " King's Rememnbrancer, R:ight Hon. THoxAs STEELE; Deputy, ABEL MOY3EY, Esq.:` in the latter, we find, that " after the expiration of the "vested interest in this sinecure," the duties should be performed by the Deputy, wvith an adequate salary, and the principalplace of the office should be abolished. After enu- merating " various offices in the Courts of Law in the gift of ' the Crown," such as King's Remembrancer (the appoint. ment in question), the Clerk of the Pleas, the Clerk of the Pipe, &c., the report of the Finance Committee of 1817 adds, ' All these offices are understood by your Commit- "tee to be executed wholly by depMuy, and to come, thert " fore, within the principle of regulation or abolition air "'the termination of the present interests." The prin- ciple of this recommendatiom is not new. It was laid down in a Report of a similar committee in 1812, and was made the foundation of bills wlhich twice passed the House of' Commons in 1812 and 1813, but were rejected by the Lords. The " existing interest" here protected has terminated by the death of Mr. STEELE, and the le- gacy of this sinecure was therefore due to the public, and not to Mr. H. WV. VINCENT. The Deputy, Mr. ABEL MOYSEY, who executed all the duties of the office while Mr. STEELE was alive, is equally able to execute all the duties when Mr. STEELE is no more. If that office is to be placed on a new foundation, and regulated, in point of salary, on a scale which (to use the words of the Report) "may be left to the judgment and responsibility of "the Lords of the Treasury," Mr. ABEL MOYSEY, the deputy, can receive and spend the additional emolument which these " Lords" may award, wvith a relish propor- tioned to the insufficiency of his former income, and the length of his under-paid service. To retain both princi. pal and depuity in the face of the acknowledged uselessness of the former, and in spite of the recommendation of the Legislature, would be an instance of political profligacy which even the most violent enemy of Government would scarcely believepossible; and to appoint a person totally un- acquainted with the office to the exclusion of the deputy who has filled it, would appear an act of injustice equally incredible. Let us hope, therefore, that the above paragraph is incorrect, and that Mr. H. WV. VINCENT has still to look up with fOial piety to " my Lords" of the Treasury for a place.