СНАР. V. 1817. These proposals were generous; but the feeling of the House was so strong that the ministry were blamed by their opponents for their want of generosity. Ponsonby, the leader of the Opposition, who was in the enjoyment of a considerable pension, offered 'to give up in the same proportion as the Regent;' in other words, to surrender onefifth instead of one-tenth of his pension. The Opposition, with some show of reason, endeavoured to exclude placemen from a committee which was intended to propose the reduction of superfluous places. The ministers succeeded in resisting the attempt; but the temper which animated the House was unmistakable. The committee met; and its attention was, at once, directed to the numerous sinecure offices, which existed in almost every department of the Government. There were the Chief Justices in Eyre, north and south of the Trent, with no duties to perform, and 4,000l. a year for performing them. There was the clerk of the Pells, with 3,000l. a year; and the four tellers of the Exchequer, with 2,700l. each. There was the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports, with 3,000l. a year, and the Governor of the Isle of Wight, with 6007.; there was the office of clerk of the Parliaments, worth 5,000l. a year to the gentleman who was so fortunate as to possess it.1 There were the four clerks of the Signet, and the four clerks of the Privy Seal. The sinecures in Scotland and Ireland were in comparison even more numerous and more costly than those in England. The committee saw no reason to doubt that the annual income now derived from the offices which are thus brought under the observation of the House, as being at the disposal of the Crown, and fit to be abolished or regulated, may be estimated at from 90,000l. to 100,000l. The committee did not include in their re3,000l. a year. 1 Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., p. 306. Colchester, vol. ii. p. 602, where the salary of the Lord Warden is given as 5,000l. instead of 2 Ann. Reg., 1817, Chron., pp. 308-315. tended the ceremony. Queen Charlotte steadfastly refused either to attend the marriage or to receive the duchess. The opinion of the nation sided with the queen. The ministers proposed that an addition of 6,000l. a year should be made to the Duke of Cumberland's income; and the proposal gave rise to the most violent debate. One member appealed to the public voice for the truth of his assertion that of all the branches of the royal family the Duke of Cumberland was the one to whom the public feeling would be the least inclined to grant any pecuniary boon.' A second inquired whether the duke had rendered any services to his country which could entitle him to the grant; a third apprehended that the marriage was disagreeable to the royal family; a fourth asked whether it was true that the queen had declared that she would not receive the duchess at court, and whether she had not decidedly disapproved of a proposed marriage between the Princess of Salms and the Duke of Cambridge. A series of debates entailed a series of divisions, and a constant repetition of these damaging statements. The original motion for the grant was only carried by 87 votes to 70; the report was adopted by only 74 votes to 62. Leave to bring in a bill was granted by 75 votes to 62. The first reading was passed by 100 votes to 92; and finally the second reading was rejected by 126 votes to 125.1 The Duke of Cumberland had been foiled of the pecuniary advantage which he had perhaps reasonably expected to derive from his marriage. But there was one result of greater importance, which seemed imminent. The duchess, it was known, was expecting a child; and this child, after the Princess Charlotte, would, on the death of her royal uncles, be heir to the throne. The duchess was confined on the 11th of January, 1817. But her child, a girl, was born dead. Comparatively 1 Ann. Reg., 1815, Hist., p. 52. CHAP. VI. 1817. СНАР. V. 1817. Report on the revenue. who has perhaps spent a thousand pounds in unsuccessfully contesting some insignificant borough. Abuses of this character were much greater when sinecures were in existence than they are now. A man must have some qualifications for the post to be appointed to an office with definite duties attached to it. A man need have no qualifications for a situation which involves no cares but the punctual receipt of a considerable salary. The first report of the committee of 1817 dealt exclusively with sinecures; the second was devoted to a consideration of the military and naval establishments; the third and most important dealt with the entire revenue and expenditure of the state. This report was not presented till the first week in June; the Budget was postponed till after its presentation, and was ultimately founded on the figures contained in it. These figures showed, in a very remarkable way, the severity of the crisis through which the country had just passed. Up to the close of 1815 the revenue of Great Britain had been regularly and constantly increasing. The receipts from the most important branches, the customs, the excise, the stamps, and the Post-office, had risen from 42,293,0831. in 1812, to 45,277,5797. in 1815; they fell to 41,302,9597. in 1816. The committee considered that, including the Irish revenue and other sources of taxation, they might fairly rely on a revenue of 51,905,3641. during the year 1817. The sale of old stores was estimated to produce an additional 400,000l., and thus raise the ways and means to 52,405,3647. The expenditure of the state, which amounted to 68,064,2601., was far more than this sum,1 and exceeded the estimated revenue by at least CHAP. V. 1817. The Sink 15,850,000l. The situation, however, was hardly so bad as this short statement of it seemed to indicate. The deficit was really due to the Sinking Fund; and, if the Sinking Fund had been suspended, the deficit could ing Fund. have been immediately converted into a surplus. In the expenditure of 68,250,000l. no less than 16,124,443/. was devoted to the payment of debt.1 The temporary suspension of the Sinking Fund would at once have terminated the embarrassing situation. It would, however, have required a much stronger mind than Vansittart's to have seen the wisdom of this obvious arrangement. Vansittart clung to the Sinking Fund with a tenacity which was worthy of a better cause, and amused himself for years with effecting large reductions of the debt on paper. He provided for the deficit of the year in various ways: a lottery supplied him with 250,000l.; a surplus in the ways and means for 1815 and 1816 afforded him 1,865,000l. ; and the arrears of the property tax which were still unpaid were relied on for 1,500,000l. More than three millions and a half of the deficit was thus provided for. For the residue Vansittart relied on Irish Treasury bills amounting to 3,600,000l., and on 1817. CHAP. 9,000,000l. of Exchequer bills. The minister, in short, proposed to borrow 12,600,000l. with one hand and to pay 16,000,000l. of debt with the other. Lord Liverpool, Lord Castlereagh, Vansittart, and all their colleagues seem to have been incapable of perceiving that the simpler, wiser, and more economical course would have been to have satisfied themselves with applying only the difference between these two sums to the reduction of debt. The distress which characterised the year led to two other financial measures, widely different in their objects from those which have thus been mentioned, and differing also in their effects. The poverty of the country was so universal, and the burden thrown on the poor rates was so excessive, that the ministry felt itself compelled to afford some aid to the local authorities. The prudence of relieving local distress out of the public purse will probably always be disputed; but if it can ever be desirable for the central authority to assist the local guardians of the poor, it was eminently advisable that they should do so in 1817. The distress at that time was not confined to particular districts, it was universal throughout the kingdom. A sudden and unprecedented fall in the rent of land was diminishing the rates on which the local authorities were solely dependent. The labouring classes, from a variety of causes, fancied that they were oppressed by the administration. It was evidently proper that the legislature should take some steps to show Grants for its sympathy with their cause. On the 28th of April local works. the House of Commons authorised the Government to issue half a million of Exchequer bills in Great Britain, and a quarter of a million in Ireland, for the completion of public works in progress or to be commenced, for the encouragement of the fisheries, and for the employment of the poor. 1 See Report of Select Committee, Hansard, vol. xxxvi.; appendix, p. lxxxi. Some of the figures were slightly altered in the Budget, vide The money thus voted was pp. 1098-1109, and Ann. Reg., 1817, Hist., pp. 84-91. Cf. also Public Inc. and Exp., Sess. 1869, No. 366. |