THE SANCTION OF SINECURES BY THE REFORMED PARLIAMENT.
Turn is at present no party, no description of men in Parliament, who are not pledged chin-deep to the enforcement of rigid economy in the management of public money. During the progress of the late elections, though many of the candidates objected to pledges in general, yet they all seem to have thought it necessary to make an exception in favour of pledges to reduce improper expenditure. But how have these promises been kept? A reference to the division* on Mr. HUME'S resolution, " that it is the opinion of this House that the existence of sinecure offices, and offices executed by deputy, in the Army and Navy departments, is unnecessary, and inexpedient as a means of remunerating public service,"— which resolution was rejected by the House on the 14th instant,— proves how loosely the most direct and serious engagements sit • We had prepared comparative Division Lists, on our own plan, for this week's ectator; but the unusual fulness of our columns has obliged us to exclude them. Next week we shall give them in a more perfect form. with the latest earrectioss,ruad With such other divisions of iroportaalco as may occur, upon. the-eotiseienees-of irinejority- of- the- menTbers7-sud hula ne- cessary it is for their constituents to look after their conduct with jealous and scrutinizing care. By the rejection of the above re- solution, the first Reformed Parliament—not yet a month old— have in effect sanctioned the principle, that it is expedient to re-. ward public servants by promoting them to offices to which no duties are attached. How pleased and grateful the old Borough party must be to see one of the most cherished dogmas of their political creed recognized and adopted by their triumphant op- ponents !
It is but fair, however, that the Majority should have the benefit of the excuse which one of the most manly and independent men in their ranks made on Wednesday last for this disgraceful vote. Mr. ELLICE was highly indignant at being charged with uphold- . ing sinecures. He had voted, he said, " against the abstract prin- ciple of the resolution proposed by Mr. HUME, and which that gentleman, when called upon, could not himself well explain." Now, whether Mr. HUME understood the principle of his resolu- tion or not, we think it unnecessary to dispute. But if he does not, we will venture to affirm that he is the only man in England, understanding the language which he speaks, who lies in that pre- dicament. The principle laid down is clearly one condemnatory of Naval and Military Sinecures ; and this is the principle which Mr. ELLICE, for the first time in his life, refuses to sanction with his vote.
It is, we are aware, frequently a matter of no small difficulty to reduce economical principles in affairs of state to practice. The practice is disagreeable, and occasionally hazardous to a Minis- ter. Patronage is to be taken from some, and emolument from others. The public are not always sufficiently grateful for exer- tions in this way; while the displaced sineeurists with their grumbling connexions lie sullenly in wait to give the author of their grievances a mortal stab. It is not to give wondered at, therefore, that many well-meaning statesmen shrink from the practical enforcement of their economical principles. But Mr. ELLICE, and those who voted with him, refused to sanction even the principle of economy as regards the abolition of sinecures. Truly, the necessity of finding seine excuse for the vote, into which the maladroitness of the Ministry had led their supporters, has involved them in a pitiable contradiction. We hope that an opportunity will soon be afforded them of redeeming their error, by a distinct proposal in Parliament to abolish all Naval and. Military Sinecures, which shall specify each office to be done away with, and thus relieve the tender consciences of those mem- bers who dislike to sanction "an abstract principle."
In the majority of 94, by which the House rejected Mr. HUME'S resolution, we find the names of not fewer than 45 of the Conservatives. As for these men, we have little to say about them. We believe it would not be difficult to show that they arenearly . all distinctly pledged to the abolition of sinecures. But their policy and practice coincided. The Tories made a point of defend- ing every sinecure as long as it was possible, when they were in office, and they act consistently in voting for their continuance now. But what shall we say to the conduct of the professed Reformers, —the loud-tongued, unceasing, implacable declaimers against the profligate expenditure of the old Borough Parliaments? The his- tory of political tergiversation furnishes few more disgraceful in- stances of dereliction from duty, and abandonment of former pro- fessions, than was afforded by the votes and speeches of the two members for Westminster, on Mr. HumE's resolution. They stood in the foremost ranks to defend the fastnesses of corruption, —to the levelling of which their constituents would in other times have expected to see their most vigorous efforts directed. What will the electors of the Tower Hamlets say when they read the name of Dr. LUSHINGTON among the sinecure-sanctioning. ma- jority? Are the constituencies of Finsbury, Marylebone, South- wark, Liverpool, Leeds, and Wolverhampton, desirous of perpetu- ating the all-pay and no-work system of the rotten borough Par- liaments? If not, let them call their representatives to account for their votes of the 14th instant. Perhaps Messrs. BROUGHAM., HORNE, SPANKIE, MARSHALL, MACAULAY, WHITMORE, and the freely-elected Lord SANDON may condescend to inform their respec- tive constituencies of the weighty reasons which induced them to back the Government in their resistance to the abolition of sine- cures. We shall be curious to learn if any reasons exist for their conduct, which, as honourable men and consistent politicians, they need not blush to avow.
On a reference to our list of the division, every one must be struck by the great number of absentees. The fact is, that more than one hundred members quitted the House, -not liking to vote against the Ministry, and unable to endure the disgrace of voting with them,—fearful too, and with reason, that their names would be held up in the Black List to the reprobation . and. surprise of those 'who had just returned them in the belief that they were really the unflinching advocates of retrenchment and reform which they had professed themselves to be. 'We recomuiend to the electors of members were missing on that division, and to the constituencies those places—and there must be a large number of them—whose of various other places which are at pres ant virtually unrepresented,_ because nobody has seen or heard ar,y thing of their members,. to inquire what these industrious and. -attentive gentlemen have been about all this time? The largest number of members present at any one division hitherto was that, on the Address, when 468 voted, But where were the other 190? The People may depend upon it, that these professed Heforroort.i must be carefully looked after, if we are really to derive any lx.aefit from the New Charter.
Previous page
