1783, the object of Mr. Burke was effected. Mr. Tierney then called the attention of the house to the present moment. A third secretary of state had been appointed since that time with a new establishment of 13,0001. a year. When in the year 1768, the office abolished by Mr. Burke's bill was established, the pretext was, the increase of business on the continent of America; at that time, however, three secretaries were at least sufficient; but having contrived to lose the American colonies, which furnished the pretext, ministers could not very well insist on the continuance of the office, nor deny that there was no occasion for more than two, who went under the name of secretaries for the northern and southern departments. In the year 1786, a committee was appointed to report on the nature of the offices of government, and the amount of their salaries; in that report the two secretaries were stated at salaries of 60001, each: now if the labour became so extremely arduous to ministers, as to justify an additional office, would they not have called for more, rather than less, than the stated salary? But so far was this from being the case, the honourable gentleman did not feel that he had any claim, diminishing himself the allowance of the report of 1786; fixing his salary at 45001. a year, instead of 6000l. and instead of sinking under the business, he was able to carry a little more, taking upon himself the office of president of the board of control, without fee or reward additional; nor was any complaint heard of these offices being too laborious.

By the war in 1793 the business was considerably increased; but Mr. Dundas never looked for a

third secretary, but conducted the whole with much credit to himself for a year and a half, and in bringing in his India bill took 60001. a year as president of the board of control, assuming the whole weight of that arduous employment: but this was not all; with the home department he took that of the war, so far was he from considering a third secretary needful. Under these circumstances then, what was it which created the necessity? It could not be that which was made the pretext for it in 1768, for the colonies were lost: neither could it be inability, because it appeared that the business had been accomplished, with dispatch, by two.

Mr. Tierney professed himself at a loss to imagine, why in 1794 there should be a new division of the business; and instead of the old establishment of the two secretaries and offices, at an expence of 23,0001 there should be three, at an expence of 40,000l. He knew that the accumulation of the affairs of war with those of the other departments of state rendered an enlargement necessary, and pointed out the expediency of a separate establishment for war. The first clerk of that office was the only person examined touching that point before the committee; but instead of saying any thing to justify that conclusion, which he said tended to prove, that with the help of four additional clerks they might go on as well as ever. But this mode would not answer the purpose of ministers: no; an increase of the patronage of the crown was their object, and a new establishment, with enormous additional salaries, must effect their purposes. When the discovery was made of the necessity of a new establishment, many

66

difficulties occurred respecting the arrangement. Mr. Pitt, who is so fond of "mutual compensation" in all negociations, probably interfered, and made it the basis of treaty; and hence might have arisen reciprocal facilities." It was only saying, I am secretary at war, and you are war secretary, and the difficulty was at an end; and on that day started out an arrangement, giving to Mr. Dundas the office of secretary of the war department, with an enormous esta blishment. Mr. Tierney professed himself at an utter loss to comprehend how such a palpable job could be defended, or in what manner ministers could justify the creating such an office. The present commander in chief was allowed to be most accurate, active, and industrious; nor did he mean disrespect to lord Amherst, when he attributed wholly to age his insufficiency. Lord Cornwallis had made no improvements in the ordnance department; and yet, with these advantages, the office of secretary of the war department was thought necessary for the right honourable gentleman!

It was not so much as stated that the duke of Portland could not do the duty of both; and his grace's department, instead of being reduced, had four clerks added to it. One, a precis, that is to say, an abridger; another, a law clerk, which had been abolished in 1774, and now revived; a third, a clerk for felons and convicts; and the fourth, a gentleman who left his profession (Mr. Baldwin), and was so good as to give his opinion when a case is sent with the usual compliment (the fee) marked on the back of it. Be sides which, there was an active magistrate employed, who transacted

the office business with the various magistrates, and took the whole weight of that trouble off his grace's shoulders.

But to come to the other point, the illegality of the office; Mr. Burke's bill had provided that the office of the "third secretary of state, or secretary for the colonies (as it was then called), should be abolished, and that two only should remain, those for the northern and southern departments ; and that if any of fice of the same name, nature, or description, should thereafter be established, the same should be taken as a new office. Could any terms (he said) be found to comprehend a more large, distinct, and plain explanation of the intent of that provision?

Lord George Germaine, who held the office of third secretary, was more cautious than the honourable gentleman, for he never gave any specific name to the of fice he held, but held it generally by the title of "one of his majesty's principal secretaries of state." And Mr. Burke was driven thereby to state it so specially as he had done, that was to say, there should be only two, and if a third were made of the same nature with that abolished, the person should be incapable to sit in the house of commons. He would undertake to prove, that the office held by Mr. Dundas was of the same description, and, though not of the same name, for the same purposes. Let the report be examined, and the three distinct officers would be distinctly recognised by the authenticated signatures of the respective secretaries. In appendix B. 1. they will meet the signature Portland as principal secretary; in B. 2. lord Grenville, principal secretary; and then will come to Henry Dundas, principal

war

war secretary! Mr. Tierney affirmed he had made out satisfactorily that no necessity for creating this office had been proved; and that if it had been proved, still under the law it was impossible that the honourable gentleman could retain his seat. He was not actuated (he solemnly declared) by any desire to throw difficulties in the way of public proceedings, but by an anxious wish to vindicate the honour of the house, and to prevail on them to show their resolution to preserve inviolate the law, and particularly as the king's speech recommended to them so strongly to enforce obedience to the laws. He requested that the act to which he alluded should be read, and, after it had been read, moved the following resolution:

"That it was the opinion of that house, that the office of secretary of state for the war department was in addition to the office of secretary of state for foreign affairs and for the home department; and that the honourable Henry Dun das, having accepted of the office of secretary for the war department, was disqualified from sitting in parliament, &c."

Mr. secretary Dundas said, that Mr. Tierney had so particularly alluded to him in the manner in which he had introduced the present motion, that he could not better refute the objections which had been stated or demonstrate the impropriety of the measure proposed, than by giving an accurate statement of the circumstances to which he had directed the attention of the house. In the year 1791, his majesty called upon him to undertake the office for the war department: at that period, the duty attached to the situation comprehended the internal correspondence with the dif

ferent parts of the country, with Ireland, with the colonies, and in general every thing relative to the executive administration. When the war broke out, the military correspondence was likewise conducted by him. He said he should not enter into the consideration, whether the place of third secretary of state was rightly abolished, or rightly restored? but he could not avoid embracing this opportunity of stating distinctly the busiress of the office which was now under discussion, and submitting it to any reasonable man's opinion, whether it was not more than would be proper to commit to any individual, whatever might be his talents or his assiduity? The increase of employment arising out of the war, the new and strange scenes which had been acted in various parts of the country, the frantic and dangerous designs which had been prosecuted with such perseverance, to disturb the public tranquillity, and overthrow our happy constitution, had required an additional portion of vigilance, and additional means of carrying on the affairs of state with undivided attention.

The only question, however, for the deliberation of the house was, whether he was a third secretary of state in the terms of the act? and in answer to Mr. Tierney's argu ments, he should boldly state the fact.

In the year 1791, Mr. Dundas said, he received the seals of the home department from his ma. jesty, and at the same time was custodier of those which had belonged to lord George Germaine, A new arrangement having taken place, he carried the seals of which he had been the custodier to his majesty, who delivered them to the

Juke

duke of Portland. He was then ordered by his majesty to continue the military correspondence, and to conduct the business of secretary of state so far as related to that object. How, then, could he be considered as third secretary of state? If two known and established secretaries existed, and another was added, in what manner could it be proved that the person who discharged one of these offices was either a new or a third secretary, when none of the business which belonged to that office abolished by Mr. Burke's bill was attached to the office which he held ?-it was an employment quite distinct from that which the bill deemed unnecessary, and was posterior to it. The military branch, and the matters connected with it, were carried on in his department; but this did not serve as proof that he, who performed that duty before, must be the new secretary now, or that he came under the incapacities which the bill enacted. received no new patent from his majesty, no increased salary; the emoluments were neither aug mented nor diminished, they remained precisely as they did before the new arrangement took place. He was then, and continued still, one of the principal secretaries of state, whilst there were three to whom this character belonged, without its being at all specified with what particular department they were entrusted.

He

But the spirit and object of the bill ought also to be considered. It was intended to guard against the increase of public offices in so far as those who occupied them were, or were not, to be members of the house but, because it suited -the state of the civil list at the period when it was passed, did it fol

low that it must be applicable to the present times? It did not enact that a third secretary should not be appointed; but that he should not be a member of the house. Before any change took place he had sat in it, and now claimed the right both on his own account and from a regard for the privileges of his constituents to exercise his le gislative capacity. There had been no change in his situation since 1791; but the duty which he had performed was now executed by the duke of Portland. Upon what ground, then, had he forfeited his seat? No incapacity arose from the circumstances to which the at tention of the house was called. The question had been agitated before by an honourable friend of his, with equal capacity, and with no less skill than Mr. Tierney possessed, and the opinion of the house had been pronounced upon it. He would, therefore, add no more than his negative upon the motion.

Mr. Martin said, that whether the present office violated the let ter of Mr. Burke's bill, or not, the spirit of it had been disre garded; its object was to guard against the influence of the crown, and to secure the independence of piriiament, which, by the proceeding in question, would be defeated.

Mr. Tierney again rose, and las mented that a subject on which he might have expected that the crown lawyers would have favoured the house with their lights; and that a question, which turned upon the interpretation of an act of parliament, and required legal knowledge, should devolve wholly upon himself. Even the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Pitt), he said, who was not backward to speak, seemed to decline. He too was implicated