Admiralty,
Feb. 4th, 1809.
My dear Rose,
It must be ever unpleasant to me not to accede at once to any measure proposed by you and by Canning; more especially as I find the Memorial is in the hands of the clerks of the Council before I had an opportunity of answering your note.
Since I came into office I have proceeded on all questions of augmentation of salaries, on a strong impression of the importance of public economy, and on a full conviction that the advance of any one salary does not rest there, but raises a cry of claim, founded upon relative duties and rank, with an air of justice from precedent; which involves either an excessive increase of charge to the public, or an imputation of harshness and injustice, against the person in authority, who rejects the authority of the precedent, and refuses the increase demanded. I feel how impossible it is for me to follow up the principle I have set out upon either with comfort to myself or advantage to the public, if I alone pursue it. Upon all the demands of clerks for increase of salary, I have consulted Perceval, to ascertain how far the general charges upon the funds of Government would be influenced by such increase; because I know that the advance in one department must be followed by a similar advance in every other. I relinquished, on the representation of Perceval, a most important, and almost necessary, measure of increasing the appointments of the Naval Lords of the Admiralty. I rejected the recommendation of the Commissioners of Naval Revision for the addition of £200 per annum to the Commissioners of the Navy, because I did not think that increase necessary, whilst so many eager candidates were pressing for the situation. If the Paymaster to the Treasurer of the Navy has his salary raised, will not the Commissioners of Victualling and Transport Boards, whose duties are so constant and laborious, especially the former, have a claim to a similar advance? I have refused the advance to the Commissioners at the Cape as recommended by the Commissioners of Naval Revision; and in short I have consented to no increase of salary without being persuaded that proper persons could not be found without such increase; and therefore, as far as my consent is required, I cannot give it, but upon that persuasion, in any case. I am aware that I have created much dissatisfaction by holding the public purse-strings so close; but it is from an apprehension that without very rigid economy we can neither retain the goodwill of the public, nor hold out against the perseverance and resources of the enemy.
Ever yours sincerely,
Mulgrave.
RESIGNATION OF PORTLAND (1809).
Source.—Diary of Lord Colchester, 1861. Vol. ii., p. 200.
Sunday, Sept. 10th.—Received the following letter from Perceval.
[Most private and confidential.]
Downing Street,
Sept. 9th, 1809.
My dear Mr. Speaker,