§ Mr. Foxcalled the attention of the house to a subject on which there had been supposed to be some difficulties, the circumstances of which were somewhat peculiar. He understood there were several new appointments about to take place under his majesty's government, and that a noble lord (Grenville) was about to hold an office at the head of the treasury, who now held the office of auditor of the exchequer. Doubts had been entertained by some persons whether the office of auditor of the exchequer was compatible with that of an office of a lord of the Treasury, or that they could be both held by one person, that is, whether they could be legally held by one person. He was not aware of that illegality, nor did he very clearly see the foundation of that doubt. However, it was expedient to make the matter indisputable, and that would be best done by a bill for the purpose. These offices had both been held by one person on former occasions—by lord Hallifax, by the late Mr. Pelham, and others, but the better way would be to remove all doubts by an act of parliament; and, therefore he should move for leave to bring in a bill to remove certain doubts respecting the appointment of a proper person holding the office of auditor of the exchequer, and that of a lord of his majesty's treasury. If the house should grant him leave to bring in the bill, he should bring it up immediately. It might be read a first and second time to-night, and ordered to be committed to-morrow; and any member would then have an opportunity of delivering his sentiments, if there were any objections to it, of which he was not aware, for the case appeared to him to be a clear one.
§ The Speakersaid the house would excuse him for calling their attention to this subject; but it was his duty, as he felt it, to state what he understood to be the recent practice of the house, which was, on every proposition for bringing forward any measure on which the house was to act, to give notice of its being intended to be brought forward. That being done, the measure, if in the opinion of the house public exigency required it, might go through all its stages, though a bill, in one day, as had often happened; so that the hon. gent. might be as forward by moving this matter to-morrow, after notice to day, as if leave were given to bring in the bill now. This was the modern practice 142 of the house, of which it was his duty to remind it; whether it was to be adhered to, or abandoned, was with the house to determine.
§ Mr. Foxsubmitted to the chair, and admitted the correctness of this statement of the practice, which was, however, but a modern practice. It was no essential part of the proceeding of the house to give any notice of a regular parliamentary motion, although it was certainly convenient in practice; but he might perhaps venture to doubt whether the house ought to make so low a bow to a modern practice, as not in any instance to deviate from it, however urgent the case might be.
§ The Speakersaid he did not presume to state that no member was at liberty to bring forward a measure without notice; but he thought it his duty to call the attention of the house to what had been, generally, the recent practice on such occasions.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that it had been the fashion of the house, for a considerable time, to conform to the practice referred to by the chair, and the question on this occasion was, whether that practice should be attended to, or whether it should be given up to gratify the wishes of the hon. gent. That hon. gent. professed to think, that no notice whatever was necessary; and he wished to have the bill alluded to, read a first and second time on the same day. If such a thing were to be admitted, and the practice were to go on, a bill might be actually passed through all its stages in one day, and if so, what guarantee could the house have against being taken by surprize upon the most important measures? As the bill proposed by the hon. gent. could not really be so very urgent in point of time, he saw no reason why it should be pressed forward so precipitately.—With respect to the measure itself, if he understood it right, it could not be intended so much to remove doubts as to establish a new principle of law, and therefore he thought the real object of it should not be disguised: though in the instances that had been quoted as precedents, it appeared that the individuals formally resigned, but substantially held the offices, yet it was evident that they thought they could not consistently with law hold them formally. These persons acted under an impression that they could not legally hold them. The legal principle was, that no person 143 could hold two offices, one of which was subordinate to the other, and immediately under its controul. If it was the object of the hon. gent. to remove this disability, and establish a new law on the subject, he begged of him to let the house know it, that they might be aware of what they were about. The office of auditor of the exchequer was subordinate to, and subject to the check of, the commissioners of the treasury. Of course the office of auditor of the exchequer and commissioner of the treasury could not, either in law or equity, be consistently held by the same person. Certainly such appeared to be the conception upon all former occasions, and therefore the hon. gent. could not justly talk of the existence of any doubts upon the subject. The bill he had in contemplation, therefore, could not be said to be a proposition to remove doubts, but to enact a new law.
§ Mr. Foxstated that, agreeably to the suggestions of the hon. gent., he should give notice of his motion for to-morrow.
§ The Speakerobserved that there was no question before the house.
Mr. Rosesaid that he was not contented. He rose to object to the hon. gent.'s withdrawing the motion—
§ The Speakerbegged the right hon. gent. to recollect that no motion was made, as he had interrupted the hon. gent. in his progress towards making a motion.