HC Deb 10 August 1807 vol 9 cc1158-69
Mr. Bankes

rose to submit, pursuant to notice, a motion on the subject of granting offices in reversion. If be might assume, and he hoped be might, that the opinion of the house had undergone no alteration on this point since their late resolution, he thought it would be unnecessary for him to trouble them at any great length, as he might expect an unanimous concurrence in the proposition which he was about to lay before them. It would be waste of time for him to address them at any great length, when he expected no opponent: but because he heard that it had been surmised that the object of the bill passed by the house against the granting of offices in reversion trenched on the just prerogative of the crown, and that it would be of no real service to the public in point of economy, he begged leave to say a few words on these topics.—With regard to the prerogative of the crown, he was firmly persuaded that the object of that bill touched upon it but very little, and could not be properly said materially to trench upon it at all. There was at present an opportunity for an undue dissipation in that prerogative, and he was convinced that it would be more full, better exercised, and much more beneficial, if be granting of offices in reversion should be restrained in the manner pointed out by the bill. It would certainly be rather strengthened than weakened, for the gratitude of persons entering upon the reversions, would naturally be small when they considered them in some measure as a vested right, rather than a favour conferred solely for services to the public. There were some instances where these reversions were held by persons perfectly unfit for whatever trust might be attached to the offices, and more especially in the cases of reversions held by persons of the other sex. The incapacity was, indeed, in some cases so palpable and glaring, that no ministers would have ventured to recommend the grants in the first instance, without the danger of creating the strongest sensation in the public mind, and of exposing themselves to the severest animadversions.—But it had been said, that in point of economy this object would be of no advantage to the public. Directly it might not. But certainly the committee expected, and he was persuaded that the expectation was well founded, that the establishment of the principle would ultimately lead to much practical economy. Several offices afforded very large emoluments, while they had no duties attached to them. The committee might judge it proper to review these offices, and see reason to subject some to new regulations, and advise the total abolition of others. But, if, in the mean time, the practice was persisted in of granting these reversions, the labours of the committee would meet with increased difficulties; and parliament seeing no prospect of any immediate benefit from whatever arrangements they could propose, might be more callous and indifferent respecting this important object. On these principles, he presumed, the house had adopted the resolution formerly submitted to it on this subject, and on the same principles concurred unanimously in the provisions of the bill winch he (Mr. Bankes) had the honour to carry up to the house of lords. What the fate of that bill had been, the house had an opportunity of ascertaining from the report of the committee appointed to examine the lords' Journals, for their proceedings upon it. It appeared that it had been put off to a term to which there was no probability that this session would extend, and consequently that it might be considered as totally lost for the present. In order therefore, that no inconvenience might arise to the public service, as the legislative measure had failed, and what had before been the prerogative, might now be considered as in force, he thought it the duty of that house to address his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased not to grant any offices in reversion, till both houses should have an opportunity of considering the subject most fully. It was on this ground he proposed to move the address. It might be thought that it would be better to bring in the bill, but both he, and those with whom he acted, were of opinion, that the house ought not to resort to any act, which might betray a disposition to usurp the legislative functions of the other house. The constitution had defined the duties of both, and he could not contribute more to the interests of that house, than by confining it within its just and natural limits. It had been suggested to him, therefore, that if a bill were to have been brought in, it might appear to be an attempt to do that by the single act of that house which should be done by the act of the legislature. The mode be proposed to adopt was altogether free from such an objection, and there were several instances on record, in which, whilst enquiries were carried on by that house, it had addressed his majesty to suspend the exercise of certain prerogatives until the result of such enquiries should be known. With such a view he had framed is motion, and if the house was disposed to support the principles when it agreed to the resolution last session, and passed the bill this session, he was convinced that there would be an unanimous concurrence in his motion. He then moved, "that an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he would be graciously pleased not to grant, in any part of his majesty's dominions, any office, place, employment, or salary, in reversion, or for joint lives with benefit of survivorship, until six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament." Before the question was put, he had one observation to make, which he would take the liberty to add by way of notice, namely that he meant, in an early period of next session, to move for leave to bring in a similar bill to that which had passed that house this session.—On the question being put,

The Hon. J. W. Ward

said it was not his intention to enter upon any long discussion at present, and he now only rose to express that surprise and regret which he could not help feeling at the result of the enquiry of the committee which had been appointed to examine the Journals of the lords, relative to their proceedings upon the Reversion bill. From this it appeared, that that important bill had been rejected. But he could not help being very much surprized at this, because it was an unusual thing that a bill which had met with so very slender an opposition [none, none, from several quarters of the house,]—which had met with no opposition in that house, which was directed against public abuses, an object so peculiarly necessary in the present circumstances of the countrv, should be rejected in the other house. It was a subject of very great regret, too, with him, both on account of the failure of a most important object, and also on account of the indication that was manifested of a want of disposition in the other house to co-operate with the house of commons in restraining the undue expenditure of the public money. Of course, the house could know nothing of the detail of the proceedings in the other house on that bill; and, if it could be known by any indirect means, it would, of course, be irregular to allude to it here. But, one must naturally suppose that it was maturely considered and amply debated in a full house [hear, bear]; that the whole proceedings were conducted with that gravity and serious deliberation which the importance of the case required, that all the ministers of the crown attended in their places, [hear, hear,] as it was their duty to do, in order manfully and openly to oppose the bill, if they thought it an improper one, or to support it with all their strength, if they were of a contrary opinion! It must at least be supposed that if the house was not so full as it might be, their lordships, out of respect to their own character, and a due regard to the unanimous opinion of the house of commons, would have consented to an adjournment of the debate on the bill for a short time, in order to enable those who might be absent to attend their duty! [hear, hear!] It must be supposed that the discussion on so important a bill was not disgraced by an empty house, lest there should be an appearance of gross neglect, insufferable insolence, or some motives of a worse description! Of course the commons could not be supposed to know who proposed the rejection of that bill, or by whom that motion of rejection was supported. But they might be fully assured that it could not have been by a person who was himself in the possession of a reversionary office of great emolument. [hear! hear!] They might be assured it was utterly impossible that the motion rejection could not have been supported by a person who was already gorged with the spoils and plunder of the country;—by a person loaded with reversions three deep in his family already. Far less could he suppose, that the motion for its rejection should be seconded by another person, whose name stood recorded in the journals of the house—as one who, with a keen and avaricious eye sat feasting upon the hopes of reversions to himself, his family, and dependents—[hear! hear!]—or a person whose delight was to hunt after that species of property called by the civilians the hereditas luctuosa. In that house of parliament, which consisted of 400 members, it was quite ridiculous to suppose that only 22 were present at the inglorious and indecent rejection of this bill. He insisted, that notwithstanding the voice of the aristocracy, the house of commons should discharge its duty to the country, and adopt a mode to prevent any thing similar from occurring. He hoped that the house would persevere, and bring forward a similar bill, session after session, until they convinced the house of lords, that the people and the commons of England were not to be trampled upon.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

did not feel any objection to the motion of his hon. friend, and had risen only in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. gent. who had just sat down, to state why he did not object to the present motion, and the grounds of the conduct which he had observed with respect to this measure, when it had been before in its progress through that house. And he thought this the more necessary after the ingenious course which the hon. gent. who had just sat down had taken, by which, in a way certainly perfectly parliamentary, he contrived to throw out the severest animadversions on the servants of the crown. The reason for the non-attendance of the ministers of the crown probably was, that they had not thought the bill of such importance as necessarily to require their attendance. Two opinions seemed to prevail respecting the importance of the bill. Some thought it of vast importance, with a view to purposes of œconomy, while others considered it formidable, as trenching on the prerogative of the crown. In neither of these opinions did he concur. He thought there was nothing in it that materially trenched on the prerogative of the crown, for he considered it as a matter of nice calculation, whether it increased or diminished the prerogative. If it diminished it in one view, it certainly increased it in another; and where the matter was so nicely balanced, he did not think there could be any reasonable grounds for supposing that the prerogative could be materially trenched upon. As to the economical effects of the bill, he could only regard them in the view that had been stated by his hon friend (Mr. Bankes); some offices might in this way be saved for the reward of services. But it ought to be recollected, that this method of reversions was the best way of making provision for the families of meritorious servants of the public, without imposing any new burthens on the public. It was once a mode of providing for lord chancellors, to whom, for instance, the reversion of a tellership of the exchequer might be granted, instead of the provision now in use in such case.[...] On the one side, therefore, he thought there was no great advantage to be expected from the bill in point of economy, and on the other he saw no reason to fear any danger to the prerogative of the crown. If it was assumed, that this was a measure of great importance, on one hand, in point of economy, or on the other with a view to an infringement on the prerogative, it certainly might be considered as the duty of the ministers of the crown to attend. But those who adopted neither of these opinions, would of course act as if they considered it as a matter of no uncommon interest. When, therefore, his hon. friend had proposed the measure, he had not thought it necessary to oppose it, but at the same time he did not regard it in that great and favourable light in which it had appeared to others. The hon. gent. over the way, had expressed his surprise at the rejection of the bill, but he saw no reason why he should be surprized at the exercise of its rights by any branch of the legislature. It was the right of the other house, undoubtedly, to reject or approve, and nothing could be more prejudicial to this house than to assume a dictating authority, and to attempt to do by its own act what could only be properly done by an act of the legislature. As to the disgrace imputed by the hon. member, for the manner in which the measure had been disposed of in another place, he should leave that to others to decide. But certainly no person could be more disinterested on such a question, than one who enjoyed an office that had devolved upon him by a reversionary grant. He had never understood that it was in contemplation to deprive such persons of their offices, and he was therefore at a loss to conceive, why persons of that description might not as well as any other persons exercise their discretion upon the general question. The individual to whom the hon. gent. alluded (lord Arden), and of his connection with whom he had himself [...]reason to be proud, had on this and every other occasion exercised his own judgment with a view to the public interest. Nothing could be more unfounded or ridiculous than the statement, not that he had heard in that house, but that had reached his ears from another quarter, that, instead of manfully opposing the measures themselves, ministers had sent others down to reject it. It that statement had made any impression either there or in the country, he was glad to take that opportunity of removing it. There was no candid mind that would not allow, that if he were to be actuated by such feelings, he could never have selected a worse person for the purpose, than one so nearly connected with him as the person that had been alluded to. He was ready, however, distinctly to state, that he certainly had known that it was the intention of that person to oppose the measure, on what appeared to him great constitutional grounds of objection. This he had known from a conversation which he had with that person on the subject, in which that person had expressed surprise that he had suffered the measure to pass that house without opposition. But, if he could not produce any change in that person's opinion, so neither had any been effected in his own, and he admitted that he had felt surprise at the active opposition made to the measure from that quarter. Nothing could be farther from his thoughts than to influence any person on the subject; so far from it, that he had assured his hon. friend in a communication which he had with him since, that whether he should bring forward his motion for an address or not, no act on the part of his majesty's government would be resorted to, that could interfere with his views. Before the present motion was brought, he had given his hon. friend his assurance, that even if he should not bring forward any motion, the practice of granting places in reversion, should be discontinued until the subject should come again fairly before the consideration of parliament. If the motion, however, appeared to him at all to interfere with the just respect due to the other branch of the legislature, he should have resisted it; but it appeared to him to have no such character, he gave it his sincere support.

Mr. Bouverie expressed great satisfaction at hearing what had fallen from the chancellor of the exchequer. He had this morning received a letter from his constituents on the very subject now before the house, requesting him to give his [...]strenuous support to the revival of the reversion bill; and indeed the feeling was general throughout the whole country.

Lord Henry Petty

expressed his difference in opinion from the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, as to the importance of the bill to which the motion then before the house [...]referred. That right hon. gent. [...]as of opinion, that it was a matter of extreme doubt, whether [...]the prerogative of the crown received any additional strength, or was diminished by the provisions of that bill; and also, whether considered as a matter of public economy, it was to be considered as being advantageous or disadvantageous to the [...]interests of the public. In fact, that right hon. gent. thought it to be so unimportant, that he was rather inclined to believe that he did not attend in his place in that house, on the different discussions which took place upon the subject. Now, [...]he (lord H. Petty) was of a very opposite opinion; he did conceive that two most important principles were involved in the consideration of that question. Was it not, in the first place, of some importance, that persons of ability should be appointed to fill different offices in the service of the public; and was it not of some importance also, that the legislature should provide that his majesty should not be deprived of the fair exercise of his prerogative, in selecting such only as he thought qualified to fill the offices? This power, the practice of granting places in reversion might deprive him of, in many instances. And in the second place, was if not of some considerable importance, with a view to public economy that if at any particular time an office should be declared to be useless with respect to public service, and such as ought to be abolished, was it not of some very material importance, that it should be in the power of the servants of the crown to abolish the office upon the office becoming vacant? There was, for instance, a case that occurred last year, in which it would have been well if the measure, which was then spoken of, had been so long in force, as that places were entirely free on the death of the present occupant. The place of Customer of the port of Dublin became vacant by the death of the last officer who filled that place. That was one of the places which it was recommended by the committee of finance to abolish. The duke of Bedford then lord lieutenant of Ireland, being influenced by the same spirit of economy which actuated the minds of his majesty's confidential advisers in this country, would have abolished the office if it had been in his power so to do; but, he found on enquiry, that a reversion was entailed upon him; he did then all that was in that case left for him to do; he took care that during his administration of the affairs of Ireland, no reversionary interest of that situation should be granted. The right hon. gent., however, stated, with reference to what was supposed to have passed in another place, that a noble lord, who already possessed a reversionary interest, might be considered one of the most fit persons to speak upon the subject. Now, to make out this case, the right hon. gent. should at least have proved, that a person in such a situation must be completely satisfied that the measure of his desires must of course be full. Until he did this, which would be extremely difficult for him to do, he could not support his proposition. Unfortunately, however, for his argument, an instance was glanced at in the course of the debate, in which the person alluded to had two reversionary interests; and it naturally followed that, where this strong desire, for emolument was manifested, the person might very probably be ready to accept a third, or would even have no objection to the acceptance of a fourth for himself or some branch of his family. In every point of view in which he could consider the subject, he thought it to be such as deserved his utmost approbation, and from every additional discussion that it underwent, he was strengthened in his former opinions on this subject. The house had itself declared its opinion almost unanimously, they had done what they conceived to be essential to the public interest, and he hoped that that house, the great inquest of the nation, would continue to proclaim its opinion with all the weight which it carried with it, to the other branch of the legislature, to the crown, and to the country, in the most firm and dignified manner. He hoped that the other house might by next sessions of parliament, view the subject in a more favourable light, and that then the bill would have a better fate.

Sir John Sebright

owed it to his country, to his constituents, and to himself, to declare his full and entire concurrence in the motion of the hon. gent., and he could not but express his extreme surprise at the manner in which the bill had been disposed of in the other house.

Mr. Whitbread

observed, that the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer had [...]now put the question in a different paint of view from that in which it had before been looked at. He gave his support to the present motion in order that the business of reversions might not interfere [...]with the labours of the committee of finance. Now, this appeared certainly to throw some new light upon the subject; it was to him matter of information, as the silence of his majesty's present ministers heretofore on this subject would rather have inclined him to believe that they were rather averse to the measure, if it had not been for the words that had been put into the king's speech, recommending the continuation of the finance committee. Then, with these apparent inconsistencies before them, he would beg leave to bring to the recollection of the house, that the only measure which was recommended by the finance committee to be put into execution, was that which passed that house in the form of a bill, which was afterwards lost the other house. It was reported that at least all his majesty's ministers who belonged to that house were not present on that occasion, and indeed the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer, confessed that he was not certain whether or not he attended all the discussions that took place an that subject. But now that the right hon. gent. did happen to be in his place when the subject was mentioned, he should have thought it would have been more natural for him to have defended the measure on the principle itself, on the same ground that it might be supposed to have been recommended in the speech from the throne. However, at the same time he must declare, that he most cordially agreed with the right hon. gent., that if there had been any thing like a trick in the business; if there had been any thing of management in the matter, the noble relation of that right hon. gent. was, of all others, the most improper person to select for giving the measure any kind of secret opposition in another place. But the right hon. gent. considered it to be one of those indifferent, milk-and-water measures that it was hardly worth his attention; however, to oblige his hon. friend (Mr. Bankes) when he did speak upon it, he gave it a sort of cold support. There was one circumstance, how- ever, that was to him a matter of extreme surprise, which happened to escape the notice of his hon. friend (Mr. Ward); it was to him matter of extreme surprise, if it could be possible that the lord chancellor, who delivered the speech in the name of his majesty, in which the labours of the committee of finance were most graciously noticed; if it were possible that the same lord chancellor could afterwards ever have thought of opposing the first fruits of their labour, which was brought before him in the form of a legislative proceeding. It would also be to him a matter of extraordinary surprise, if he should be told that a noble lord, who could not certainly be a stranger to official proceedings, taking up a paper, and on looking at it, expressed his surprise most innocently, saying, "Oh! dear; so the reversion bill has been rejected in the lords!" If he should happen to be informed of such circumstances, he must confess that he should be a good deal surprised. But then, some said that the measure would trench on the royal prerogative, and therefore it was objectionable. Now, he did not hesitate to say, that with him an objection of that sort had very little weight, as he was decidedly of opinion, that in many instances the prerogative of the crown, inasmuch as it obtained influence, ought to be diminished. Some gentlemen, however, took it in another view, and talked of coercing the other house of parliament. This was what could not bear a serious answer—to talk of coercing them was ridiculous. But so much would he say, that it was the acknowledged right and duty of the house of commons, to guard the public purse; and that, as guardians of the public purse, they ought, in a measure of finance, which was peculiarly their province, to persevere until they might possibly at length convince the other house of the strength and propriety of their arguments. He should be glad, if it were possible, that a resolution should be framed, expressive of what appeared to be the unanimous opinion of the house on this subject, that it should be carried up to the house of lords, and that their lordships should then be called upon deliberately to express their opinion on it.—The question was then put on Mr. Bankes's motion, which was carried, nem. con.; and it was ordered that the address should be presented to his majesty by such members of that house as are also members of his majesty's privy council.