Commons Sitting of 31 January 1810

ORDNANCE DEFALCATION.
Mr. Calcraftobserved, that as there were certain confident rumours afloat, that a very considerable Defalcation had been discovered in the accounts of a public officer in the Ordnance Department, he rose to enquire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether those rumours were founded; and, if so, whether the discovery was accidental; and whether the subject had been referred for further investigation to the Commissioners of Military Inquiry?
The Chancellor of the Exchequeranswered, that a discovery had been made, merely by accident, that drafts had been issued to a considerable and unusual amount upon the Bank of England, by an officer in the Ordnance department. The discovery was made on a Saturday; and it was thought right to send, on the Monday morning, orders to the Bank forbidding the payment of any drafts drawn by that officer. The Board of Ordnance immediately instituted an inquiry on the subject; but no result had as yet taken place, which rendered it necessary, in their opinion, to lay any statement before the House. The officer in question, to say the least of his conduct, had acted in violation of the orders established for the regulation of his department. He had since resigned his situation; and it was found, upon the inquiry which had already been instituted, that the public were not likely to sustain any material loss. The matter was at present under minute investigation by the Board of Ordnance; and the subject would be ultimately referred, without delay, to the Commissioners of Military Inquiry.
Mr. Calvertdeclared himself so far satisfied with this explanation.

EXPEDITION TO THE SCHELDT.
Lord Porchestertook occasion to ask, whether, with a view to give every possible expedition to the proposed inquiry, there was
248
any objection on the other side to have it carried on de die in diem to its conclusion? This he conceived it desirable to understand from various considerations. It would be recollected that upon a similar investigation in 1779, the progress was so slow, in consequence of frequent interruptions, that the House was actually prorogued without any report at all being made. To guard against the possibility of such an event, or against any untoward interruptions, he thought it necessary at once to settle upon some arrangement as to the course of this inquiry, either that it should go on de die in diem, or that particular days should be fixed for it, in order that it might not interfere with other business.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas of opinion, that it would be extremely imprudent to prescribe beforehand what course it might be deemed expedient to pursue in the prosecution of the inquiry alluded to. He apprehended that it was the general wish to get rid of it as soon as possible. But the idea of settling at once the precise days upon which it should be gone into, under any circumstances that might arise, seemed to him quite inexpedient. The discretion of the House, upon this head, must be regulated by the circumstances, which might arise in the course of the inquiry.
Mr. Tierneywished that some understanding should be established upon this subject. All his noble friend asked was, that this important inquiry should be allowed to go on without interruption unless some very pressing business should interfere. When business of that description should occur, his noble friend could, of course, have no wish to impede it. But as things now stood, his noble friend's request was one to which he could not conceive a reasonable objection. Indeed it appeared but fair that it ought to be acceded to, when it was considered that a good deal of viva voce evidence was to be adduced, and that some of the witnesses were to come from a considerable distance.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrepeated his objections to the arrangement alluded to. The House would be quite able to determine on Friday, whether the subject should be resumed on Monday, or any other convenient day, and, no doubt, the House would not lose any time upon this important subject. Upon Friday some debate might arise as to the course proper for the committee to pursue in prosecuting

249
this inquiry; but there were three distinct points to which they would naturally direct their attention; namely, the policy of undertaking the Expedition; the manner in which it was executed; and the propriety of retaining Walcheren up to the period of its evacuation. Upon each of these points the House would probably feel the propriety of establishing some specific rules for its guidance. As to the first point, for which his colleagues and himself were responsible, they would have to justify themselves, by the nature of the intelligence they received, and of the sources whence they received it, together with various circumstances, to which it would be obviously improper to give publicity, and therefore the House would, no doubt, appoint amore confined tribunal for conducting that part of the investigation. After the debate on the points he had referred to had concluded, he could not apprehend the occurrence of any other material discussion to interfere with the proposed inquiry. Certainly he should not wish to promote any such discussion. It was, he hoped, in the recollection of the House, that on a former inquiry, his endeavour uniformly was to prevent any division that might lead to delay; and he would pursue the same course in this instance.
Mr. Tierneystated, that he saw many other points to which it would be proper for the House to direct its inquiry, as well as those mentioned by the right hon. gent. namely, as to the time occupied in fitting out the Expedition, the manner in which it was fitted out, and the period at which it sailed. On these several heads there were various matters in circulation, which demanded inquiry. But, with regard to the first point stated by the right hon. gent. it might, no doubt, be very proper to appoint a private committee to receive an article of secret communication made to ministers, previous to the undertaking of this unfortunate Expedition. That, however, was a question which had no concern with the application of his noble friend, or with the other points referred to. Ministers were not required by his noble friend, or any one who thought with him, to publish any thing which ought to be kept secret. They were simply asked to give to the purposes of the inquiry as much of the time of the House as the necessary attention to indispensable public business would allow. It was not supposed that the promise of any individual
250
should bind the House. But all that was expected or required was, that general understanding, which might be consistently established, and which his noble friend's application had alone in view.
Here the conversation dropped.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
The House, on the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Robert Wardrose for the purpose of moving the Estimates of the Navy. The hon. gent. then moved—"That it is the opinion of the Committee that the number of seamen to be employed for the year 1810, be 130,000 men, including 31,000 marines," which was agreed to. He next observed, that it was necessary to follow up this vote with the usual vote of wear and tear, which the Committee would recollect embraced the wages and victuals of the number of men voted. He had to observe, that the amount voted last year was 11,900,000 l. but there would be a diminution this year to the amount of 1,000,000 and upwards. This reduction he accounted for upon two grounds; first, from a new regulation for keeping the public accounts; and secondly, from an actual diminution of expence. The first would consist in the transfer to the Army Estimates of that part of the charge for victualling garrisons upon foreign stations, and troops in transports, which had heretofore been included in the account for victualling the navy; and the second, in the total reduction of the sea fencibles. From this corps an expence had arisen to the country of about 200,000 l. per annum: but, as the officers would be placed on half pay, the saving would be little more than half that sum. He proposed to move for the grant of 130,000 seamen, including 31,000 marines, for the service of the year 1810, at the rate of 1l. 15 s. 6d. per man per month; which was less by 1s. 6d. a month than the grant of last year. But this difference formed the sum hitherto appropriated to the maintenance of the sea fencibles. Although moving for only 130,000 seamen, the hon. member felt it his duty to observe, that, according to the last returns, there were actually 143,000 men serving in the navy. This, no doubt, formed an excess beyond the vote of parliament, which, as soon as the admiralty were apprized of it, in December last, should have been immediately communicated to the House, if it had been then silting. Every man of common sense

251
must admit, that it was obviously impossible, from the distribution of our navy in various quarters of the world, and the means unavoidably resorted to for recruiting it, to guard against exceeding the vote of parliament, or even to secure a compliance with that vote. But the excess in this instance was so considerable, that it was intended to submit a distinct question to the consideration of the House, how that excess was to be disposed of and provided for: at present, he only moved for the usual vote, leaving the question open for future discussion, whether any, and what part of this excess should be retained? The policy of disbanding so large a body of men, without knowing the general state of the navy, appeared to require very serious and deliberate conderation. After some further remarks upon the new arrangement which he had described, relative to the separation of the naval and military accounts, the hon. member moved, "That the sum of 2,899,750 l. be granted to his majesty, for the wages of the said 130,000 men, for thirteen lunar months, at the rate of 1l. 15 s. 6d. per man per month." The motion was agreed to, as were also the following: "For victualling 130,000 seamen voted for 13 lunar months at the rate of 2l. 17 s. 3d. per man per month, 3,932,625 l.: for wear and tear of the Navy, 3,205,500 l.: for Naval Ordnance, 591,500 l.
The House then resumed, and the report was ordered to be received the next day.

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
Mr. Bankesrose in consequence of his previous notice, and moved, That the bill of last session for suspending for a limited period the granting of Offices in Reversion, be read; which being done, the hon. gent. said, when he rose the other day to give notice of his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill to make perpetual the act which had just been read, he had not the slightest idea, that there would be any thing like opposition made to it. It was with infinite surprize and concern, however, he heard his right hon. friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) declare it was his intention to shorten the duration of the prevention by bringing in a bill of his own for its continuance only one year longer. What reason his right hon. friend could have for taking such a course, he could not even pretend to guess; but whatever it might be, he hoped and trusted it would not operate on the mind
252
of the House, because he thought he could shew, beyond a possibility of contradiction, that it ought not so to operate. In order to do this, it would only be necessary for him to give a concise history of the origin and progress of this bill.—It would be in the recollection of all those who sat in the former parliament, that a Committee had been appointed to enquire into the state of the finances of the country; and that towards the latter end of the session of that short parliament the House had, in consequence of a report of that Committee, resolved unanimously, that no place in reversion should thenceforward be granted. When that Resolution, and the bill grounded upon it, were brought before the House, his right hon. friend, though not then minister, but yet a member of the House, said not one word of opposition against the bill. It was read a second time, and was proceeding to a Committee, when the dissolution of that parliament stopped its progress. On the meeting of the next parliament, his Majesty, in his speech from the throne, expressed his peculiar approbation of that Committee. On the meeting of the second session, his Majesty, in his speech, again repeated the same approbation of that Committee. The bill founded on the Resolution of the House was again brought forward and passed, but was, unexpectedly, towards the close of the first session, thrown out in the Lords; when the House, taking into consideration the lateness of the period, and the quarrels that were going on in the House, and finding there would not be time to pass another bill, thought proper to address his Majesty not to suffer any place in reversion to be granted during the recess.—The propriety of the principle that places ought not to be granted in reversion, was universally acknowledged. The bill, however, again failed. A consultation took place, and the Lords' Journals were inspected, to see if the Committee appointed for that purpose could find any particular reason why the bill had been rejected, but all in vain. Under all the circumstances of the session before last, when he found it was impossible to do more than he had done, he was himself the author of a temporary suspension bill, as he thought it afforded an opportunity to shew the temper and moderation of the House, and in order to avoid any thing that might lead to a misunderstanding between the two Houses. In doing this, he

253
did all he could to render the measure as palatable and as gracious as possible, but in no one panicle of his conduct had he ever shewn the smallest tittle of inclination to give up his perpetual bill, and by inserting words suggested by his right hen. friend, as likely to ease the feelings of some particular individuals, he had acceded solely as thinking them of no very particular consequence. He should, therefore, think it peculiarly hard, if those words inserted in the preamble of the act just before read, should be urged against this bill; because he expressly stated, at the time, his reasons to be what he had just said, and that he had never lost sight of a perpetual one. It now became the House to shew they were determined to carry into execution that which they had already so unanimously resolved. That bill which had been rejected, could not be brought forward again; and, therefore, the best way was to resort to their former one. Suppose it should fail again, they might then do as they had done before. He thought after the House, and the whole country also, had shewn so great and unremitting an eagerness and anxiety to pass the bill, it would not be right to assume such a thing as that prejudices against it could still remain in the breasts of any persons elsewhere, after so much had been done to allay them first, and afterwards to eradicate them. It was needless, he thought, for him to call their attention to the necessity there was that the House should endeavour, by every means in their power, to preserve the good opinion of their constituents. The eyes of all classes in the country were fixed on them, and it was their incumbent duty to shew, at this important Crisis, that the House were really the representatives of the people in doing which, those who wished the representation to remain as it was, were as deeply interested as those who wished for reform. They should therefore persevere in that course which they had already adopted, and which had been so highly approved by the whole nation. There were, he said, three principal points of view, in which this measure would prove beneficial, and which spoke most forcibly in favour of his bill. First, it would be advantageous on the ground of public economy, which was always highly interesting to the people, and more particularly at such a period like the present, when taxes press on them with such peculiar severity.
254
He was not willing or desirous to hold out to the people any great hopes of an immediate sensible alleviation of their burdens from this measure; for he feared that during the continuance of this just war, they were more likely to be increased than diminished; but if the House would shew a design and determination to make retrenchments in expences wherever they can, it would go a great way towards rendering the public more patient, and inducing them to bear their burdens with less repining.—The second point was, that if the House prevented the granting of offices in reversion, it would certainly tend to the well filling of offices. The man who gave an office would take care that the person appointed to it was capable of discharging the duties appertaining to it; whereas, if it was given to a person out of sight, the contrary would be the case. Offices in reversion might be given, and he feared had been bestowed on persons, whose age or sex were highly unfitting to discharge their duties. They might be given to a child or an idiot; and it was important to recollect, that these persons having become possessed of places in reversion, had a vested interest when the person who gave them was dead and gone, and no way responsible for what he had done. It looked also as if places were not objects of trust, but merely of emolument. It could not be doubted that the main object was trust; but this mode of granting them in reversion overturned, the principle, and encouraged the dangerous idea that offices were granted for the benefit of the possessor, and not for the benefit of the public.—It had always been the custom of the House, to consider the rights of individuals with stricter attention than they paid to the rights of the public. He meant to allude only to private rights. There were offices which a committee on public economy must think ought to be abolished, and it was equally pressing on them that this abuse should be corrected. He should here beg leave to illustrate his argument by adverting to a particular case. There was one case in which the whole supply of medicines both to the navy and army was committed to one person. Supposing that should be granted in reversion, and it might be found necessary to buy it up and abolish the office, that could not be done, because the committee could not lay their hands on it on that account. It was true that this place was not at present granted in

255
reversion, but it might be so granted, and if it were, it would be obviously a great evil. He thought he might also fairly assume, that this mode of granting offices in reversion tended to increase sinecure offices; for when they got into particular hands, it was said they became vested, when the duties of them became soon neglected, and thus offices necessary when first instituted, by this mode of granting them became mere sinecures. Many members of the House had ex-expressed their wishes to abolish sinecures; and if they were in earnest, why should not they be equally desirous of getting rid of that baneful practice which turns offices, that were once efficient, into mere sinecure offices, to the great detriment of the public, and to the great injury of the service of the country? This mode of granting reversions had also been applied to pensions, and did, in fact, controul the fair exercise of the crown, in the distribution of its bounty granted by parliament. The third point it would not be necessary to enlarge upon. His right honourable friend had never entered into the consideration of it in the same way as many others, who had conceived and encouraged alarms of trenching on the prerogative of the crown. This bill rather tended to restore the prerogative. It was well known and universally admitted, that the disposal of offices can only remain with the crown; but it was equally certain that the crown ought to have the office to give, unencumbered at the time it was bestowed. Upon these grounds he would move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, to make perpetual the act which had just been read."
Mr. Henry Thorntonseconded the motion. Although he felt the great respect which was due to the other House, yet he considered that it was the peculiar province of that House, as guardians of the public purse, to consider of measures which tended to lighten the burdens of the country. He conceived that it might be possible that the Lords should be somewhat too precipitate in the rejection of any thing which might appear to invade the royal prerogative; but still it appeared, that any thing which regarded the expenditure of the country came more naturally under the controul of the House of Commons. It was true, that many important improvements had been introduced of late years and that in former periods of our history, the power of the crown was
256
less controlled in respect to granting offices and pensions than it was at present. It had been found necessary to limit the prerogative of the crown with respect to the Irish pension list; nevertheless, the principle of that limitation can still be violated, as the act only refers to the amount of the pension list, and not to the period for which the pensions are granted. The consequence is, that since that restriction, whatever pensions are given in Ireland, are generally given for more than one life. He could not see any reason for preferring an annual bill to a perpetual one, as most abundant time had now been given, for the consideration of the subject, and gentlemen must have perfectly formed their opinions upon it. As to the prerogative of the crown, the bill had a greater tendency to increase than to abridge it. A gift of a place in reversion was not worth a sixth part of the real value of the place when the actual possession could be given. Considering the bill, therefore, as advantageous to the public, and not injurious to the prerogative, he should beg leave to second the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that this was a subject which had been so frequently before the House, that he did not think it necessary to trouble them at much length in expressing his sentiments. It was almost impossible that any novelty could now be produced on either side; and the hon. gentlemen who had preceded him, appeared to have done ample justice to the side of the case which they supported. He felt himself however called upon to state his reasons for differing in opinion from them; and he must in the first place recal to the recollection of the House that he had never yet given any opposition to the principle of the bill, on the ground of its being likely to affect the royal prerogative. With regard to economy, and its tending materially to lighten the burthens of the people, he always stated that he could not see any of those great advantages which its supporters, and a considerable part of the public, expected from it; but, with respect to the royal prerogative, he had always stated, that he thought its tendency was rather to increase than diminish it. He did, however, always consider, and still thought, that very exaggerated notions of the advantages, of this bill had gone abroad; and that many persons had been deluded into an opinion that the public burdens would be sensibly diminished by its operation. That it could

257
produce any important effects in lessening the public burthens he always denied; but at the same time he allowed that the restricting, for a time, the power of granting offices in reversion, might be of advantage, in allowing the House time to consider which, or whether any of those places ought to be abolished or reformed. This was, as he conceived, the great object of the bill in point of economy, and might be obtained by a temporary bill. He thought therefore that a temporary bill was the most proper, as the subject of reversions was still under the consideration of the Committee; and he conceived that it was the report of that Committee alone which would give sufficient materials to to the House to decide permanently what ought to be done on the subject. As long as it should be under investigation before that Committee, he thought that it would be the best way to pass temporary bills of restriction, and to come to a final judgment after the report should be given in. If, therefore, the House would keep this prerogative in a state of suspense during the time that the subject was under enquiry, they would keep the power of abolishing or reforming such offices as ought to be abolished or reformed fully as much as if they were to make the bill perpetual. If they proceeded to alter the prerogative of the crown in any respect, there should, at least, be sufficient reasons stated for such an alteration. When the Report of the Finance Committee was upon the table, the House would then have before it the grounds of judging whether such alteration was necessary. There was a recent instance to which the attention of the public had lately been drawn, and which shewed how precipitately they might take up a wrong opinion. He alluded to an office which had lately become vacant, and wherein the public might have suffered great inconvenience if there had not been somebody immediately to put in the place of the officer who had resigned. These considerations had always induced him to consent to temporary bills for restricting the prerogative. As to economy and the prospect of alleviating the burden on the public, it was exactly the same thing to them, whether the office was held by the man who had got it in possession or reversion. The same sum of money was paid in either case. He was, however, ready to agree that there were many offices which might in future be reformed or abolished; but still as he
258
never understood it to be the intention of the supporters of the bill to interfere with the vested rights of any individual, he thought it could be of little importance to their object, whether the same effect was produced by a temporary bill or by a perpetual bill. He concluded by moving an Amendment to the motion, that the following words should be substituted for the original: "A Bill for continuing and extending the said Act for a time to be limited."
After the Speaker had read the proposed Amendment,
The Chancellor of the Exchecquerrose again and said, that although he felt it his duty to state his sentiments, yet, if he perceived the strong sense of the House to be the other way, he would not press a division.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that the right hon. gent. had passed over all that had been urged by the hon. member in favour of his motion, and dwelt wholly upon that which needed no refutation. That right hon. gent. had observed, that the argument against reversions, as affecting the public economy, was the weakest of all the objections that had been made, and yet the right hon. gent. had over-looked all the other objections, and confined his observations to the weakest of them. He would ask that right hon. gent. how numerous were the offices which would not now be in existence but for those grants in reversion? The difference in the expenditures between the departments where the proposed regulations had effect, and those where they could not act, was known to be most considerable, and was there no reason to suppose, even from this circumstance, that if the bill proposed should pass into a law, it would not, in its ultimate operation, materially affect the public economy? but he thought the influence derived from those grants of still more importance than the effect of their suppression upon the public economy. Was it nothing to deprive the crown of its legitimate influence by deferring its exercise to future times, and compelling the minister of the day to look to other sources to supply those whom they were to support? Must not the House feel the effect of adding to the public burthens in that way? He agreed with the hon. mover, that it was wrong to delude the people by holding out exaggerated expectations of retrenchment, which could not be realized. He thought it mean and mischievous in

259
any man, from any party motive, to make statements of practical economy to the public, which, at the time of making them he knew to be impracticable. He did not think that any very sensible or immediate effect could result as to the alleviation of the public burthens, from the passing of the bill in question; but he thought that it would in time have that effect, and that much benefit might be expected from the operation of the principle. He concurred also with the honourable mover in thinking, that the disposal of the great offices of the state ought to be at all times vested in the crown, and could not, with safety to the constitution, be lodged any where else. He, therefore, thought it unfair to anticipate the exercise of that prerogative, and that nothing could be more unjust than that anticipation should be resorted to, for the mere purpose of perpetuating the influence of a corrupt minister by enabling him to draw upon the future resources of the crown, to the detriment of the King, his successors, and their ministers. He concluded by conjuring the House not to give their sanction to any principle pregnant with such abuses, nor to rest satisfied with any thing short of a perpetual prevention bill.
Mr. Davies Giddyconsidered the grant of reversions as productive of more evils to the public service than the grant of sinecures. He should be at all times ready to support every prerogative of the crown, that did not militate against the interests of the subject, but in the present case he did net think the prerogative materially affected. He thought the principle of the bill would in its ultimate operation have a beneficial effect upon the public economy, and so far as it was possible for the human mind to prejudge the result of its own intentions, he thought there had been few cases in which it might, in every point of view, calculate so fairly upon a prosperous issue, as in the probable consequences of the bill proposed.
Sir Samuel Romillycould not conceive, if the grant of reversions were at all a matter from winch inconvenience was found to result, why it should not be at once abolished. There never could be any advantage in a temporary law on this subject. What would this be but to confess, that the principle of granting offices in reversion was bad, and yet that there would be an accumulation of such offices to be granted by a minister all at one time; thereby adding to, and in-
260
creasing the evil which already existed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to overlook every thing that was great in the present question, and to fix only on that part of it which was insignificant.—He conceived the prohibiting of the granting of reversions, however, to be a measure which would be extremely beneficial both to the crown and to the people. Either these offices had duties attached to them, or they were sinecures. If there were duties to be performed, how absurd, how dangerous the granting of any such office, to commence at a future and indefinite period. At the time the reversion was granted, the person on whom it was conferred might be, in every respect, qualified for the discharge of its duties. He might have the requisite abilities, and he might enjoy a pure and spotless character. At the time when the reversion fell in to him, however, he might be no longer fit for the situation; his intellects might be impaired, or his reputation might be gone. Yet there was no resource—the situation he held would legally be vested, and, however injurious to the interests of the country, the situation he must enjoy. It was a determined point, the learned gent. observed, that no office in a court of law could be held in reversion. There was a report by lord Coke of a case, in queen Elizabeth's time, where a reversion having been granted of the office of auditor of the court of aids, such grant was held to be void, because, though the office was not purely judicial, it partook of that character.
He agreed that it had never been determined that other offices than those of a judicial nature might not be granted in reversion; but still, what was applicable to offices of that kind could not be inapplicable to other offices of trust or confidence in the country; and where talents or character were requisite in the persons filling such offices, the rule was surely applicable, though probably not to the same extent. He would ask, if the House would believe that a man, in the sound use of his capacity, would appoint a steward, or even a common servant, to succeed on the death of another person then exercising the duties of either of these stations? And then he left it to them to say, if it were becoming that they should allow the offices in the state to be dealt with in a manner different from that with which they would wish menial situations in their own service to be disposed of? Whether

261
sinecures should exist, or not, was not now the question.—But if they should, they should be for services past, and already performed. If offices in reversion were to be given for such services, much would be given by the people, and yet little received by the persons performing the service. All they received was a contingency or chance of something which might never be realized, and which at the moment, held out very little advantage to them. There could not be a more improvident use of the public resources. To grant reversions in such a case was just like sending an improvident heir into the market, with what might be of real use and substantial benefit to him if he waited patiently till it came into his possession; but for which if to be disposed of at present, he could not expect to receive the sixth part of its value. It was a much worse way of rewarding services than by granting pensions; because a man of spirit would hardly wish to take a pension where he had performed no service; but reversions, if there were none to reward, would always find some one ready to take them.
He was surprized his right hon. friend should represent this as a point of so little moment, after he had advised his Majesty in his speech from the throne, to mention the labours of the committee of finance as affording matter of congratulation, at a time when they had gone no farther than to recommend the adoption of this measure. When so much was said in other places against the present measure, as carrying with it an attack on the prerogative of the crown, the House would excuse him for submitting to them the authority, against these aspersions, of one of the most learned writers on the law of this country, at a period, too, when it was his object to guard the law, and to protect it against mischievous innovation. He meant Mr. Justice Hale, in his treatise on the amendment of the Law, in which he has so strongly stated his opinion, that reversions were improper, and should not be granted; that he did not esteem it sufficient that the law should be prospective but retrospective; that they should be abolished at that present moment; and that pensions should be granted in lieu of them. That learned judge was of opinion, that reversions were worse for the person receiving them, and worse also for the King; that it was better to give a pension, and then an honest man would
262
know how to use it. There were offices, too, probably with salaries of 1,000 l., the duties of which were performed by deputies, to whom again the principals gave trifling allowances, of probably not more than 100 l. Judge Hale was also of opinion, that all such offices were an unnecessary charge on the King and on the people: that the offices themselves were not necessary; if they were, why were the duties of them discharged by the deputies alone? Surely there could not be a more improvident way of disposing of those funds, which ought to be distributed in that way, by which the King and the people would derive the most advantage. The hon. and learned gent. did not see that there was any difference of opinion in the House on the subject of this measure. If the House might, as the right hon. gent. stated, come to the resolution next year of continuing the prevention, why not do it now, and if now, why not declare it to be unlawful in all time coming? It was for the House now to do their duty; and if their successors should be of a contrary mind, they might afterwards act agreeably to their own ideas of propriety.
The question was then put on Mr. Bankes's motion, for leave to bring in a bill to render the said act perpetual, when it was carried by an acclamation, in one voice, by the whole House. On the question upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer's motion, his own and one other voice were all that could be heard.

FINANCE COMMITTEE.
Mr. Bankesthen said, he should use but a few words in prefacing the motion he should have to submit for the re-appointment of the Finance Committee. He was sure that there was not a gentleman in the House who would wish to oppose the re-appointment of this Committee. He should therefore first move that a Committee be appointed, and then he should submit the names of the gentlemen he had to propose, as likely to form an effective Committee for the purpose for which it was established. It was material for the House to consider to what sort of persons they delegated such a duty, for the object in view could never be attained, if the House did not make a proper choice of the members of whom the Committee was to be composed. The former Committee was too numerous, and the gentlemen were of jarring sentiments, so that no progress could be made. He proposed, therefore in the first place, to limit the present Committee to fifteen instead of

263
twenty-one, and in selecting the members, he had taken them indiscriminately from both sides, making it his only study to suggest those who seemed most likely to promote the objects of their appointment. He meant nothing insulting or invidious to the gentlemen on the former Committee. But, if differences did arise among the members of such a Committee which led greatly to retard their progress, the House would hardly think that men of hostile minds, and with different views, not on the details, but on the broad principle on which the Committee was appointed, were fit men to sit with any good effect on such an investigation. They must, he submitted, be men of one sort or another. He concluded by moving, That a Committee be appointed to inquire into the Public Expenditure. This motion was carried unanimously—The hon. gent. then moved that the following be the names of the Committee. Mr. Henry Thornton, Mr. Biddulpb, Mr. Sturges Bourne, Mr. Brogden, Mr. Cavendish, Mr. Baring, Mr. Alderman Combe, Mr. Mills, Mr. Charles Ellis, Mr. Curwen, Mr. Peel, Mr. Davies Giddy, Mr. Bathurst, Mr. Bankes.
The House then resolved that the Committee should be appointed. On the motion being put, that Mr. Bankes should form one of the Committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid he did not mean to give any opposition to the Committee being formed, but he trusted that the House would pause before they gave their concurrence to the formation of a Committee so different in its principle from that in the preceding years. He wished members from all parts of the House to compose it, that they might the more easily discover the truth, from the different views which they might take of the same subject. He then proposed that the Committee should consist of twenty-one persons, and that the following six gentlemen should be added to fifteen of the members of the former Committee: The Hon. Mr. Ward, Mr. Peele, Mr. Giddy, Mr. Pattison, Mr. Charles Dundas, Mr. Howorth.
Sir John Newportwas not surprised at the wish of the right hon. gent. that the Committee should be composed of discordant materials, as he had given the House a sample of the happy effects of disunion in his discordant cabinet. He had an objection even to the list of the hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes), because it contained no member either for Scotland or Ireland.
264
In no part of the empire had there been more abuses, more jobbing, more reversionary grants, more conversion of offices, first executed by principals, into sinecures, or offices executed by deputy, than in Ireland.
Mr. Bathurstthought he had upon a former occasion voted against several of the members whom he personally knew and esteemed, yet he was of opinion, that the names of the Committee should be the same as last session, unless some reason could be assigned for removing any of them. But his hon. friend appeared to wish to have the Committee all his own way. This was not a political or a party question. As persons on the same side may differ as to the means of carrying a common object into effect, he could see no inconvenience that would arise from appointing persons of different opinions upon the Committee.
Mr. Bankes, in explanation, staled, that he had never arrogated to himself the right of dictating to the committee; nor thought of nominating those only who would agree with him, upon it. It was impossible for any gentleman to look at the list he proposed, and assert, that the gentlemen upon it were persons who would submit to receive his dictation.
Mr. Fullerwas of opinion that the Committee had not hitherto done its duty, in not bringing forward a measure for the abolition of the three sinecure places which they had already brought forward. He hoped they would yet do their duly, and that every honest man of every party would support him in the general motion on this subject, which he should, have to bring forward in a few days. He thought the best mode of adjusting the list would be, for the honourable mover and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take man and man each.
Lord A. Hamiltonfreed the hon. gent. from any idea of wishing to controul the Committee while he was chairman of it. He did not expect much from the Committee as it was last constituted; and he thought that after three years had elapsed from its first appointment, it was time some of the recommendations of the Committee should at last be carried into effect.
The Solicitor Generalcontended for the right of naming the Committee still being in his right hon. friend, out of whose hands the hon. gent. had attempted to lake it. To pass by the gentlemen of the last Committee, would be condemning

265
them without any other proof than the hare assertion of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. Dennis Brownexpressed his readiness to defend himself and the other members of the last Committee from any charge that might be made against them.
Mr. H. Thorntonexplained that no charge was made, except the impossibility of his hon. friend's supposing that they could act cordially together after several of them had shewn a disposition to withdraw themselves.
The question was then put, when the names of Mr. Bankes, Mr. H. Thornton, and Mr. Biddulph were agreed to without opposition. Mr. Bankes then proposed the name of Mr. S. Bourne.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, fortunately there was no man for whom he had a more sincere friendship than for the gentleman now named. It could not be supposed, therefore, that he opposed his name standing on the list for any other reason than because he was not one of the last committee.—He proposed that instead of the name of Mr. S. Bourne, there be inserted the name of Mr. Hawkins Brown.
The House divided on the question, that Mr. Sturges Bourne be one of the Committee. Ayes 107; Noes 98; Majority 9. Strangers were not again admitted into the gallery, but two further divisions took place which were understood to have been as follows: Mr. Bankes proposed Mr. Cavendish. The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved as an amendment, that the name of Mr. Leycester be substituted instead of that or Mr. Cavendish. The House divided on the question, that Mr. Cavendish be one of the Committee. Ayes 108; Noes 103; Majority 5. Mr. Bankes then proposed Alderman Combe, upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved an amendment, that Mr. Dermis Brown be substituted. The House divided on the question, that Mr. Alderman Combe be one of the Committee. Ayes 117; Noes 104; Majority 13.