§ Mr. Leach, pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to explain and amend so much of the act of last session as related to the granting of pensions to ministers who might have served his majesty at foreign courts. The grounds upon which he brought forward his motion were few and simple. It must be obvious, that diplomatic appointments, though the situations were high and honourable, were not sought after by persons to whom the revenue of office was indifferent. There might have been some exceptions, but in general such offices were courted as likely to afford an honourable provision. The revenue enjoyed during service afforded no fund for future provision, and when it was considered that persons holding diplomatic appointments uniformly detached themselves from their connections, and abandoned all views from the prosecution of professions, it must be obvious that they were entitled to some provision after the cessation of their services, or in the interval of non-employments. As it was necessary to hold out encouragement to persons of a liberal education and accomplishments to undertake 186 this office, it became the consideration of parliament in 1782, and they then made provision for them. The words of the act of last session introduced a change of policy, and lessened the encouragement which parliament had pledged themselves to bestow upon such individuals. No person could now engage in this branch of public service without being independent; but he submitted to the House whether it could be just to apply the provisions of that act to persons who had actually been in that employment previous to its passing. They, perhaps, would not have accepted of their situations, if they had not expected remuneration for their meritorious services. As that act might disappoint their just expectations, he thought that it ought to be explained and amended upon that point to which he had alluded.
Mr. Abercrombysaid, he could not at present approve of this bill, and although he would not oppose the motion, should take a future opportunity of stating his sentiments. He protested against the argument that the act of 1732, held out a pledge by parliament to persons in the diplomatic service, that could not with justice be altered. If such a principle were to be carried into all the branches of the public service, it would be opposing all beneficial regulations.
Mr. Wilberfarcethought it would not be proper to provide pensions for those who under took the diplomatic department, merely for a year or two, but it would be desirable to provide public remuneration for those who devoted themselves entirely to that line, and therefore a specific time should be mentioned.
§ Mr. Fullerthought that this was a matter which ought to be left to the government of the country, so that they might remunerate persons according to their deserts.
Mr. Bankeswas of opinion that the bill brought in last session was extremely proper, as it guarded the public rights, and ought not to be altered.
§ Leave was given to bring in the bill.