§ Mr. Humerose to ask a question of his Majesty's Ministers on a point that had been talked of a good deal out of the House. He wished to know what arrangement had been made by the Government when the office held by the late Lord Grenville was given to Lord Auckland. Was Lord Auckland to hold that office consecutively with his present? It was generally understood that, by the Act applicable to that office, that office should cease with the demise of its late holder. But it now appeared that it was, emoluments and all, still in existence. What 252 arrangement then, he would ask the Government, had been come to with Lord Auckland, or if any, on his appointment to the Auditorship of the Exchequer?
§ Lord Althorpsaid, he was not sorry he was asked such a question. Much unnecessary and unfounded representation was made on the subject. From the state of the law relative to the Exchequer, it was found necessary that an officer should be appointed without delay. No money could be issued without the signature of the auditor. The appointment was one, not of choice, but of necessity. It was not intended that Lord Auckland should enjoy the emoluments of both offices, neither did his Lordship accept the office on any such understanding. He accepted it subject to any regulation the House might make. Nay, more: he took it on the condition that he would receive no salary while holding at the same time the office of President of the Board of Trade. In case the Bill regulating the office should pass, it was intended that, in place of the present salary of 4,000l. a-year, it should be reduced to 2,000l. a-year. The appointment, he repeated, would not have been made, had it not been necessary to fill up the office.