§ Lord Ardenrose. He considered the bill to be an unnecessary and indecent attack upon the king's lawful prerogative. Nothing whatever had been stated to prove that such a measure was necessary, except merely an expression in the preamble of the bill, that it was expedient for the public service. The manner also in which the bill originated was very unusual, and no 1045 ground had been shewn to prove that there was any necessity to make such an attack upon the king's just prerogative. He should therefore oppose the bill and take the sense of the house upon it.
Earl Grosvenorexpressed great regret at the opposition given to this bill by his noble friend. He conceived the bill to be so completely in unison with the popular feeling at the present moment, that it would be unwise to reject it, and he thought his majesty's ministers, by opposing the bill, would render themselves so unpopular that they would not long remain in office. He was a warm friend to the bill, not merely for its own sake, but for the sake of those measures of reform relative to the public expenditure, of which he considered this merely as the forerunner—measures which were highly necessary at a crisis like the present, when it was of so much importance to engage the hearts as well as the arms of the people. He trusted their lordships would not be induced to reject the bill.
The Earl of Lauderdalecalled their lordships' attention to his majesty's speech at the close of the last session, in which satisfaction was expressed at the conduct of the committee of finance, and contended that this bill, being the only measure which that committee had then recommended, the king's speech contained in effect an approval of the measure. After ministers had thus approved of the measure, after they had approved of it in the other house, and after the bill had been so long in this house, he was greatly astonished at the opposition it now experienced. He could not help also adverting to the conduct of his majesty's ministers upon this occasion. If they now thought this bill ought not to pass, why did they not attend in their places, and oppose it in a manly manner, instead of staying away themselves, and sending their friends and connections to oppose the bill? [None of the ministers were present, except the lord chancellor.] He did not mean by this to impute to the noble lord that he was sent there for that purpose; but that construction would be put upon such conduct by the public. He was convinced that the public feeling was strongly in favour of the bill; and that ought to be, at the present moment, a strong argument in its favour. The granting of offices in reversion he considered, to be highly prejudicial to the public service, and highly improper; such grants being frequently made to children, at a very early age, aud such offices, although requiring regulation, from a change of circum 1046 stances, could not, during such grant, be regulated for the benefit of the public. He would instance one case, that of the large office held by the noble lord (Arden), and the reversion of which had been granted to him after the death of his father, whose public services were undoubtedly great, at a time when the income arising from it was comparatively trifling. The profits of it had since increased to an amount which could not possibly have been in the contemplation of any one, and which arose, in a great degree, from the misfortunes of the country. It would, no doubt, have been thought expedient to regulate an office of that description. He thought, upon every ground that could be stated, that this bill ought to be proceeded in.
§ Lord Ardensaid, he was not sent to that house to oppose the bill, nor would he be sent there by any man: he opposed the bill because he conceived it to be his duty as a peer of parliament to do so.
The Earl of Lauderdalein explanation, disclaimed any intention of throwing the least imputation upon the noble lord; he only meant to allude to the construction which would be put in the public mind upon the opposition given to the bill, coupled with the absence of his majesty's ministers.
Lord Melvillesaid there was only one point in which he agreed with the noble lord (Lauderdale), namely, that which related to the absence of ministers. He wished they had been there to declare their sentiments in opposition to the bill, if such were the sentiments which they entertained upon the subject. But when the absence of ministers was spoken of, he would ask, where were the illustrious members of the late administration? Why did not they attend to support their own bill, and display their parental fondness for their own offspring? He denied that this measure had been approved of or alluded to in his majesty's speech. The speech applauded the general object the committee of finance, namely, to enquire into the means of reforming and economizing the public expenditure, but could not be made to apply to the present measure. No argument had, he contended, been adduced in favour of the present measure, except an assertion, that it was agreeable to the public feeling. He did not believe that there was any such feeling in the public mind, nor was there any thing in the bill by which the public could be benefited. If the bill were to pass, not a sixpence 1047 would be saved by it; the offices would remain the same; and, the only object of it would be to encroach upon the king's just and lawful prerogative. The noble lord had spoken of reversions being granted to children, but was it not the practice, when great services had been performed by an Admiral or General, to confer hereditary honours, and to grant also an annual sum, which was not confined to the person to whom granted, but was extended to his descendants? It had been the constant practice of our ancestors to act upon this principle. He would put a case also to shew the expediency of acting upon it in other instances: suppose a person was rendered incapable by age or infirmity from executing the duties of an office which he had held for 20 or 30 years; such a person was not to be turned out without some provision. There were in this case only two modes of acting; the one by a pension, and the other by granting the reversion of the office to his son or other relation, who might assist him in the office. By the former mode, a charge was made upon the public during the life of that person, and in the latter there was no additional expense. He could discover nothing in support of this bill, but an assertion that it was expedient; whilst, on the other hand, there was the uniform practice of our ancestors. He could not, therefore, consent to such a bill as the present, nor could he for a moment consent, that after a beneficent reign of nearly half a century, such an attack should be made upon the prerogative and influence of a beloved and revered monarch.
Lord Hollandsaid, as the noble viscount had begun his speech by stating that there was only one point in the speech of his noble friend (the earl of Lauderdale), in which he agreed, so he would observe that there was only one point in the speech of the noble viscount in which he had the good fortune to agree, and that was, that his majesty's ministers ought to have been present to have declared their sentiments in a a manly manner upon this bill. As to the charge made by the noble viscount, of the absence of the members of the late administration, he could assure their lordships, that, had there been the least expectation that this bill would be opposed, there would have been a full attendance of those noble lords, with whom he had the honour to act. But when it was recollected that only tour-and-twenty hours notice had been given of any intention to oppose 1048 this bill (he did not mean to throw any imputation upon the noble lord who had commenced this debate), there was not much ground for surprise at the thin attendance. He thought it, however, of so much importance that this bill should be debated in a full house, that he intended to move to adjourn the debate till to-morrow, in order to give an opportunity for that full attendance, which the importance of the subject demanded. After the bill had been nearly a month before the house, without appearing to meet with any objection, be was astonished that it should now be attempted to be debated in a thin house, and at so late a period of the session. His noble friends had not attended, because they thought there was no intention of opposing the bill; he was convinced they would attend if the consideration of the bill was postpones till to-morrow. He entirely agreed with his noble friend (earl Grosvenor), that this bill was only to be considered as the forerunner of important measures of reform and economy in the public expenditure of the country. When it was in contemplation to abolish or to regulate offices, it was natural as the first step to be taken, to prevent those offices being granted in reversion, because if they were, it was obvious that for a considerable time no regulation could be applied to them. It was therefore that the public feeling was so much interested in this bill, which he contended it was, and he begged leave to say that he thought the noble viscount in denying the existence of this public feeling was mistaken. He was convinced that if ministers thought that the rejection of this measure would not be an unpopular measure, they would find themselves miserable mistaken. He denied that the bill was in encroachment upon the just prerogative of the crown; on the contrary, the granting places in reversion was an encroachment upon that prerogative, and upon this subject he would put the case, which though an extreme one, would shew the tendency of the argument, namely, that of all the offices being granted in reversion: it would necessarily follow, that the successor to the crown would find himself deprived of all influence. Reversions, besides, had a tendency to render the offices themselves sinecures, and sinecures were again granted in reversion: then reversions begat sinecures, and sinecures begat reversions. It might be true that, by the operation of this bill in itself, nothing would be saved; 1049 but when it was considered as the first step to other measures, it must be viewed in a very different light; and although there might be considerable exaggeration as to the saving which it was possible to effect, yet, at the present moment, every sixpence and every halfpenny ought to be saved, in order to lighten, as much as possible, the burthens of the people. There might, perhaps, be a popular delusion upon this subject; but even that was an argument, at a crisis like the present, for agreeing to this bill. He did not conceive, however, that a bill of so much importance should be decided upon in so thin a house, and he should therefore move, that the debate be adjourned till to-morrow.
The Earl of Lauderdaleagain referred to his majesty's speech at the close of the last session, his majesty's speech at the opening of the present session, and to the votes of the house of commons, containing the resolution on which the present bill was founded; and contended that his majesty's speeches contained a full approval of this measure.
Lord Melvilleagain contended that his majesty's speeches only contained an approval of the general object of the committee of finance.
The Earl of Selkirkapproved of the bill, upon the principle that it was to be considered as the forerunner of other great and important measures.
§ Lord Boringdonsaid, however unpleasant it might be for him to differ in opinion with those with whom he usually agreed, he felt it incumbent upon him to support this bill. It was a measure to which the country looked with no little anxiety: considering it as recommended by his majesty, and expected by the public, it should have his support—The question having been put on lord Holland's amendment, the house divided: Non-contents 15; Contents 9; Majority 6.—The bill was then read a second time; and upon the question for the third reading, it was moved by lord Arden, that it should be read a third time this day 3 months, which was carried without a division.