§ On the motion that the bill for suspending the making of such grants be read a third time,
The Earl of Lauderdalerose, and repeated his objections to the bill. It was wholly different in principle from the bill that had been introduced in the commencement of the session, and was by no means such as the committee of finance had in contemplation, or as the country was led to expect. If that was all the committee of finance thought of doing, then, indeed, the people would be disappointed. He fondly hoped to see the enquiries penetrate into the great departments of government, the navy, the army, the ordnance, where great and essential savings might be made: but if their object was only to abolish some sinecure places, which he rather thought should be retained for the reward of public services, then, instead of promoting economy, it might be found that they would have increased expence. But nothing more displeased him in the bill, than seeing it was the result of a petty compromise between ministers, who wished to secure their places, and that party by whom this bill had hitherto been opposed, and who possessed a secret influence which was known to be able to make or unmake ministers.
§ Lord Harrowbyperfectly concurred with the noble lord who spoke last, as to the propriety of retaining some fund from which his majesty might be enabled to reward services, where the persons who had rendered those services, had not been born to hereditary wealth. Such a fund, he thought, sinecure places might contribute to supply. He differed widely, however, from that noble lord as to his insinuations of a compromise; did not the very nature of the constitution depend on compromise? otherwise, could public bu- 160 smess be carried on for a moment without practical compromises? He thought the house of commons had acted wisely in new-modelling the bill; and that their lordships acted wisely in assenting to it.
Lord Hollandwas surprised to see the house deserted by those who had prognosticated such alarming mischief's from the bill. This to him was a new proof that the passing of the present bill was a matter of compromise; not of that sort of compromise of which the noble lord opposite had just spoken, but a compromise that was to keep ministers in their places, while they removed the objections of that party upon whom their power was known to depend.
§ Lord Hawkesburyand the Lord Chancellor disclaimed the doctrine that the bill was subversive of the constitution, inimical to the prerogative, or repugnant to the dignity of that house. If it had any such tendency, it never should have had their countenance and support.
The Earl of Darnleydid not think the bill sufficient, but he still should support it, and consider it as a pledge of what the house was further disposed to do, and as a pledge which he trusted they would redeem.—The bill was then read a third time and passed.