Earl Grosvenorrose, and proposed his bill for preventing the granting of places in reversion. After a few observations from the noble lord, the question was about to be put for the first reading of the bill, when,
§ Lord Ardensubmitted to the House his objections to the measure. His lordship observed, that in cases where the interest of the crown was directly concerned, the consent of the crown was given, according to the practice of parliament, to the proposed measure. The present bill affected the rights of the royal prerogative, 494 as it went to take away the royal power of granting offices for lives. The King was, by the constitution of the country, the fountain of honour; and in a question like the present, his lordship considered it his duty to object to proceeding without that attention to the rights of the sovereign which the nature of the case required. He thought, therefore, that their lordships could not with propriety proceed further with such a bill, without an intimation of the description he had alluded to.
Earl Grosvenorwas much surprised to hear of this kind of objection, to a measure which had been already recognized by parliament, which had been in part effected by the passing of the bill suspending the exercise of the royal prerogative; an objection which had never occurred before, not even in the case of the rejection of the last bill. Ministers had not expressed any such ground of objection, nor stated their opinions against the bill. He was, therefore, desirous of knowing their sentiments on this important subject.
The Earl of Rosslynspoke with much animation in support of the first reading of the bill. He contended, that the practice of the House of Commons was different from that of their lordships, in whose House it was not necessary to give any exposition of the character of a measure previously, nor to give notice of an intended motion. The first reading would put their lordships in full possession of the nature of the bill. It was due to the other House, to the general opinion of the public, and to the spirit of the measure of suspension already enacted, and which would expire in a few weeks, to go fairly into the consideration of the bill now introduced by his noble friend.
§ Lord Redesdalesupported the observation of his noble friend (lord Arden,) respecting the practice whenever the interests of the crown were concerned. The want of attention to it in one instance was no reason for neglecting it in another. The precedents in this question were favourable to such attention. But to afford the fairest opportunity of full information on this subject, he should prefer postponing the adjournment of this debate until the next day, by which time noble lords could consult the journals of the House as to all matters of precedent that bore upon the subject. His lordship added, that he thought it was generally expected, on the introduction of a bill, 495 that a noble lord should open the nature and object of the measure he proposed. The noble baron concluded by moving the adjournment of the debate until the next day.
Lord Hollandcontended that the practice of that House required no notice of motion, nor previous exposition of reasons for introducing a bill, the reading of which would acquaint every noble lord with the object of it. It was strange that this bill should meet with such an objection, after its principle had been so often before them. He wished to know what ministers, the confidential servants of the crown, the persons to whom the government of the country was entrusted, had to say to this measure. Did they object to it or not? The acting ministers of the crown were not present in the House, but there were some members of the government present; and he desired to know from them their sentiments on the objection, and on the merits of the bill itself.
§ The question being called for, the lord Chancellor stated the adjournment of the debate to be carried by the contents, on which a division took place, and the numbers were Contents, 15, Non Contents, 7.