Lords Sitting of 26 February 1810

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
Earl Grosvenormoved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for preventing the granting of places in reversion. Such was his anxiety that no delay should occur in the discussion of this important question, that, although he now laboured under a severe indisposition, he could not bring himself to propose the postponing of the discussion to a future day. He trusted his indisposition would also plead his excuse for not entering at large into the arguments which might so obviously be
588
urged in its support. It was with pain he observed a disposition in some quarters to thwart, or by some stratagem to get rid of, the question. On its very first introduction into the House, an attempt was made by a noble lord (Arden) to strangle it in its very birth, by holding out that it was an infringement of the prerogative of the crown, and that as such it could not be entertained by the House before the assent of the crown had by some means been signified to it. The noble lord on the woolsack gave his countenance at the time to this opinion; but he afterwards thought proper to retract it, and the opposition to the bill on that ground was withdrawn. So far it has weathered the formidable rock of the prerogative, and he trusted that it might now get safe into the desired port; though he still had his fears that a storm from some other quarter would again arise to frustrate his expectations.—He hoped however that no attempt would be made to defeat the object of the bill by any compromise. Such an attempt would tend much to discredit the character of their lordship's house in the eyes of the country. The country felt an uncommon degree of solicitude respecting the fate of the measure. It expected, and justly expected, while every description of his Majesty's subjects were cheerfully submitting to the pressure of heavy burthens, and of severe privations of every sort, that some proof should be given that the crown and parliament feel for all they suffer, to maintain the arduous struggle in which we were engaged; and above all, it expected that parliament should at last redeem the solemn pledge they had given of seeing some measure like the present carried into effect. He really was at a loss to see what serious objection could be raised to the adoption of it. The present was a time that particularly called upon their lordships for the adoption of such a salutary measure of Reform, and to prove that they were not inclined to slight the sentiments of the people. The noble earl here entered into an enumeration of the various steps that had been taken with respect to the bill, which had been sent up twice to their bar, and which they had as often rejected, and hoped, notwithstanding what had been done hitherto, that it was not intended to substitute for this measure a mere bill for the purpose of suspending for a limited period the exercise of the prerogative in this respect; a bill which, if passed, was equally an attack on the royal

589
prerogative. The House of Commons had shewn itself so persevering and determined in the prosecution of the measure, that they had resorted to an unusual mode; that of inspecting their lordships' journals to search for precedents for the purpose of discovering means of reconciling their lordships to the adoption of the measure. Then they proceeded to the bill of suspension. It would seem like a sort of political obstinacy to refuse now to enter fully into the merits of the question, or even to pass the bill, against the passing of which he had not yet heard a single solid objection. The other house had so far proceeded in the business, that no compromise could possibly be of any utility. If the bill was a fit bill, if it was advantageous to the interests of the community, let it be passed, if not, let it be opposed openly and directly, and let it be rejected on broad grounds and in a manly manner. The noble earl then briefly and pointedly adverted to the cases mentioned on a former occasion, of the bill for the limitation of the Peerage, and Mr. Burke's bill of Reform, and shewed that whatever was deduced from the circumstances attending these bills, could not bear against the present bill, which his lordship contended was not an attack on the prerogative of the crown, though it did, he admitted to a certain degree, limit its exercise. That limitation, notwithstanding, was one which did not really take away from the just prerogatives of the Sovereign. Still, entertaining as he did, the highest value and veneration for these prerogatives, it must be recollected that parliament also had its privileges and rights. But he could not permit the supposition, that under the reign of a patriot king, such as we had the happiness of acknowledging, parliament should hesitate far a moment in doing that which was advantageous to the king, and advantageous to his Majesty's subjects. With respect to the interests of the crown, which it was said were involved in this question, he found widely different opinions were entertained. In cases, such as occurred in inclosure bills and other matters in which the crown had a proprietary interest, the consent of the crown during the progress of the bill was deemed necessary: but this was purely a constitutional question, and not one which affected the property of the crown. Much had been said respecting the influence of the crown, the increase of which his lordship thought was abundantly apparent, and
590
in proof of that referred to the celebrated vote of the House of Commons, by which the House declared that the influence of the crown had increased, was increasing, and ought to be diminished. But let noble lords only look at the vast augmentation of the naval and military forces of the country, and at the immense extent and complication of the revenue, and say whether the patronage and influence of the crown had not been greatly increased. What but that influence could in any way enable such an administration as the present to retain their situations in the existing circumstances of public affairs? He thought the public must feel, that there was something odious in the manner in which the bill had been resisted. Though this was not an occasion to discuss the merits of sinecure offices; yet he would say that rewards should be given only to those who were deserving of them; still however, nothing appeared to him so absurd as the practice of granting places in reversion: places which would devolve upon persons of whose fitness it was absolutely impossible to form a judgment, who might, before the reversion fell into their hands, be incapacitated, in respect to their ability, their integrity, or any other necessary qualification or recommendation whatever. He conjured the House to attend to this measure, by the passing of which they would at least give to the public some idea that they were desirous of redeeming the pledge of economy they had made at the opening of the session; by which they would shew that they were friendly to practical reform, and for which they would be rewarded by the gratitude of the country. His lordship concluded a very able speech, by moving the second reading of the bill.
Viscount Sidmouthexpressed a friendly disposition towards the provisions of this bill. It met with his approbation, as a subject of considerable importance, both as it regarded the grant of the offices themselves, and as it respected the just and anxious expectation for some measures of economy and economical reform, which had been raised in the public mind. The bill appeared to him expedient in many points of view, for it would remedy great evils arising out of the grant of offices in reversion. There was one consideration in particular which had a just claim to their serious attention, if the power now existed and was exercised in granting these offices, it often created listless anxiety

591
in the mind of the reversionists.—Many were induced to look forward with expectations, which ever prevented them from using those faculties and exerting those talents, which had they been placed in a different situation in society, might have produced advantage to themselves and to the country. This listless inactivity was followed by consequences of a most injurious nature—it frequently induced them to sell their reversion for an inadequate consideration—it often excited them to give way to pernicious habits, was often succeeded by pecuniary embarrassments, and sometimes terminated their lives in wretchedness and infamy. This injury would be removed by the present bill, and, therefore he conceived it would produce considerable good in its effects; and it was on this ground that he was friendly to the principles of the bill. But an objection had been stated in the early stage of this measure, that it infringed the prerogative of the crown; on this question he entertained considerable doubts in his own mind; and, therefore, he should feel himself indebted to other noble lords for their opinions on the subject. He should think it advisable even that precedents should be examined on this occasion, to ascertain at what period, in passing a bill of this description to which the consent of the crown was necessary, it had been usual for the king to express his consent to its being further proceeded in. It was his opinion, that whatever the objection should be in respect to the prerogative, it was their lordship's province and undoubted right to proceed till his Majesty's consent would be necessary for their further progress. The only difficulty was, at what particular stage it might be fit and decorous to have his Majesty's consent, when the question affected the prerogative of the crown. He believed it had been the usual practice and course of proceeding, when any bill affecting the property of the king had been brought into parliament, that his Majesty's consent might be expressed at any time previous to the third reading. He entertained every due respect for the prerogative of the crown, and it was therefore his wish that this subject should be delayed until this difficulty could be removed, by examining precedents relative to this point. At the same time, he was so far friendly to the principle, and so fully persuaded of the necessity of the measure, he trusted that delay would be
592
as short as possible. On this account he recommended to his noble friend to agree to the motion he was about to propose, "That the second reading of this bill, for the reasons, and with a view to the objects, he had already mentioned, should be postponed till Thursday."
Lord Grenvillesuggested, that, from all the knowledge he had gained upon this subject, it did not appear to him that there was any great distinction between prerogative Jure Coronœ, and property Jure Coronœ. He was convinced that the King's consent might be obtained in any stage of their proceedings, before the third reading. He should therefore recommend that they proceed to the second reading of the bill now, and at any period before the third reading, if it should be thought necessary, they might refer the subject to the Committee of Privileges—If it was to be held that such consent of the crown was necessary before discussing the principle of the bill, it would be giving his Majesty a direct previous negative to a legislative measure.
The Lord Chancellorconceived this subject to be of great importance, as it affected the prerogative; but apprehended, that the king's consent might be given, with respect to property, at any time before the third reading. Yet he was not prepared to say, that the same rule would apply in the case of prerogative. It was a subject of such importance, that he would wish it should receive every due consideration. Noble lords would not, he trusted, mistake the principle of his conduct on this occasion, for he only suggested his ideas so far as to appoint a form. He would not disguise his sentiments upon the merits of the bill, which would meet with his opposition now, as it had done upon a former occasion; but even if he had been favourable to the general prohibition of places in reversion, yet there were prohibitions of such a nature in the bill, that he should have thought it necessary to make many alterations, and do away its inconsistency, when it came before a committee.
Lord Redesdaleconsidered it very questionable how they should act with propriety, wherever the prerogative of the crown was concerned, and therefore recommended that the second reading should be postponed.
The Earl of Derbysaid, it appeared to him acknowledged on all sides, that the

593
prerogative was so far concerned as to require the king's consent in some stage of their proceedings; but it also appeared there was no ground to suppose it ought to be obtained before a second reading. The noble and learned lord on the woolsack had suggested, that many alterations might be made in the bill when in a Committee, and therefore it followed, that this was not the most proper time for obtaining the king's consent; for although he might give it in the present state of the bill, such might be those alterations in the Committee as might change his Majesty's mind with respect to the propriety of the measure.
Viscount Sidmouthobserved, after what he had heard from noble lords on this question, his doubts had been removed in regard to the most decorous time of having his Majesty's consent; he should therefore beg leave to withdraw his motion.
Upon the motion for the second reading, The Earl of Rosslyn said, he could not sit silent on a question which so essentially affected the prerogative of the crown. The noble earl who had introduced this bill had not thought proper to state one fit reason for its being carried into effect, nor one benefit arising out of its consequences. The greatest tenderness ought at all times to be extended to the power of the throne, and it was the duty of that House to guard with as much solicitude the prerogative of their sovereign, as they were anxious to maintain their own dignity and privileges. The noble earl had generally recommended the measure, as both wise and expedient; and yet could not inform the House of any good which was likely to result from its adoption. How should any peer of that House feel, and what would be their lordship's determination, if a bill was brought in to deprive any one of the peers of a particular privilege? From the knowledge and experience of many years observation of the constitution of the country, he was ready to declare himself the avowed enemy of all innovation. He questioned the truth of that assertion which had been made, that the power of the crown had been increasing for several years. He believed the reverse was the fact; that the power was not so great now as at the commencement of this reign; and it would be found considerably less, when compared with any antecedent period. If the influence of the throne was great in the present day,
594
it was to be attributed to the steady conduct, the wisdom, and virtues of the present monarch. The public mind, on this subject ought not to intimidate their lordships' deliberation; and, instead of being an argument favourable to their adoption of this measure, it ought rather to be considered as an argument for their rejecting it. Man is a short-sighted creature, more particularly when he acted upon his own presumption; for even the wisest of men could not foresee the consequences arising from a great legislative proceeding. If this were granted to the clamour out of doors, what would be their next demand? they would proceed step by step; they would assail the out-works, one by one; and, at last, they would attack the citadel.
The Earl of Hardwickecould not subscribe to the sentiments of his noble friend, much as he valued, and he could not value too highly, his great knowledge and experience. He could not agree that there was any clamour in the country, or that the present measure was any attempt under the influence of clamour to produce a dangerous innovation. Under the pressure of its burthens, the country very naturally looked for every alleviation which it was in the power of the parliament or the crown to give them. Parliament was pledged in the most solemn manner to bring about this very measure, and if ever there was a time when parliament should be studious to maintain its character in the eye of the country, the present was particularly that moment. He denied that the present measure would have the smallest tendency to lessen the influence, or encroach on the prerogative of the crown. It would have the very opposite effect, while it would so far secure the advantage of the country, by securing proper persons to fill those places which would be still at the disposal of the crown.
Lord Boringdonwas one of those who supported a bill of this nature when it was first brought forward, and was so impressed with the necessity of it, that he differed on that occasion in opinion from those with whom he was then in the habit of acting. With the propriety and necessity of a measure of that sort, he was every day more and more impressed; and a similar impression must be felt by their lordships, if they but looked to the History and origin of the measure, and to the pledge which parliament had so solemnly

595
given to carry it into execution. His lordship then briefly adverted to the origin of the measure in the recommendation of the Finance Committee, from which, constituted as it now was, so much might be expected, and to the manner in which the bill had been carried in the other House of parliament. All these circumstances could not but have raised a considerable degree of anxiety in the country, and a confidence in the people that parliament would now realize their expectations and its own promises. How sorely must they be disappointed, if, after so much fairness of promise, nothing should be effected towards the adoption of that system of œconomy and retrenchment upon which alone the safety of the country must ultimately depend? The noble lord contended that the adoption of the measure would by no means entrench on the prerogative or the influence of the crown. On the contrary, the crown would still have the same power, while those upon whom sinecure places might be bestowed, would be rescued from a most abject state to which in other cases they would inevitably be liable.
Lord Redesdalelooked upon the question respecting the influence of the crown, as greatly overstated and as much misunderstood. If any of their lordships should but consider attentively the history of the country, he would find that the objections urged against the influence of the crown were at all times the result of clamour and not of principle. Combinations of great, wealthy, and powerful individuals might be formed for the purpose of rendering the power of the crown dependant upon themselves; and adopting the clamour against influence make that their ladder to office; yet when possessed of their object, they usually forget the clamour against influence. The noble lord contended that the influence of the crown had derived no increase from the augmentation of the army and navy: and argued that the taxes imposed to meet the exigencies of the state, produced such a degree of dissatisfaction, in the public at large with the government, as fully counterbalanced the supposed increase of patronage and influence. He himself had not the good fortune to have any reversions; but what harm did these reversions do to their holders or to the public? There were but one or two instances in our history in which the influence of the crown had proved dangerous. In the reign of Charles I. it was ma-
596
nifest that in parliament the influence of the crown became as dust in the palace; in fact, it was a mere nothing. If the influence of the crown were reduced in a time of war, upon the plea of the influence that war gave to the crown, and the patronage and taxation consequent upon it, how would the case stand hereafter in time of peace, after the crown had been stripped of its prerogatives? Those who received favours from an administration, generally were among the opposers of the succeeding ministers, and consequently all that was said about influence resolved itself into declamation. He did not consider the measure proposed as an important one, but it was important to oppose it, because it seemed to be a first step to many other dangerous innovations that were denominated reforms. It was no redemption of any pledge given by parliament. It was nothing, the question was simply as to the propriety of taking away the prerogative of the crown in granting reversionary places. Most of those places were merely ministerial. Many years ago the practice had prevailed without any discovery of a grievance. Many wise men had sat in that House before their lordships, who made many useful reforms of abuses, and yet they did not find out this practice to be an abuse. That his lordship considered to be a strong argument on the present question. He had not heard of any great inconvenience that had arisen from the practice, to render such a bill at all necessary. As to the argument about the possibility of the reversionist not being capable of discharging his duties, that would equally apply to the granting a place for one life, as then the holder might live so long, or become so infirm as to be unable to fulfil all the duties of his situation. The passing of the bill would, in his lordship's opinion, be an unnecessary departure from the course and experience of ages, without any view of public benefit. As to the suspension, that question stood on different grounds, as it might take place with a prospective view to some general measure.
The Earl of Darnleystrenuously supported the bill. He was surprised to hear any noble lord speak of the danger of a change. Were things always to remain the same with us, however great the changes that might arise around us, in the same situation? Was the constitution a thing unsusceptible of improvement, and could it never be improved without the

597
risk of danger? If no change had ever been allowed, would the glorious Revolution ever have taken place which secured our liberties that otherwise would have been lost? If no change had ever been allowed, should we now have the present family on the throne? If no change had ever been made in the constitution, where would be all the boasted wisdom and fortitude of our ancestors, to the fame of which they are only entitled by having brought about these salutary changes? That some change must be made in the present system of things, was almost universally felt and acknowledged; our means must be economised, our resources husbanded, or we should never be able to surmount the difficulties with which we had to struggle. The people had been taught to look for the adoption of such a system. Parliament has in the present instance most solemnly promised it: and if they fail of making good that promise, if they betray an unwillingness to correct abuses, and to retrench useless expenditure, will they not themselves sanction the opinion which daily spreads too much among the people, that public men are all equally corrupt; that on the professions of our public men no reliance can any longer be safely placed. It were therefore the interest as well as the duty of Parliament, to realize the expectations they had raised—at least he trusted their lordships would feel the necessity of vindicating their own characters, and asserting their own independence by marking the present bill with their decided approbation.
The Lord Chancellordenied that Parliament had fallen into disrepute, but if ever it should fall into disrepute, he would venture to say, that it would be from acting with a view to popularity, rather than upon the dictates of its own deliberate judgment. His lordship then gave a short statement of the manner in which these bills had been brought before the House. A resolution had first been passed by the other branch of the Legislature, adopting the principle of the abolition of the practice of granting offices in reversion. This undoubtedly, as a resolution of the other House, was entitled to a great deal of attentive and deliberate consideration from their lordships. When they came up to their lordships with a bill, conformable to that Resolution, and their lordships not choosing to assent to a measure of this importance, without taking
598
time for due inquiry, thought proper to reject that bill. A bill next came up for suspending the granting of offices in reversion; and as this, with a view to further inquiry, was not objectionable, it was passed. In the present session, a bill came up for rendering perpetual the Suspending Bill, and he felt it a duty personally incumbent upon him to stop the bill on the point of form. Sir Matthew Hale, who would ever continue to be considered as an ornament, if not an oracle, to the profession to which he had belonged, had, he knew, highly disapproved of reversions, as had lord Coke. But still, their authority was not to be decisive of the question. He acknowledged that he wished to be cautious how he meddled with a system, which had been the practice of the constitution for three centuries. Still he did not go the length of saying, that no good could be done by a judicious regulation—by curtailing the profits of some offices liable to be granted in reversion—and, perhaps, by abolishing others. But such regulation could only take place upon a due and deliberate inquiry; and it would not become their lordships to legislate upon the subject without the opportunity of making such inquiry and having the whole matter before them. But he believed it impossible that the result of any inquiry ought to induce them to go the length of this bill. Whatever might be said about his being averse to innovation, he could not consent to legislate in the dark. The argument as to the fitness or unfitness of persons for the performance of the duties of such places, would operate against offices in possession; and he maintained that the mischief of giving an office in possession improperly, was a much greater mischief than giving one in reversion, because there were many chances against its ever coming into possession. His lordship said, that whatever might be thought, he was not averse to reform in every thing, though he was always averse to a reform which he did not understand. He did not exactly see the length to which this measure might be carried. He must have the whole subject before him, and could not agree to advance step by step till he found that he had acceded to an innovation, to 9-10ths-of which he would have been averse, if he had had the whole subject before him at first. He himself had procured three or four reversions for his family, without the smallest conception that he was doing any

599
thing wrong. He wished that the public should know this; but, however, the whole of these offices were not of sufficient value to make the reversionists very uneasy. Former chancellors had, done the same thing, without thinking that they had done any thing improper. His lordship concluded by observing, that it was impossible for him to assent to a bill of this sweeping nature. Any measure of general regulation, he would, however, examine with the utmost care and impartiality, and give it his support, as far as he could consistently with his public duty and his conscience. He did not think it necessary to say any thing upon the question, as to the influence of the Crown
Earl Grosvenorobserved, that he did not think that the antiquity of any abuse was a reason for supporting it. If the practice of granting reversions had continued for 300 years, it ought to be recollected, that it had in the course of that time been severely censured by many eminent men. His lordship then adverted to a pamphlet which had lately appeared on the subject of economy, and the influence of the crown, and remarked, that the perusal had an effect upon him exactly the reverse of what was intended to; be produced. Considering the ample means of information possessed by its author (Mr. Rose), he was only surprised that it proved so little. He objected to reversions as having a tendency to generate sinecures, and the augmentation of sinecures produced new reversions in an endless circle. This measure was a real and proper reform, which he most cordially approved. As to the question of parliamentary reform, he certainly could not by any means go the length that some speculative men did, although he and others might think that there were some defects in the representation, which ought to be corrected. But the misfortune of withholding from the public the real and proper reforms to which they were entitled, was to drive them into these dangerous speculations. The vessel of the state, which had weathered the continental storm, was already among the rocks and shoals, and could not be got off without other pilots. His lordship then called upon the bishops for their support, and asked them, whether they did not esteem the act of Elizabeth, which prevented the anticipation of their revenues as the great prop of their establishment. Upon the same principle which led them
600
to approve of that act, they ought to support this bill.
The House then divided upon the question that the bill be read a second time—Contents, Present 33, Proxies 34, 67; Not-Contents, Present 49, Proxies 57, 106; Majority against the Bill, 39.