HL Deb 10 April 1812 vol 22 cc261-70

The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Offices Reversion Bill. On the clause being read for limiting the duration of the Bill to the 28th of February, 1814,

Earl Grosvenor

rose to move his proposed amendment. This he had resolved to submit to their lordships, though by no means certain, that it was the exact course which he ought to pursue. He had felt considerable difficulty in deciding in his own mind, whether he ought not rather to have abandoned the Bill to its fate, or whether he ought not to have proposed the immediate abolition of the practice of granting Offices in Reversion; but considering the length of time to which he should move to extend the suspension, it might certainly be virtually considered as an abolition. His lordship then adverted to the strange conduct of ministers, with regard to the subject under consideration. They had agreed that this was a mere trifle, a nugatory measure; and yet, though it was looked to with great anxiety by the people, they had always contrived to get rid of it without doing any thing. He was sorry not to see the President of the Council in his place, (lord Sidmouth,) who had strenuously supported the abolition; but he hoped that noble viscount would appear in the House before the close of the discussion, and repeat his former sentiments. He trusted he would at last persuade his colleagues to adopt his opinion. After considering the absurdity of the preamble of the Bill, which he had particularly noticed on a former occasion, he asked why the law offices were excepted? It might be said that this would much diminish the emoluments of some of the judges,—emoluments, which they had been taught to calculate upon, when they accepted their situations; but where was the difficulty in this? A remuneration might be granted to the present judges; and those who might succeed them would have no reason to complain, as they would be fully aware of the new regulation. He declared, that in reprobating, as he did, this practice of granting offices in reversion, he had no intention to cast any personal stigma on those who at present held them. Many noble and honourable men who held such situations, had acquired their right to them before they could know the meaning of the word reversion. Many of them were probably in the first stage of infancy when they were made reversionists; and therefore to be such, could in them be considered as no crime. He concluded by moving, as an amendment, that the suspension, instead of being continued till 1814, should be continued till 1840, If this amendment should be adopted, he would then move some alteration in the preamble, in order to make the Bill consistent.

The Earl of Lauderdule

presumed it was the intention of his noble friend, if his amendment was agreed to, to propose an amendment in the preamble, to leave out the words referring to proceedings now pending in the House of Commons, otherwise it would be in truth a most alarming symptom, that an enquiry pending in the House of Commons, with a view to the reform of abuses, waste last till the year 1840. He would, however, support the amendment, in order to get rid of the repeated discussions, upon this subject, which he thought tended grossly to mislead the public, and engender a supposition that an important saving could be made, which was not the fact. The whole number of offices held in reversion (with the exception of three to which regulations were already applied on the termination of the existing interests,) did not amount to more than forty, and the whole sum to be saved, supposing even the whole of these offices to be abolished, which was no part of the present measure, would not amount to more than 35,000l. per annum. It was therefore misleading the public to attach any importance to this Bill, which in truth would effect nothing for their benefit. With regard to the influence of the crown, he was fully persuaded it would not be at all reduced by such means. Instead of diminishing that influence, he rather thought the abolition of this practice of granting offices in reversion would increase it. But still, though he thought the measure perfectly nugatory, to say the least of it,—though he thought that it was deceiving the people to hold out any expectations of relief from it, he should vote for his noble friend's amendment, because it would prevent that constant discussion on the subject, which had the pernicious effect of making the people believe that corruption was chiefly prevalent among the higher ranks, and in the two Houses of Parliament. This, he contended, was a mistake. The direct influence of the crown was much less now in the two Houses, and had been less since his political career commenced, than at a former period. (Hear! hear! from the ministerial benches; a smile, and a movement of dissent from lord Grey.) He maintained that this was the fact. Thirty or forty parliamentary offices had been abolished; and with respect to the army and navy, it was an ascertained fact, that at the end of sir Robert Walpole's administration there were more officers of the army and navy in parliament than there were at the present moment. It was not in parliament, but in the country at large, that the influence of the crown had increased, and in the country at large, owing to the immense increase of the army and navy, and the revenue, the influence of the crown had enormously increased. In order to prove that the influence of the crown was much more prevalent out of doors than in parliament, he had only to observe, that two dissolutions of parliament had lately taken place much more speedily than they would have done, if the crown had been so much more powerful in parliament than out of it. The perpetual agitation of this question, and the hopes held out from it, had the farther pernicious effect of turning the attention of the people from objects of infinitely more importance to their interests. The reversions to be suspended by this Bill, he repeated, would hardly amount to 35,000l. a year in the whole. What relief would such a saving afford in an expenditure of about eighty millions? It was a perfect farce to talk of such a thing; and he was satisfied that if the people were really aware of how little advantage the abolition of the practice of granting offices in reversion would be to them, the measure would effectually lose its popularity. It was from the unfounded expectation of relief from it, that it had so much occupied the attention of the people. Such were his opinions on this subject,—certainly not influenced by any expectation of procuring a reversionary grant for himself. The course of his political life had not been such as to warrant any charge of the kind against him. But for the reason which he had slated, he should certainly vote for the amendment, with the understanding, that if it should be carried, the necessary alteration to make the Bill consistent should be made in the preamble.

The Earl of Darnley

agreed, that, in an abstract point of view, the measure was one of very little importance, and the effect likely to be produced by it next to nothing. He did not think, however, that the agitation of the measure, which extended to every denomination of persons throughout the country, could be considered as casting any reflection on members of parliament. The public, he conceived, from the frequent discussion of this measure, expected their lordships to turn their minds to the consideration of public abuses in general—and the system of sinecures and reversions he considered a monstrous abuse. In point of principle therefore, he thought this Bill of importance; and he would vote for it, and for any extension his noble friend thought fit to propose.

Earl Grey

did not intend to have addressed their lordships on the present question, on which he had so repeatedly delivered his sentiments; but he thought it indispensable, not so much to argue that which had been so often argued before, as to disclaim any participation in the opinions stated by his noble friend (lord Lauderdale,) on the great question of economical reform, always of importance, but particularly so at the present moment. His noble friend's view of this subject, and his reasoning on it, he thought extremely erroneous. He was not one of those who attached much importance to the immediate operation of this measure—but to the principle he attached a great deal. Because, in times like these, he would wish to shew to the people of this country, suffering under excessive burdens, that parliament were anxious to relieve them—and, when a question of reform was agitated, it was of great importance that it should be carried into effect. He knew three offices in reversion, which, on that very account, could not be regulated by parliament. The places thus held, he believed, produced an annual sum of 60,000l. Being held in reversion, parliament looked on them in the light of a freehold property, which they could not touch—but, if it were not for that circumstance, they would, probably, have been abolished. It might be said, that at the time those reversions were granted, the emoluments were not so great as at present—but had become large, in consequence of the increased revenue of the country, and the enlarged scale of expenditure, which were not contemplated at the period of the grant. But how did he know, that there were not others of a similar nature, and subject to a similar increase, if they persisted in permitting the system to be continued? A variety of considerations convinced him of the propriety of abolishing reversions and sinecures. Such a measure would lessen the expenditure of the country, and diminish the influence of the crown. He, therefore, would much rather see a permanent Bill than that which had been introduced. The noble earl (Lauderdale) had told them, that the influence of the crown in parliament was diminished—that was the direct influence. He was aware of that—But his noble friend, he was sure, was too accurate a reasoner on the circumstances of the present time, not to know, that, in point of fact, the influence of the crown, in both Houses of Parliament, had greatly increased. The increase of the army and navy, the increased expenditure, and the enlargement of the public establishments all contributed to produce this effect; be-cause numbers would be swayed by the hope or expectation of procuring provision for themselves or their families. Looking to these circumstances, he considered the influence of the crown, as twenty times greater than what it was at the periods spoken of by his noble friend. The army and the navy were greater now than at any former area in our history. Looking to the power of France, they could not be reduced. Even if peace were restored, (if indeed, the country should ever witness its return,) could they, under all the circumstances, diminish the military establishment? Could they look to a reduction of the revenue necessary to support that establishment? Certainly not.—What then could be done to lessen the influence of the crown, which was thus supported? Could the right to make appointments connected with those establishments be taken from the crown? It could not. The influence must remain. There might be regulations; but the influence could not be done away. As to the direct influence, he conceived that the present measure, as amended, would tend to decrease it. It did not go so far as he could wish; but he approved of it, as it was founded on the principle of economy, and held out a sort of promise, he trusted he might say a pledge, which be hoped would be supported, that the House would seriously set to work to do away those abuses, which it was their power to remove. His noble friend had observed, that the gilt of a place in reversion was not so likely to create influence as one in possession But he (earl Grey) believed, that if one of the tellerships of the Exchequer now became vacant, the monarch would have it in his power to grant it both in possession and reversion. He wished the amount of the saving that would be produced to the public was likely to be greater, but, however small it might be, he considered the principle as entitled to support. He would be as unwilling as any man to hold cut to the people any lure which might divert their attention from objects of greater magnitude—but he thought it a strange mode of reasoning, when the country complained of great evils, and a measure calculated to do some good was proposed, that it should not be supported, because its operation was not very extensive. If the people saw, as on former occasions, that the whole power of the government was exerted in opposition to a measure which that government itself spoke of as unimportant, what hope could they have of succeeding in having their weightier grievances redressed? On many points he was at variance with the present administration; but what he blamed them most for was this, that they had opposed every measure introduced for the reformation of public abuses. No administration could hope to obtain the real confidence of the crown and of the people, that would not assist, not only in reforming the abuses which were connected with the Bill before them, but those which had crept into the constisution of the legislature itself. His lordship concluded by stating his concurrence in the amendment.

The Earl of Lauderdale

disclaimed any hostility to economical reform, and said, he believed he had nut stated any one principle, in the course of what had fallen from him, incompatible with as strong a desire for substantial economy as that by which his noble friend was actuated. The matter at issue was this—whether the Bill would produce any particle of economy? It held out a prospect of a future economical reform. But it was rather unfortunate, that, five years since, it held out the same prospect, but to this day no good had been effected by it. They were, however, informed, that the Bill now pending in the Other House would fully bring into effect all the benefits of actual economy. For his own part, he thought the attention of the public had much better be directed to subjects of real radical reform.—Substantial measures for curbing the influence of the crown would be of much greater service, than those which held out a hope, but gave no relief whatever to the public. He contended that the direct influence of the crown in the two Houses of Parliament was diminished. But though that was the fact, he admitted that the private influence, throughout the country, had increased to an extent which threatened to overthrow the constitution.

The Earl of Liverpool

did not mean to discuss the principle of the Bill, bat would confine himself to a few observations on the amendment, and on the observations which had fallen from the noble lords opposite. With respect to the amendment, it was not, as was usually the case, an amendment to farther the object of the Bill, but went to destroy altogether the principle on which it proceeded. It was not now the question whether sinecures and reversions should be abolished—but whether, with reference to certain enquiries, now pending in the other House, they would, for a limited time, suspend the appointment of such situations till the result of those inquiries was known? Therefore, the proposition contained in the Bill, the provisions of which would expire in two years, was reasonable. But it was a mockery, with reference to that inquiry, to enact a suspension for 26 years, as the amendment proposed. He was grieved that so much importance should be attached to a measure, so trifling in itself, and so insignificant with respect to the people, that many would be inclined to believe that it was introduced rather to divert their feelings from matters of greater interest, than as a real object. With respect to the influence of the crown, he had some years ago closely examined that subject, and he then perfectly convinced himself, that that influence was not then half so great as it had been 30 years antecedent. It was not a question of office only, but it was well known, that at the period to which he had alluded, a species of influence was resorted to, which was not now in existence. As to the influence created by the increase of the revenue, and of the army and navy, it was difficult to form an opinion, particularly a just one; but he was not therefore bound to credit what was stated by the noble earl. He believed, that, although the navy and army were, compared with any former war establishment, increased ten-fold, the influence derived from them had much diminished.—The country did not now hear of officers being deprived of their commissions for voting against the minister—as was the case with the great earl of Chatham, when he opposed sir R. Walpole. Looking to the present period, he believed, if any noble lord examined the subject candidly, he would find that there never was a time, in this or any other country, when, in the army and navy, there was less attention paid to political opinion.—He did not mean to say that no preference existed—for there could not be imagined a stale of things, where personal affection, and political attachments, were not in some degree attended to—and it was right it should be so. But no time bad ever occurred in which adventitious circumstances were so little regarded. Indeed, amongst those who were possessed of military and naval appointments, there were, he was certain, as many persons connected with those who opposed, as with those who supported, the executive government. Indeed, the circumstances of the country were such, that the great and only principle on which government acted, was to select those who were most capable of performing the duties for which they were wanted. When the increase in the army and navy was spoken of, the change which had taken place in the feelings of the country should not be forgotten. That change was of such a nature as convinced him, that acts which were formerly done by the exertion of influence, would not now be considered compatible with the character of a gentleman. The influence of the crown, therefore, had not, in the point of view urged by the noble earl, increased with the increasing establishments of the country, and the fact was, that that influence and favour which might be exercised without prejudice in small establishments, could not be applied to large establishments. With respect to the Bill, it should have his support in the state in which it came up from the Commons, standing as it did on the express ground of suspending for two years the power of granting offices in reversion, with a view to the inquiries now pending in the House of Commons.

Earl Morton

called upon their lordships to consider what would be the effect of the amendment, with a view to the prerogatives of the crown. To grant offices in reversion was one of the undoubted prerogatives of the crown, and the object of the amendment was to suspend this prerogative for twenty-eight years, a period which, it was possible, might extend beyond the duration of the present reign. The sovereign on the throne was unhappily, at the present moment, incapable of personally exercising his prerogatives, or of giving his assent to any measure relating to them. Those prerogatives had been wisely entrusted to the person the most competent to exercise them, as a trustee; and were they now, by suspending a prerogative of the crown for twenty eight years, to place that illustrious person in a situation in which he must either do an act greatly to be deprecated, and which had not taken place for fifty years, that of refusing his assent to a Bill agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, or in giving his assent to it, become an unfaithful guardian?

Lord Holland

spoke to order. He conceived the noble lord to be pursuing an argument inconsistent with the order of debate. Did the noble lord mean to assert, that the exercise of all the prerogatives of the crown was not vested in the Prince Regent, or that he had not a will of his own. What was this but to say, that the acts passed, or to be passed, during the unhappy affliction of his Majesty, were not legal acts of parliament?

Earl Morton

said he had no intention of contending, that the Prince Regent was not invested with the full power of exercising the functions of sovereignty, or that the acts to which he had given his assent were not legal acts of parliament; neither did he intend to dispute, that if this Bill were to be amended as proposed, and so amended were to receive the assent of that illustrious personage, it would not be a legal act of parliament. What he desired to urge was, that the prerogatives of the crown were vested in the sovereign, and that it was not consistent with the constitution, that the illustrious person exercising the functions of sovereignty, should be placed in the situation of refusing his assent to a Bill agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament, or if he assented to it, of having to deliver up to the sovereign, in the event of his recovery, the prerogatives of the crown, diminished and impaired by an act done in the name and on the behalf of his Majesty. To the Bill as it came up from the Commons he had no objection.

Lord Holland

contended, that the noble lord, in refusing his assent to suspend for 28 years the power of granting reversions, on the ground that a demise of the crown might possibly in the mean time take place, must be prepared in supporting the suspension for two years, to say, in conformity with his argument, that in that time a demise of the crown could not possibly happen. With respect to the Bill, he thought it was of great importance to shew to the people, that there existed a disposition in the House to make a commencement of reform which was so much wanted, and was so highly desirable to adopt; this principle was of essential importance, however trifling the immediate saving that might be effected.

Earl Grosvenor

spoke shortly in reply, and the amendment was negatived without a division.—The other clauses were then gone through without observation or 'amendment, and the report on the Bill ordered to be received.