Lords Sitting of 17 February 1812

OFFICES IN REVERSION.
Earl Grosvenorsaid he took the first opportunity on his return to town, of calling their lordships' attention to a subject, which, whatever others might think, he considered to be of great importance. He lamented that a Kill prohibiting the granting of Offices in Reversion had been lost in the House of Commons, and he could not but consider the decision as an instance of great in-consistency. He was at a loss to conceive what arguments could have been urged to induce the rejection of such a measure. It surely could not heve been argued that it was of too trifling a nature to deserve the attention of the House, for if it were of a trifling nature, why not pass a measure so consolatory to the feelings of the people. It could not surely have been argued that the passing of it would have engendered a difference between the two Houses of Parliament, because that might easily have been got rid of by agreeing to a temporary bill, as in a former instance. But whatever might have been the arguments on which the rejection of such a Bill was founded, he could not but consider it as deeply to be lamented, inasmuch as the passing of the Bill would have been a first step towards the extinction of that system of corruption which unhappily prevailed; and would so far have gratified the just expectations of the people. The continuance of the practice of granting Offices in Reversion was greatly to be deprecated, pregnant as it was with every species of underhand transactions. It was probable, however, that a Bill would come before their lordships for suspending this practice for a limited time; and he trusted that if such were the case, the suspension would not be merely for a year, but for 20, 30, or even 50 years. If such should not be the object of the Bill, he gave notice that he should propose to extend the suspension for a considerable period, in order that they might not be called upon to consider it from year to year, merely as a temporary measure. If such a Bill did not come before their lordships within a reasonable time, he gave notice that it was his intention to propose a measure of that description.

DISPUTE WITH AMERICA.
Lord Holland, seeing a noble lord at the head of
826
the foreign department, in his place, wished to ask of that noble lord, whether in the present state of the negociation with the United States of America, it would be improper to lay before the House such Papers, or at least that part of the correspondence which it was notorious had already met the public eye? He did not wish to make a motion for the correspondence in a negociation, unless it was the opinion of those who had the management of that negociation, that it would not be improper to communicate the correspondence, and he therefore wished to ascertain this fact, in order that he might give a short notice of a motion for such parts as it might not be deemed improper to communicate.
Marquis Wellesleysaid he had not received the commands of his royal highness the Prince Regent, to lay any of the Papers alluded to by the noble lord before the House. If the noble lord, however, would give notice of a day for a motion upon the subject, he should then be prepared to state distinctly to the House, whether or not it would be improper to communicate the correspondence moved for.
Lord Hollandsaid he was afraid he had been misunderstood by the noble lord. What he wished, in order to ascertain whether he should give notice of a motion was, to know whether it would be improper to communicate any part of the correspondence. Without having any extraordinary confidence in ministers, a confidence so far would of course be conceded to them, namely, that they having the management of a negociation would be the best judges whether it was improper or not to communicate any part of the correspondence. It was with this view that he asked the question.
Marquis Wellesleyrepeated that he had no commands from his royal highness the Prince Regent to lay any of the correspondence before the House, but that if the noble lord gave notice of a day for his motion, he should then be prepared distinctly to state his opinion upon the subject.