Sitting of 1 March 1808

OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.
On the
order of the day being read for the 2nd reading of this bill,
The Earl of Lauderdalecalled the attention of the house to those passages in the speeches of his majesty to parliament; on the 27th of April, and the 26th of June, expressing a desire that the inquiries, with a view to public economy, should be continued. The committee of finance which had existed in the former parliament had been re-appointed in this case; which committee had recommended this measure. His lordship adverted to the circumstance of this bill having been thrown out in the last session, when none of the ministers were present, except the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; and expressed a hope that, under all the circumstances in which this bill was again pressed on their lordships' attention, they would not now reject it.
Lord Ardenopposed the bill, on the ground of its being a direct and unnecessary infringement on the king's prerogative. He also objected to the resolution of the house of commons subsequent to the rejection of the bill last session, which he considered rather as a species of legislation. He was aware that his opposition to the bill was liable to much misrepresentation; but that should not deter him from performing what he conceived to be an act of public duty.
Earl Spencerwas perfectly convinced of the purity of the motives which actuated the noble lord. He did not think this bill of any essential or vital importance; but under the circumstances in which it was before the house, he thought their lordships ought to pause before they again rejected it. He thought it rather tended to support the prerogative of the crown, than to infringe upon it.
The Lord chancellorobjected to the bill in its present shape, as wholly unfit to pass into a law, from the vague manner in which it was drawn up, and the general enactments which it contained. He was willing, however, to vote for the 2nd reading, if there was any prospect of so modifying it in the committee as to free it from those objections to which at present he thought it liable.
Lord Hawkesburywished the bill to go to a committee, on the grounds that it might be expedient to regulate the granting of offices in reversion, so as to prevent abuses; and also to give time for the maturing of any plan of economy which it might be wished to propose, and which might, therefore, render it adviseable to suspend for a certain time the granting of offices in reversion, that in the mean while it might be ascertained whether there were any offices which it would be expedient to regulate or abolish.
Earl Grosvenorapproved of the bill in its present shape, and hoped that no compromise would take place, but that the bill would pass as it was.
The Earl of Westmorelandsupported the 2nd reading on the same grounds as lord Hawkesbury. As to ministers not attending on the discussion of this bill last session, why did not noble lords on the other We attend that discussion; and why had not this bill, if it was so important, been sooner taken up by them?
Lord Redesdaleobjected to the bill altogether, and thought it incapable of any modification which could render it fit to be passed into a law.
Lord Hollanddeprecated that species of recriminatory observations, which could tend to no possible good. Noble lords on his side of the house had not previously taken up the bill, only because they did not wish to shew a want of candour towards ministers for the sake of catching at a little popularity. He could not help observing, that those noble lords who had opposed the bill in toto had acted with the greatest fairness. His lordship defended the vote of the house of commons, which, being merely for an humble address to his majesty to suspend the granting of offices in reversion until six weeks after the commencement of this session of parliament, he could not conceive liable to the objections of the noble and learned lord.
The Duke of Montroseopposed the bill in toto, thinking it incapable of any desirable modification.
The Earl of Darnleysupported the bill.
Lord Auckland,from the unlimited enactments of the bill, was not prepared to assent to it.
The house then divided on the question,

Contents-34

Proxies-35—69

Non-Contents-36

-25—61

Majority-—8