GENERAL HISTORY. 



[^3 



it too much to desire that this 

 branch ot" the prerogative of the 

 crown might not be destroyed, at 

 least till the embryo plans of the 

 honourable gentleman who re- 

 commended such a measure were 

 known ? He also said, that it 

 would be to no purpose to press 

 the bill here, since it would cer- 

 tainly be thrown out in another 

 places 



Mr. Bankes moved that the en- 

 try in the Journals of March 24, 

 1807, of the resolution of the house 

 respecting offices in reversion be 

 read : it was as follows — " Re- 

 solved ; — that no office, place, em- 

 ploj'ment, or salary, in any part of 

 his Majesty's dominions, ought 

 hereafter to be granted in rever- 

 sion." He then said, that the in- 

 troduction of this bill was not in 

 the least connected with any pend- 

 ing inquiry. He stated its origin 

 and progress, and said, that al- 

 though that house, not being able 

 to carry it through as a perpetual 

 measure, had made it a temporary 

 one, they had by no means aban- 

 doned their first intention. Why 

 were they to suppose that the 

 other branch of the legislature 

 would continue its opposition, and 

 was incapable of changing its opi- 

 nion ? As the evil proposed to be 

 remedied by this bill was of a per- 

 petual nature, the law ought to be 

 perpetual also. As a measure of 

 economy, he had never held it out 

 as likely to produce a material ef- 

 fect, but the committee had dwelt 

 upon it as having a tendency to 

 that end. With respect to the 

 jjrerogative of the crown, it tended 

 rather to increase than diminish it ; 

 for if one right of the crown were 

 taken away, another of more con- 

 sequence would be substituted to 



Vol. LIV. 



it. The bill was also necessary to 

 remedy a growing evil. Many 

 of the places recently granted in 

 reversion were not so formerly, and 

 what was there to prevent such a 

 practice from being extended? 

 Pensions were now granted in re- 

 version ; and this abuse could only 

 be put an end to by a reprobation 

 of the principle shewn in both 

 houses of parliament. 



The Chancellor of the Exche- 

 quer treated the bill as of such 

 slight importance, that it was not 

 worth supporting at the hazard of 

 a difference between the two houses 

 of parliament. 



Sir S. Romilly denied that the 

 bill which had several times re- 

 cei\ed the sanction of the house 

 was of slight importance, or that, 

 as the right honourable Chancellor 

 had suggested, it had been previ- 

 ously carried by popular clamour ; 

 and he repeated the arguments of 

 the mover in its favour. 



Mr. Whitbread remarked, that 

 the only two members who had 

 spoken against the bill were two 

 very principal reversionists, and he 

 made some pointed observations 

 on the Chancellor of the Exche- 

 quer's opposition to it. 



Several other members spoke, 

 all of them in support of the bill ; 

 and Mr. Ponsonby, who con- 

 cluded, urged the house with 

 the charges of inconsistency, and 

 inattention to the wishes of the 

 public, which their rejection of it 

 would bring upon them. The 

 house then divided upon the 

 question of the second reading, 

 when the numbers were, ayes, 

 54 ; noes, 5(3 ; leaving a majo- 

 rity of two against the bill. A 

 secotid division took place on the 

 Chancellor of the Exchequer's mo- 



[D] tioii 



