The Sun.
London, England, 1812-05-08 00:00:00

Not only hi the case of the Tellerships of the EX-
chequer, but in all offices of a similar kind, in the ."
Customs, in the Excise, &c. Parliament had ad:.
hered to the prinCiple of • abstaining from teaching
the emoluments of those offices during the lives of
the individuals in whom they were vested. He
should, therefore, think it his duty to move the pre
vioos question on the first resolution of the Hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. PONSONBY maintained, that by the laws of
England rio estate was better recognized or better
prote'aed than the -bState of offices. This bad beed
the opinion-of the greafeit lawyers. That the• State
had power to interfere with thiS property he ad-
mitted, but its right to do so he utterly denied. If
once it were admitted, that public necessity justified
the State in interfering with vested tights, the prin-
ciple would know no bounds. It might be applied
to reduce the emoluments which Bishops derived
from their Sees. It might be applied to diminish
the revenues of the Church in general. That
principle, if .once allowed, would Stop no where
but at the discretion of those who possessed the
power of enforcing it. The offices in question were
among those to which his reasoning applied. It was
no answer to say that the emoluments were eno7--
mous. That had nothing to do with the question
of right. If it were supposed that any former agree-
ment tO diminish the fees weakened the right, let
that-be the subjea of legal trial but it could not b
determined by Parliament, which was bound t -
abide by the usage of office., He was aware that
what he had said might not be very popular, but
the apprehension of incurring the censure of any
man, or of any body of men, would never make him
shrink from avowing sentiments which in his opi-
nion were, clearly favourable to the essential interests
of the realm.
Mr. BRAND agreed in the legality of the original
grant ; but thought it very desirable in the present
alarming state of the country to ascertain whether
or not by any former diminution of the fees of
these offices a precedent bad been estahlishtd,
by which the House Might regulate its condUei.--ss,
Under this impression, he declared it his intention
of voting for the first six Resolutions, and of moving
as an Amendment to the seventh, that a Committee
be appointed to inquire into the subjea.
Lord A. HAMILTON expressed the pain which he
felt at cliff:Ting from his Right Hon. FriJnd ant
him, but argued against the principle that the
House had not a right to regulate the ernolo- • •-
nrents of offices which were paid out of the public
purse.

Mr. LYTTLETON stated,, that if the early reso.,
lotions should pass, be should then vtite for the
.Anittndinent proposed by his Honourable Friend
. (Mr. Brancll
Mr. H. a HORNTON and Mr. VANSITTART each
said a few words on the liability of the sums laid out
in the reduction of the. National Debt to the fees in
question.
Mr. WHITBREAD, with all possible respea for
his Right Hon. Friend, while he admitted the prin-
ciple 'maintained by him, denied the propriety of its
~application. He concurred with him, that it was
impos-ible fur Parliament to interfere with a legal
righ, ; but in the present case Parliament were en-
ti;led_to confine the emoluments w►thin proper li-
mits. Had the Crown the power to say to Parlia-
ment, " I have thought proper to make an i,fficer,
and you must not only raise money for the public
service, but you must also raise money to pay the
officer whom I have made !" It-was evident, that
when these offices were first granted, the prodi-
gious emoluments which they at present afforded,
were nor, in the most remote degree, contemplated
by any man. He was certainly prepared to vote
all the Resolutions; but if it should appear to be the
sense of the House, that a Committee ought to be
appointed, he should vote for the amendment of his
Hon. Friend.

Mr. HORNER did not think that the appointment
of any Committee was necessary to prove what ap-
peared to him to be an undoubted right. If he had
had any hesitation on the subjed, the speech of his
Right Honourable and Learned Friend (Mr. Pon-
soby) would have completely satisfied him. He
cautioned the House against any interference with
vested rights, and reminded them, that such an in-
terference had been one of the steps taken by those
frenzied politicians in 'a neighbouring country to
whom it was to be attributed, that that country had
so long been the prey to anarchy, and every other
description of horrors. '

Mr. BANKES admitted the right of the two Noble
Lords was legal. Unquestionably the emoluments
which they derived frau their offices, and which in-
creased with the increasing burdens of the people,,
were much more considerable than could ever have
been anticipated by the grantors. He recommended
the Executive Government to endeavour to make
some arrangements with the Noble Lords on the
subjed. It that failed, he would by no means ad-
vise the House to exercise power in defiance of
right. He concluded. with observing, that though
the vested rights of individuals should be 1,l rally
construed, the House should be careful not to err
upon the side of extravagance.
Mr. BATHURST maintained, that unless Gentle-
men could make up their minds to do a,.v iy offices
without regard to those rights,. they could not vote
(or the motion.
Mr. WILBERFORCE declared himself in favour of
that mode of proceeding which would bring all the
fads before them, and stigmatised the doing away
of trusts without inquiry, as a shocking violation.
Mr. TIERNEY said, that after the able manner in
which the subject had been already discussed, he
could not expect to influence the House more than

it was at present ; but feeling a cot dial pariicipalioti
in ihe sentiments expressed by his Right Honourable
Friend, Mr. Ponsonby, he felt himself bound to take
his share with him in the unpopularity which might
attach to the avowal. He thought the Right Hon.
Gentleman, Mr. Bankes, who had brought in a Bill
of a more enlarged and general description, repect-
ing officers of this nature, could not possibly do
more to defeat it in another place, than by voting
sirialy and impartially for the preient motion. Such
a vote would be,a practical contradiaion to the de-
claration held forth of respea for vested legal rights.
He conceived with his Right Hon. Friend, that the
Laws of England recognised a vested right in an
office. The Duke of Richmond's interest in the
duty upon coals, and many other cases would be
affeaed by the decision, and though he lamcnted
the excess of many grants, he could not touch the
rights. If ft was deemed expedient to try the ques-