The Sun.
London, England, 1810-02-01 00:00:00

ed by this.meaSure. He knew that thos4 burdens
were great, and he knew that in.the prosecutioe of
them-relent .necessary ti4r, it was tisebable that the.
efforts which it beeame'tis to mike stopld 'increase
them much more than they could possibly be dirni;-
nistied ty the. mostrigidietrenchment of thejsaStre
proposed. Buts although the meastre,rnight riot be
great in effect, it- would be great in principle ; al-
though- it might • not, materially lighten ,thebortivens.l.
of the people; thoseburthens would be more cheer-.
. .
tul;y borne when the country saw that it was the
determination of Parliament not to allow them to be
untrecesSarily,augssiented. The second point to be
considered was the teodeecy which 'the prevention
of granting offices in reversion possessed to the
well-filling of 'public offiCes. When an office was
conferred on any individual by whom it was to be
immediately enjoyed, a dtiuble responsibility en-
sued, the responstbility of the Minister by whom
the grant was made, and the responsibility of Ihe
person to whom the grant was made. But this mu-
tual responsibility was—wholly- removed, when an
office was granted in reversion to a person out of
sight, revealing whom little inquiry was the 'time
made, and who therelthe might be little qualified to
fhltit she duties efitrusled to him. There was another '
.evil attendant on the granting of places in reversion.
It led people to cbtisidzi suet) places not so much
public trusts, as situalions of &bolt:neut. Every
office ought to bring with it its duties to discharge,
and should be considered as held for' the benefit of
the public Service, as well as for the ajyantage of the
individual. How difficult was if rendered to abolish
those offices, the right to a succeision to which was.
vested in others, scrupulous as Pal liatnent had ever
'been in trenching upon such ves'ed rights. Were it
not for such rights litany of the places Insteioned in
:the Report of `tile Committee (el the Public Expendi-
ture aright be instantly abolished. For- instance, a
very important branch of the public service, namel;:.,;
the whole supply of medicines to the misty and navy
teas vested in a person who received that grant in re-
version. The report of. the Committee stated, that,
it would be 'expedient,' ern at a conSiderable ex-
pence; to buy up this right. He did net 'mention
this circumstance With any unpleasant reference to
the individual alluded to, to whom
.he was Uri-
. known, and Whis had.a just Tight to _ the situation,
but to shew the ieeonvenient.e.of the pradice: The
granting of -reversions-alsn tended to the increase of
sinecure offices. Places of reversion were fie-
quently granted to persons, who, when they came
into posseSsion of them, were unfit for the discharge
_-
of their duties, By this practice of vesting them,
manyi of. these otlices which were efficient at first
were converted into,-sinecures. Those, therefore,
who wish to abolish,. sinecures, must condemn a
practice which tended to convert efficient offices iota
sinecures. The third principal point to be censidered
.was, the bearing of the measure on the prerogative of
the Crown: The present practice appeared to him to
tendgradually to destroy the prerogative of theCrOwn.
Under such a Constitution as the British, the disposal
of al; places of trust and prOfit could with propriety
be vested in the Crown alone. -But while the Crown
enjoyed the advantages of this prerogative, it ought
not to be relea:ed from the corresponding duty of
selecting for such places those individuals who were
calculated to fill them with the,greatest advantage to
the Public. He c etcluded by' moving for leave to
log in a Bill to render the Act of last Session per-
petual.
• ,
Mr. HENRY' THORNTON seconded' the motion,
which, in his opinion, it became the Howie, as the
guardans of the public purse, and of the interests of
the people, to adopt. Much as he resi.eded the
upper Hotise of Parliament, this appeared to be the
peculiar province of the Commons. It was their duty
to affirm or re-affirm -the principle which they had
before asserted, and he had no doubt of their ultimate
success. Unless the principle were thus re-asserted,
the impression would not be ccuseyed of the de-
liberate conviction of the House of Commons of its
purity and soundness.

I The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that
this subje:a had been so frequently beibre the House,
that it would not be necessary for him' to say .murk
upon a subjekt of so little novelty. His two Hon.
Friends, who had proposed the subject bad dane it
• ample justice, for they had laid before the House
all the arguments which had ever been used in sup-
!
port of this measure. They had called- upon him
,•1, to assign his reasons for changing his senti-
-ments respeding this Bill, but he bagged. leave
• to assure them and the House, that there was
no one sentiment that he had ever professed
-upon this question which was in any degree
I altered. Whenever he had spoken upon it he had
constantly stated, that' he could not, concur with
those that were it-jenny to the Bill, in the opinion
they, en:ertained of the advantages chat were likely
to result from it, in an economical point of view, to
the pub is ;. nor did he agree with those' who <
con-
sidered this Bill as.being an invasion of the preroga-
lives of the Crown. The charaater of this measure
had always appeared to lien to be greatly exagge-•
- rate,d,and he had seen nothing whatever to induce 11161
to change that opinion. It appeared to him, hoW-
ever, :unfor! unate, that unfounded represe'ntationS-
had been made both within doors arid'xitliont, with
regard toahe econornical,advantages that were likely
to result from this Bill, mid it had, at the same time,
been insieuated, that those who opposed it, were
disposed to increase the laurthens of the people; but
he was at the same time willing to admit, that the
. grant of Offices in Reversion did put it farther out
of the reach of that House, if they wanted to reform
or abs;lish them, than When they were granted in pon-
s •ssion, and this apeearedto him to be the only seri-
on; objeetion to grants of this' description.. The it-
; tention of that Honse d. been called, by the means'
1. of the Finance Committee, to a certain number of
. 'Offices, which itmight or might not be wise to abo-
lish or reform, and certainly until Parliament had
come to some determination with resped to them,
it migtit be proper diat eakpower of granting Offices
in'lleversion.should bestispended. The House had
also the ResOlntion- proposed .by the Hon. Gentle-
' man opposite .to him, as conneded with that re-;
port, for the purpose of bdnging the subject Under
theirtiiiisideration ; and if it should be the'Pleasure
of the House to agree to those Resolutions, it would
be his duty to bring in Dills for the purpose of car-
tying them into execution. If, therefore, the
House would keep.the'Power Of granting Offices' in
they leadcomea d •
suspence until to _erasion with re-
gard to the abolition or reform of the places alluded
to, they would keep as much within their reach as