The Sun.
London, England, 1810-05-18 00:00:00

qilencee. W9uld Gentlemen extend that doctrine
to grants of royal property ? Would they revert, for
instance, to the grants of Henry. the VIM!) to the
Duke of Bedford,.or to ether's, and sai', that because
the lands granted 'were Mien only worth one or two
thousand a year, a:-e1 that they were now worth
wenty. thousand a year, that theeefore •those grAntS
ought now to be resumed Would they, if a lease
was granted under the Crown, vacate that lease, if
from accidental circumstances it became more valu-
ble than whe!. it was first granted ? No Lawyer, he
was lure, ever asserted such a doctrine: no man
who seriously considered its effects would maintain
a:. An attempt had been made to distinguish be-
tween the tight in possession of an office and the
person in reversion ; but
_there was not the slighest
ground for such distinction, because, if the King
could make the grant legally, the person in reversion,
had as clear a Vested right as the person in posses-
sion. He begged Gentlenten seriously to consider
the consequences which might ensue from the doc-
trine to which he had alluded ; the present House
of Commons would, he had 'no doubt, not carry
the principle farther than Choy thought the neces-
sity of the case required ; but if the principle were
once admitted, who could tell to what an extent it
might be carried in futUre ? Who could undertake
to say that some other persons might not in future
introduce something of an Agrari.ni doctrine, and
justify it upon the adoption of this principle at pre-
sent.—He would not trespass upon the House any
longer, except shortly to say, that the proposition
of his Hon. Friend was recommended upon tutu
grounds, viz. that-it tended to economy, and also to
reduce the King's prerogative. With regard to eco-
nomy, until they knew what amount of pensions
it was intended to propose, instead of sinecure
offices, it was impossible to say whether the mea-
sure would lead to economy or. not. With regard to
the reduction of the prerogative, if the- pensions
were to' be equal to the sinecure places, and the King
was to retain the same po%ver over them, 'the pre-
rogative would not be affected. But 'he did not
agree in .the propriety of reducing the prerogative,
which he contended bad ,not increased. Upon that
point he entirely agreed with his. Hon. Friend (Mr.
Wharton), whose arguments Gentleniers had found
it much easier to laugh at than to answer. Upon
the whole, he was convinced that the adoption of
this measure would not be attended with any advan-
tage, and should therefore.give it his negative.
Lord MILTON. approved of the motion, as being
likely to se.parat.e thoke who were actuated by' good_
intentions from these actuated from different mo-
tives.._„

Mr. CANNING thought the splendour which sur-
, roundS the Throne necessary to the _discharge of its
high functions. There-were many things about the
Throne which ought not to be•louelicd with a rash
hand, lest those who did so should too-late lament'
the- fatal delusion by which they were misled:—
They were eo coosi(!er. if the proposition of his Hon.
Friend deserved a favourable reception; and if they.
_ differed from him, whether or not any changes
ought to take place, and if any, of what nature
they should 'be. The kuggesnoti he had formerly
thrown out as the grounds on which he should op-
pose the HonourauleGentleman's then proposition,
were thrown out , to: justify his Opposition, and :not
with an -eitpec,ation 'that his Honnur3nle Friend
Would, by. adopting them to a certatir- degree,
so modify his proposition as to entitle him
to his support, it he reni.,ieed consistent with
himself. Thoueli the distribution of offices was not
so far an alien to what it shOuld be, as his Hon.
Friend seemed to imagine, yet it could not be denied
that on certain- occasions theme have been and must
be. instances -of favour. He cotild not approve
of the resumption of a grant bestowed for ser-
vices performed, when the cireurnAanees of the
individual were in such a. state as to render it
not absolutely necessary to him, as he knew of
no course of legislation by which they could so
inquire into. a
the private concerns of a Gentle-
man, with view to depriving hiM of the reward
he, had earned. He, however, approVed of the re-
ward so granted being merged on' the party return-
ing to office, and only again employed on the indivi-
dual losing his new situation. He apprehended it was
no part of his Friend's plan to deptive the Crown
of the power of remunerating merit. He under-
stood it to be his object to substitute for the present
mode of requiting services one less exceptionable.
He knew of no insurmountable obstacles to this ;
but; if such should appear, be would not be one of
those who mijit take, the advice of an Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite, and consent to part with tne pre-
sent system; leaving it to be devised hereafter
what should be substituted in its place. The
Hon. Gentleman said, he. approved of the liberal,
remuneration of services as bringing great talents.
forward, which. might otherwise be lost to the coun-
try. In giving his vote, as he should, for the'mo-
tion, he considered he did but say he would hear
his Hon. Friend's proposition ; but should it subse-
quently appear exceptionable, he desired to be un-
derstood as having only 'pledged himself to entertain
it in the first instance, and not bound himself to
give it his further support.
After a few words from Mr. P. Moore, the Hour
divided, whe the numbers were
For the Resolution 93
Against - - - 99
Majority • - —6 4
k Mr. MARTIN said, he had no objection to his Re-
solution being negativ&l and his Friend's adoptecL—
'When the Report of the Committee was brought
up, he should have an opportunity of making some
ob-ervations 'on them.

The House then resumed, and the Report of the
Committee was ordered to be received on Tuesday.
Adjourned at One o'Clock,
[For the proceedings in the Houle of Peers, see last pke.]

TEI E S UN.

SOLENT QUIS FALSUM AUDEAT