Star.
London, England, 1812-02-08 00:00:00

r„,, which any man could suppose he would not are
'
'L-eioded directly contrary to what he did. The Bill,
its first introduction, had been carried without any
612nision. In 1807, the measure was carried una-
roosly, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was
ene of those Ministers who advised his Majesty to
his approbatioo of it. It was very wrong to
"ro-on se that this Bill could operate as any infringe.
oche of the prerogative ; on the contrary, it was
vemt to strengthen it, by preventing any prodigal
oats of those places through the intercession and
rduence of Ministers for the time being, which was
the most improvident way of giving rewards to indi-
libels that could be imagined.
ge, WHITBREAD remarked, that the only two
Persons who had spoken against the Bill were two
yeti principle reversioners. The Honcurable Gen-
tleman who first opposed the motion had noticed
something that fell from him (Mr.. Whitbread) four
Imes ago, which was that he was a reversioner. The
Honourable Gentleman complained that this asser-
tion, 4, had been thrown at, his head."—lt was true,
,Ad he had caught it in his mouth, and it seemed had
been chewing it ever since.—(d laugh.)—The mea-
sure now proposed had always been a favourite with
the House and with the people, and when their voices
were united for any constitutional object like the pre-
sent, it was undoubtedly the most sound policy to at-
tain the object so much desired. The Right Honou-
rable Gentleman (Mr. Perceval) however thought
otherwise, and maintained that the measure was of
little or no importance, although popular clamour
het swelled it into magnitude, and his only reason
for now resisting it was, his opinion, as opposed to
that of the whole country, that it was too insignificant
to deserve attention. Had lie, or his Colleagues, coo-
stilted their interests or their duty, they would never
have thrown cold water upon it. It was assumed
too (which the House would not grant), that it was i
not a measure of economy. It was rather singular
that this doctrine should be supported by a person
who !rids the reversion of one of the greatest pl ices
in the gift of the Crown. If it wants regulation,
an answer was immediately returned, that it could
rot be allowed. Why ? Because the Chancellor of
the Exchequer possessed the reversion, and if it were
regulate d, ec, n ,my he:ng the object, it would doubt-
less be abolished. Did the Right Hon. Gentleman
mean to say, that he, sitting in his place in that
House, was no, a practical contradiction of his own
assertion? Another proof might be funad in the
odious appointment of Colonel M'Mahon to the office
of Paym4,ter of Widows' Pensiuns, the abolition of
which had been recommended thirty years ago, and
• yet there, too, tio regulation was to he allowed—be-
cause it was granted in reversion. If the Chancel-
lor of the Exchequer had not the expectancy of Lord
Arden's place, it might be investi,ta.ed— a complete
exemplification of what the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer had denied. It was admitted on all hands that
thes., grants in reveftion were a sort of forestalling of
the prerogative of the Clown (mar, hear,) and no
man who wished them to be abolish.al had any desire
to diminish the prerogative ; the object was to prevent
designing Ministers from granting favours to their
own infants—(Hear, hear.) He trusted, notwith-
standing 'he specious arguments employed, that the
House of Commons, as the rektsentatives of the p o-
ple, would pass as Bill from which their constituents
expected, and woald derive such important benefits.
Ile could anticipate no disagreement between the two
branches tithe L,egis!ature upon a subject whet e the
real duty of both was so obvious ; and under these
circumstances he felt confident that the Lords would
cordially join in a measure, which, it was true, the
Chancellor of the Exchequer had said is not impor-
tant to be done, which the Country exclaims is im-
portant to be done, and which the House declares it
is important to do.
Mr. BASTARD said O'ere were two sorts of eco-
nomy which the House sho.dd i:ttend to—the eco-
nomy of the public expenditure, and the economy of
the public opinion ; and he was confident the people i
wruld bear the burdens necessarily imposed on them
with much more content, could they but be satisfied
that the House were desirous to attend to practical
economy on every occasion, when they had it in their
power so to do.

Mr. ELLIOTT said, he was far from saying that
no reversionary grants should be made ; but he would
sot have it done at the discretion of Ministers.
'Sr J. bEBRIGHT said, this bill had long been a
favourite with the public ; and should it now be
thrown ont, after having first passed unanimously,
and a second time with only one dissentient, merely
on suggestion of the Minister that it was an object
of little importance, he thought it would subject the
House to the imputation of lAeing very wavering in
their opinions.
Mr. PONSONBY—" Although I have often ex-
pressed my sentiments upon this question, I cannot re-
frain from troubling the House with a very few words.
I cannot at all agree that this is a matter of little im-
portance, on the contrary, it appears to me to be of
Very considerable magnitude, even in an economical
point of view ; because nothing can be more unfit
than that it should be in the power of any Minister,
when it is convenient, to call to his own aid that money
which ought only to be the resource of the Crown, and
to apply it to his own purposes, so as to carry, by
force of influence, a measure perhaps highly disa-
greeable, or even injurious, to the nation. The
conduct pursued by :he Chancellor of the Exclie-
qner on the present occasion, strikes me as somewhat
extraordinary : formerly he voted for the Bill, because
he said it was of little importance ; now he votes
against the Bill, because, he says, it is of little irnpor-
'Ante. The same reason of its being of littleimpor-
lance serves his purpose equally well for or against the
Pleasure, as occasion may require. (Thar, hear.)—
It is not, however, of such light consequence, as it
relates to the proceedings of the House, in which it
has been so repeatedly and unanimously adipted too,
in conformity to the opinion of the country, scarcely
less unanimous. Now, however, for the first time,
it was contended that the Bill should be rejected,
and the very reason assigned for its rejection, is the
/ery reason why it ought to be countenanced. Un-
doubtedly, if this opposition be successful, it will nei-
ther be very flattering to the consistency or sagacity
tif the House, which has shewn a strong partiality to
I,,,semeasure, and has persevered in it, Session after
Session ; and at the time when it imagined its la-
"ones would be crowned with success, t e Chancel-
l°r of the Exchequer steps forward, and, without
"ell v 1- Plausible cause being urged, says that he