rose and said, that from what had fallen from his honourable friend on a former night, he could collect that some opposition was intended to his motion; before, therefore, he proceeded to any observations in support of it, he begged to remind the House of the manner in which it had disposed of a similar motion on the 10th of August, 1807. He there-moved, that the Resolution of that date should be read.—The Resolution was then read by the clerk, as it was recorded to have passed nem. Con. "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased not to grant any places in reversion, or to two or more persons with right of survivorship, until six weeks after the then next session of Parliament" The resolution he had to propose in this instance was precisely the same with that which had been read from the Journals; and he should leave it to his right hon. friend, and to those gentlemen who supported or agreed to the former resolution, to shew what distinction there was between it and the resolution now proposed. A Committee of that House had been appointed to examine the Lord's Journals for any proceeding respecting a bill for preventing the granting places in reversion, lately sent up from that House. The Committee had performed that duty, but found no trace of any proceedings upon the Journals of the House of Lords upon the subject of reversions. There appeared, indeed, two proceedings with respect to bills for preventing, the granting of places in reversion—one, the bill lately sent up from that House; the other, a bill which had been introduced into the House of Lords, and was precisely the same as a bill which had passed that House in a former session without a dissenting voice. Both these bills had, as appeared, been negatived on the second reading; but the Committee could discover no trace on their Journals of the grounds upon which the House of Lords was induced not to pass either. This led the Committee to consider what could have been the reasons which influenced the decision of the House of Lords, but in so doing, they were left altogether to conjecture. It occurred to him that it might have entered into the head of some acute and cavilling special pleader, that it was a solid objection to the bill, that it was to render perpetual a bill for suspending the power of granting places in reversion. Though he could not perceive the distinction, yet there might be persons who were fond, of perplexity, and dealt in difficulties, whose minds were not only capable of conceiving, but of maintaining such an absurd and incomprehensible quibble. To him it appeared, that, if the act for rendering perpetual the suspending act had passed, it would have been impossible for the practice to have been renewed. That, according to any sound principle of reasoning, would have been the operation of the measure. Could any man possibly suppose that the bill would not have been a perpetual prohibitory measure? At least, those who opposed the principle could not entertain a contrary opinion; because, if they had any impression upon the subject, it must be that they were afraid it would fully accomplish its object. The bill which had been sent up from that House, had had, he was happy to say, the assent and support of the Speaker, and was worded and framed in the same manner as all bills for rendering suspending acts perpetual, of which there had been two striking instances during last session. He wished, however, fairly to state to the House, that, if not for the peculiar circumstances of the case, he should never have assented to the bill of 1808, framed as it had been. He had entertained hopes that the spirit of conciliation manifested by the House of Commons, would have given an opportunity for the absurd and unfounded apprehensions which existed elsewhere on this subject, to subside. Finding, however, the contrary to be the case, and that there existed a determined principle to resist every measure designed to prevent the grant of reversions; finding that there was no chance that a bill for that object would pass the other House, it appeared to him that the only constitutional course which remained, was to vote an address to his Majesty, as in the year 1807, and then to bring in a bill for carrying the principle into effect. It might be said that the present motion was not brought forward at the close of a session as the former was, and that, therefore, there would be full time to bring in a bill, such as that of 1808. But under all the circumstances of the case, he thought the proceeding by address the proper course; and it would be for the right hon. gent. opposite to explain the grounds of opposition to that course, which they had approved of in the former case. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty praying that he would be graciously pleased not to grant any office in reversion or to two or more persons with benefit of survivorship, until six weeks after the commencement of the next session of parliament."

, as one of those to whom his hon. friend had made his appeal, felt it his duty to state the ground of his opposition to the resolution. The hon. gent. had said that his motion was the same as that which had passed nem. con. in August 1807. But if his recollection was right, that address of 1807 had been voted, after the rejection in the Lords of a bill which passed that House for the unlimited restriction of the granting places in reversion. This had, therefore, been taken or the purpose of giving effect to the principle upon which that House had agreed. He felt then an objection to the mode of proceeding by Address; and the only reason that operated in his mind in not opposing it was, that it was at the time the only practicable mode of preventing the granting of places in reversion. But what was the fact now? Was this the close of the session? Was there no other mode of accomplishing the object the hon. gent. had in view? They had every reason to believe, from what was known of sentiments expressed in another place, that, if they should pass a limited bill, it would meet the concurrence of the other House. Such a bill would answer the end of the hon. gent. as effectually as an Address; and, unless his hon. friend should state more satisfactory grounds for his proposition, he should prefer the proceeding by bill. It was a principle universally admitted, that that House should be very cautious of legislating for the country at large, except in cases of absolute necessity. He could refer for an illustration of this principle to the long parliament, and the calamities entailed upon the country by its attempt to legislate for the monarchy upon its own authority. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. friend would not press his motion; at least, not until he should try the experiment of a bill, and find, that this would be the only practicable mode of attaining his object. But if his hon. friend should not withdraw his proposition, in order to give an opportunity to bring in a bill, he trusted that the House would decide against it.

thought, that some unfortunate fatality hung over every measure introduced for the purpose of restricting the granting of places in reversion. To be consistent with themselves, and, if actuated by any desire to promote the interests of the country, ministers were bound to give effect to those measures of economy recommended in the speech from the throne the first session after they came into power. But, when he considered their conduct hitherto, he could see no ground for reliance upon them for any such measures. He was sure that the House of Commons was not in the slightest degree disposed to any improper attempt to legislate for the country at large. If this question should be got rid of by a division, it would be impossible that the country should not conceive an unfavourable opinion of the objects of that House, and of the sincerity of his Majesty's ministers respecting measures of economy. There was one reason, indeed, which made if imperative upon them to carry into effect the principle of this proposition; namely, that the great, efficient, and permanent obstacle to all plans of economy, in any of the public departments, arose from the existence of grants of offices in reversion. Though the prevention of such grants might not in itself be a very material reform, it would be an effectual step to that object which the House had in view, and which was distinctly recognized in resolutions then before them, founded on the third report of the Committee of Finance.

said, that the question was not as to the principle of not granting reversions, but whether they should pass a bill for that purpose or move an address? and when that question was put to him, he had no hesitation in preferring the mode of bill as the more constitutional mode.

had always been, and was still, a friend to the principle of restricting the grant of places in reversion. He should prefer, however, the mode of proceeding by bill.

was of opinion that the passing of bills of suspension would cut up altogether the ground of the principle from under their feet. He was one of those who objected to these suspending measures, and thought, that in justice to their own principle, they should pass the prohibitory bill.

was of opinion, that it would not be a breach of the privileges of that House to address for permission to restrict this branch of the prerogative, and to obtain the consent of the crown to this measure. The only answer he could conceive his Majesty likely to give to such an address, was, that he would leave the matter altogether to the discretion of his faithful Commons. In that case, the House could proceed effectually with the bill, as such consent would do away all the objections entertained in another place.

objected to a bill for suspending the granting of reversions, because it had already been made an argument against passing a bill in perpetuity; and the oftener bills of suspension were passed, the stronger would that argument become. Those who favoured the suspension, were in general those who were enemies to the abolition; and he would rather prefer the measure of the hon. gent. who originated this business, and whom he believed, to be sincere and interested for its success, than that of those, who, from his heart, he thought, were hollow and deceitful in their professions.

thought either of the modes would produce the same effect; but as he deemed the proceeding, by a bill to be more constitutional than that by an address he would vote for a bill.

said, the subject was of great national importance, and he must beg leave to offer his reasons for supporting the motion.—The measure itself, of preventing the grant of reversions, he said, though most important, was one of the most unfortunate that ever came before the House for discussion; that although it had had a great many nurses, it was stunted in its growth, and although surrounded and protected by a host of friends and guardians, he saw no prospect of its ever arriving at maturity.—Nor was this the only dreary conclusion which he drew from this unfortunate case; he felt it as a full manifestation of the general result of all the labours of the Finance Committee, and in this he was amply supported by the reception with which their several detached Reports had hitherto been met by the administration of the country; absolutely rendering all their efforts and struggles in behalf of the public nugatory and useless; thereby converting the Committee into a masque for all the mischiefs and abuses in the financial department. Mr. Moore said, he should now recall to the attention of the House, the several Reports hitherto made by the Finance Committee, in support of the position he had laid down. This was absolutely necessary, in order to remind the House of the situation, in which they stood, and to point out the prospect the public had to expect from the continued labours of the Finance Committee, on which so much expectation had been formed, so much anxious hope entertained in the public mind; and thus, by contemplating what had been done, the House and the country would form some judgment of what was likely to be done. The Finance Committee, he said, had now sat three years, during which time, they had made four Reports; to these he should now advert.—The first was on the subject of a large sum of money which had been taken from the cash, voted by the House and appropriated to the payment of the army, by one of the paymasters-general, confessedly on false public pretences, and which he had applied to his own private purposes. This officer was also a member of the privy council, and the king's remembrancer in the exchequer, whose especial duty it is, regularly to report periodically, and put in regular process against all persons defaulting, and holding in their hands the public money. Let the House also recollect the very inauspicious situation in which this Report was received; that it was actually laying on the bar of the House, ready to be brought up to the table, when the usher of the black rod knocked at the door, to announce the dissolution of parliament, and, let it not be forgotten under what circumstances that dissolution was effected. Here he should only add, that that violent measure aggravated the responsibility of ministers for every other plan and measure which they have since pursued, and made it the more immediately incumbent on them, when this first Report of the Finance Committee did reach this House, to support the Committee in the recovery of the public property; and to mark the conduct of the public officer guilty of this flagrant breach of public trust, with such exemplary process and punishment, as his own undeniable and undefensible conduct had called for, with the further design and view of preventing any similar practice in other departments. But what (said the hon. member,) has been done? The public money has indeed, after eight or nine years of importunity supported by this Report, been recovered; but no one step has been taken to vindicate the insults offered to the law, and to the official trusts of the public: Mr. Steele still remains a member of the privy council and still continues to hold the office of remembrancer in the court of exchequer, in which, no doubt, the most active vigilance may now be expected in process against other defaulters, because he has himself, the great mover of all, been studiously spared. But, what do the House now find as one of the direct consequences? They have now Reports before them of other great defaulters holding the important offices, of great trust, of paymaster to the marines, and treasurer of the ordnance department. What the exact sum of the balance of the former is, he did not know; as it was in a department which had uniformly reserved pecuniary management, to their own exclusive jurisdiction; and made no reports to the House, though often required; but there was a strong presumptive evidence that the object was of no very trifling consideration, as the admiralty board had proceeded much further against Mr. Villiers, than the treasury board had done against Mr. Steele, and had actually proceeded to bestow Mr. Villiers's trust on another gentleman, a member of the House, although the rumours in circulation were, that Mr. Villiers had not been well treated.—As to the sum in the hands of the treasurer of the ordnance, it is stated in a Report on the table to exceed 90,000l. without any securities: of which sum, Mr. Moore said, he had been informed no less than from 27,000l. to 30,000l. had been in this treasurer's hands ever since he quitted the office on the change in administration in 1805; and he desired to repeat this information the more especially for the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (the Chancellor of the Exchequer at this moment came into his place), who perhaps had not before heard it, with a view to excite his active attention to the immediate recovery of it, seeing, that in general, the older a debt grows, the hope of recovery becomes the more desperate. Now, said Mr. Moore, I humbly contend, that if a public prosecution had been instituted against, the right hon. Thomas Steele, in the first instance, as it ought to have been, with a view to public example, most probably the House would never have heard of the defaults of Mr. Villiers, Mr. Hunt, and others; nor the public property have been in danger and in hazard, if not wholly lost. But said he, I shall conclude what I have to say on this first Report of the Finance Committee, by putting it to the House to reflect, at this time of avowed general difficulty, and individual distress, when taxation bears harder on the subject than at any known period of time, in the annals of the nation; how many families must be pinched and distressed by exactions to meet a sum of taxes equal to these deficiencies.—(Hear! hear! hear! from the opposition side.) I hope, said Mr. Moore, we shall not hear of any more such splendid defaulters; but with such examples before the House, of great political connections, he thought instant measures should be adopted to secure the public property in every department of state without exception.

The second Report of the Finance Committee was on the subject of the Bank of England, as managers of the public funds. The Committee had made a very particular statement of the public dealings with the Bank, and had pointed out a very large saving, highly advisable and practicable, in the allowance to be made them in future. They were allowed, at the commencement of the sinking fund, equal to 450l. per million for their charges of management, but what might be reasonable for management of a small sum, became the heighth of extravagance on a sum of such enormous magnitude as the public concern now annually amounts to; at a period too, when the House must be perfectly confident that other bankers would chearfully undertake the management at one guinea, or, at the utmost, one and a half per million, with equal security and accommodation to the public; or indeed without any allowance whatever for management, as the Bank of England ought to do, seeing, that by the use of the public funds and their issue of Bank paper only, they are put in the capacity, and are in the habit and profit, of discounting mercantile bills and commercial undertakings of from one and an half to two millions sterling per week; and that, as one of the obvious results of these enormous profits and advantages, Bank stock has within the same period more than doubled in value. The chairman of the Finance Committee very strenuously contended in his place in this House, for the reduction alluded to, but to no purpose; and in this negative I contend (said Mr. Moore), this Second Report was virtually annihilated; and as I stated last year, the sacrifice of the public rights was no less than 200,000l. per annum.

The third Report of the Finance Committee exhibited the pensions, places, sinecures, and reversions, out of which the question now before the House has arisen.—Now, said Mr. Moore, of the whole of the Reports made by the Committee, this question for the prohibition of reversions, seems to be the only object which great pains have been taken to follow up, and to render complete and final; and the House testifies under what difficulties it labours, what extensive, and formidable, dark, insidious opposition it has to encounter, so as to afford little prospect of success by following it up with bill after bill, sessions after sessions, in a manner they have experienced. I will not, said Mr. Moore, use those harsh terms which the question justifies, but I insist on it there is a fixed and systematic hypocritical insincerity somewhere: and thus feeling, he trusted that the House would not part with their jurisdiction over this financial question, and that they would prefer address upon address, year after year, until their reasonable and national end was accomplished.

The last Report of the Finance Committee, continued Mr. Moore, brought to the knowledge of the House and the nation, the conduct of the life-and-property-pledgers, and their meaning and interpretation of "Loyalty," in the truly patriotic and disinterested secret management of Mr. John Bowles and the Dutch commissioners, in their trust of nearly two millions of public property, for a period of upwards of 14 years.—For want of the public accounts of last year, said Mr. Moore,) on which subject he would move for a standing order as soon as the enquiry and state of the business before the House would admit of it,) it was not possible for him or any member of the House not in office, to know, what had been done by ministers, on the subject of the large sums of money reported to be in the hands of these commissioners.—But he trusted and expected to find, that all those moneys had been brought into the public treasury, and that no class of men of any description should be suffered to lay down the measure and standard of their own reward in appreciation of their own conduct, and to apply the trust-funds of the public to their own separate use and wild abuse. When the annual accounts were produced, Mr. Moore said he should look for a rigid return and account of those monies, or not finding it so, he should have no hesitation in pronouncing his opinion that, the ministers of the country had been guilty of great neglect and dereliction of duty. The people of this country had never, been called on, and did not contribute, taxes to promote private interests, or to support a corrupt system of favouritism and predilection:—and he never would silently hear, that those supplies which were consecrated to public dignity, and national security, were misapplied to support, a system of corrupt influence and misrule.

These four, Mr. Speaker, are the only Reports hitherto received from the Finance Committee. Of the humble value to which, (though in their original condition and meaning of great importance), they have been reduced by the improvident manner in which they have been disposed of by ministers, I shall now leave the House and the public to form their own judgment. But, feeling as I do, without a change of management, I much despair of the continued labours of the committee proving of much greater comparative advantage to the public. We must, in a great degree, govern our opinions of the future by past advantages. But, Sir, said Mr. Moore, I shall not quit the subject without a particular exhortation to the hon. member on the floor, as chairman of the Committee. I exhort him and his colleagues to a rigid and firm perseverance. They now stand in a very different situation from that of which they very properly complained last year. This sessions the hon. chairman has a committee virtually of his own selection, they have not any personal embarrassment now to complain of; the public expectation is uncommonly great; the national anxiety throbs vastly high for the Committee's final Report, of a whole system of reform and retrenchment in the immense public expenditure of the country, the very savings of which ought to form an important national supply, adverting, that the annual expenditure, at this time, is more than four times the amount, at the beginning of the war.—It is true, said Mr. Moore, the Committee of Finance have received no great encouragement to continue their honourable exertions to the public, from the ministerial countenance given to their Reports on detached subjects. But he nevertheless conjured them to a steady perseverance for the gratification of the public in the production of an whole system, which the public expected as the result of their integrity, firmness, and decision; and he trusted, such a Report would now come, in strength so formidable, as to render it difficult, in the extreme, for any minister, whether in or out of this House to venture to resist it, after the unqualified confession, so lately made in this House, in truth and in fact from the materials of the minister's own private escrutoire, and to which they have not any one of them offered any contradiction, of the distressed state of the finances of the country—An hon. member on this side the House. (Mr. Giddy) has suggested as an alternative of obtaining the bill in question, and in future of avoiding the opposition given to it in the House of Lords, to address the King to pray his royal assent to both Houses for instituting a bill for the purpose. Mr. Moore said, he thought this the most extraordinary doctrine he had ever heard within those walls,—that the House should petition the King for leave to move in a financial case, which from the very essence of the constitution exclusively appertained to this House alone, and he was sure it could not for a moment be countenanced by the House. Perhaps, said Mr. Moore, the hon. member confounds this with the practice which prevails, that when any petition comes before the House implicating the grant of public money, that it must have the king's consent; but, continued he, the last case is wholly different, and extends only to a point of compromise, as it may be called; the application is made on a conclusion that the grant to be made is out of money which has already been voted and appropriated to his Majesty's use, as the national supplies, and that any part to be otherwise appropriated by the consent of the crown the House will make good.—Not however, said he, but that there appears a manifest absurdity in these messages, of the crown —consenting that the House shall dispose of their own supplies, and he should be ready to discuss the point with a view to set the principle at rest. The right hon. the secretary at state for the home department has asked, would the House now imitate the arbitrary times of Charles the 1st, and arrogate to themselves the whole powers of the legislature. Mr. Moore said, no: the financial jurisdiction was exclusively their own, and conjured the House not to part with it. He said, the times of Charles 1. had indeed a committee of safety: so he trusted had the present; for, in that light, he now considered the Finance Committee—he, said, he desired no other Committee of safety, and deprecated any other, contending as he did, that the preservation of the finances was the preservation of the throne and of the people; of all the various altars of the nation, and of all its sacred and proud institutions; and, in fine, of the empire itself; and that those who advocated the reform of the finances were the best friends and truest supporters of the whole fabric;—of the most splendid monarchy and system of freedom ever erected at the shrine of integrity.

, before the question should be put, begged to say a very few words. He held in his hand a paper, which informed him of the objection which caused the bill sent up from that House during the present session to be rejected in another House. He found that objection was merely a technical one. What was the reason for rejecting the bill to the same effect that had originated in that House, he could net say. The objection, however, being only technical, he could see no reason why another bill should not be brought in, to abolish reversions in perpetuity. He was sorry he was not in the House when the hen. gent. brought forward the present motion, as thereby he was not aware of the hon. gentleman's reasons for preferring the course he had taken; but if the hon. gent. would shortly re-state those reasons, in the manner which the courtesy of the House usually allowed, on such occasions, he would be much obliged to him. He was sorry to give the hon. gent. so much trouble, but if he would consent to withdraw his present motion, and bring in a bill for the abolition in perpetuity, he thought he would find it the most efficacious mode of proceeding. Those who wished for a bill of suspension were the greatest enemies to the abolition. He would not, therefore, trust himself among enemies again with a bill of suspension, but would rather proceed by address, if one of these two modes must be adopted.

said, that his reason for moving an address was, that he thought it the best course the House could pursue, to obtain the object they had in view. If, however, it was the opinion of the House, or of his hon. friends near him, that bringing in a new bill for the abolition of reversions in perpetuity would be a better measure, it would be perfectly agreeable to him, and he should have no objection to withdraw his motion. He thought a suspending bill would be, and was intended to be, the means of defeating his object altogether; and he was, therefore, determined not to agree to that measure. With the leave of the House he would, therefore, withdraw his present motion, and hoped he might, to avoid any loss of time be permitted to move immediately for leave to bring in a bill to abolish in perpetuity the granting of offices in reversion.

said, he had no constitutional objection to the bringing in of such a bill; but there was too much reason to believe, from what had been seen by the Lords' Journals, that the bill would again be thrown out in that House. He should still object also to proceeding by address, and not by bill, because in adopting such a course, that House would be assuming to itself a legislative power, and that, at a time, when they knew the other branch of the legislature would not agree to it. If his hon. friend was determined to bring in a new bill, he thought the proper time for him to move his amendment to make it a bill of suspension for a limited time, would be when the motion should be made; and, therefore, the business could not, he thought, be regularly brought on to-night.

said, that before he put the question for withdrawing the motion, it might, perhaps, as some allusions had been made to the technical objection raised in another place, be necessary for him to say a few words on that subject. He should not mention any name as to place or person, because as that House did not suffer any reference to be made to what passed there, it was incumbent on them to pay the same respect to the proceedings elsewhere. The bill then was, before it was sent up to the other House, submitted to his consideration in point of matter of form. He said he could have wished it to have been an entire new bill, in which no notice whatever had been taken of any former proceeding on the subject; but as the bill had been thus brought in, and had made its progress through the House, he thought that it was perfectly regular in point of form; and whatever might have been said by any other person, in any other place, upon that head, he still continued of the same opinion. He was confirmed in it from the long course of practice which had prevailed in the House, in passing perpetuating bills in the cases of expiring laws; and so long as the House continued in the same course, so long should he persist in maintaining the same opinion.

The motion was then, with the leave of the House, withdrawn, and Mr. Bankes gave notice, that he would, on Tuesday next, move for leave to bring in his bill.