Becker, and was rejected, because it was more agreeable to the doctor's practising; and the reason was, that they apprehended the society would become too numerous if this was permitted. Doctors, therefore, appeared to dif fer on this point; for this writer seemed to think, that being in deacon's orders was no objection; but that the rejection was because it was more agreeable to the actual practitioners, who were apprehensive that the society would become inconveniently numerous. Now, that a gentleman, who had studied at Cambridge, and therefore might be considered as in this instance standing up for the privileges of the University, should be neglected merely because it might be more agreeable to the society that he should be so, was a point that required some attention from the legislature. They apprehended that the society would become inconveniently numerous. As to that point, there certainly appeared no reason to think, that those who were to study eleven years at Cambridge before they were admitted, would incommode the society, sup posing that this were an argument worthy of any attention. The power to reject without appeal was too great to be entrusted to any man. This gentleman had gone through all the forms, and if the power of rejection without appeal was to be allowed, the principle would go to this length, that not only those who desired to be admitted, but those who were already admitted, would be dependant entirely on the Archbishop. But it was said that the Archbishop had granted his fiat, without knowing that the petitioner was in deacon's orders, and withdrew it upon receiving information that this was the case. This, however, was not alleged publicly. All that was alleged was, that the thing was ot agreeable to the practisi g doctors. He had some other things to state, bur as he had taken up the time of the House so long, he would finish for the present, trusting that the House would take up the matter with that seriousness which its importance seemed to deserve.

He then presented the petition, which was read at the table, as usual in such cases. It stated in substance what had been said by the honourable gentleman who presented it; adding only, that one of his majesty's chaplains enjoy ed at pre ent the privilege which was denied to him." On the question that the petition do lie on the table, The Advocate General observed, that the honourable VOL. 1.-1807, gentleman

4 R

gentleman having intimated that he would at a future opportunity renew the discussion, he would not enter upon it at present. He would only, therefore, say, that the petition contained great misrepresentations of facts, and legal principles as applied to those facts.

Mr. Smith replied, that the facts were sworn to in the affidavit to the King's Bench. The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Barham brought up a report respecting the fees for writs taken by the messenger to the great seal and his deputy. Ordered to lie on the table.

OFFICES IN REVERSION.

Mr. Bankes rose to submit, pursuant to notice, a motion on the subject of granting offices in reversion. If he might assume, and he hoped he might, that the opinion of the House had undergone no alteration on this point since their late resolutions, he thought it would be unneces sary for him to trouble them at any great length, as he might expect an unanimous concurrence in the proposition which he was about to lay before them. It would be waste of time for him to address them at any great length, when he expected no opponent; but because he heard that it had been surmised that the object of this bill passed by the House against the granting of offices in reversion trenched on the just prerogative of the crown, and that it would be of no real service to the public in point of economy, he begged leave to say a few words on these topics. With regard to the prerogative of the crown, he was firmly persuaded, that the object of that bill touched upon it but very little, and could not be properly said materially to trench upon it at all. There was at present an opportunity for an undue dissipation in that prerogative, and he was convinced that it would be more full, better exercised, and much more beneficial if the granting of offices in reversion should be restrained in the manner pointed out by the bill. It would certainly be rather strengthened than weakened, for the gratitude of persons entering upon the reversions, would naturally be small when they considered them in some measure as a vested right, rather than a fayour conferred solely for services to the public. There were some instances where these reversions were held by persons perfectly unfit for whatever trust might be attached to the offices, and more especially in the cases of reversions

held

held by persons of the other sex. The incapacity was indeed in some cases so palpable and glaring, that no ministers would have ventured to recommend the grants in the first instance, without the danger of creating the strongest sensation in the public mind, and of exposing themselves to the severest animadversions. But it had been said, that in point of economy this object would be of no advantage to the public. Directly it might not. But certainly the committee expected, and he was persuaded that the expectation was well founded, that the establishment of the principle would ultimately lead to much practical economy. Several offices afforded very large emoluments, while they had no duties attached to them. The committee might judge proper to review these offices, and see reason to subject some to new regulations, and advise the total abolition of others. But if in the mean time, the practice was persisted in of granting these reversions, the labours of the committee would meet with increased difficulties; and Parliament seeing no prospect of any immediate benefit from whatever arrangements they could propose, might be more callous and indifferent respecting this important object. On these principles, he presumed, the House had adopted the resolution formerly submitted to it on this subject, and on the same principles concurred unanimously in the provisions of the bill, which he (Mr. Bankes) had the honour to carry up to the House of Lords. What the fate of that bill had been, the House had an opportunity of ascertaining from the report of the committee appointed to examine the lords' journal for their proceedings upon it. It appeared that it had been put off to a term to which there was no probability that this session would extend, and consequently that it might be considered as totally lost for the present. That no inconvenience might arise from this circumstance, that as far as this House could constitutionally interfere, there might be some restraint on the power of the crown with respect to the granting of offices in reversion, it would be perfectly becoming and proper that they should, in the ordinary and constitu tional manner, humbly lay before his majesty their desire that an opportunity might be afforded both to this and the other House, of reconsidering this subject before any additional reversionary grants should be made. It was in this .view, that among other modes of proceeding which had suggested themselves to him, he had adopted the meth

of address, noon the whole the most proper and unexceptionable. He was extremely desirous of avoiding any thing that could lead even to the appearance of this House assuming to itself the functions of the whole of the legisla ture. Much as he admired the House of Commons, in which, in his opinion, the most vital principles of the Constitution resided, nothing could induce him to trench upon the constitutional principles of any other branch of the legislature. Indeed the best way of preserving its weight and consequence in their full vigour, was by taking care, while it resisted all encroachment on the part of others, not to overstep its own just and lawful authority. He had, therefore, desisted from proposing a resolution, lest this might carry the appearance of the House doing that by its own act which properly belonged to the whole legislature. But this objection did not apply to the present mode, for it was one which had been often resorted to while inquiries were pending, for the purpose of having the exercise of the royal prerogative of the crown for a time suspended by the proper authority, that it might not interfere with important regulations in view. This was the light in which the matter appeared to him, and if the House was in earnest in its professed desire of giving effect to the labours of the finance committee, he trusted, hoped, and believed, that no objection would be made to this motion. He concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying, that ke would be pleased not to grant any office in reversion, until six weeks after the meeting of the next session of Parliament," adding only, by way of notice, that early in the next session he would move for leave to bring in a bill similar to the one which had been lost, that this. House might, at least, have an opportunity of unequivocally shewing its own opinion.

Mr. Ward observed, that since it was the intention of the honourable gentleman who had just sat down, to bring in a bill in the next session, to the same purport as the former bill, it was quite unnecessary to en er upon any long discussion at present, and he now only rose to express that sur rise and regret which he could not help feeling at the result of the inquiry of the commi tee which had been appointed to examine the journals of the Lords, relative to their proceedings upon the r version bill. From this it appeared that that important bill hal been rejected.

rejected. But he could not help being very much surprised at this, because it was an unusual thing that a bill which had met with so very slender an opposition, which had, indeed, met with no opposition in that House, which was directed against public abuses, an object so peculiarly necessary in the present circumstances of the country, should be rejected in the other House. It was a subject of very great regret too with him, both on account of the failure of a most important object, and also on account of the indication which was manifested of a want of disposition in the other House to co-operate with the House of Commons in restraining the undue expenditure of the public money. Of course the House could know nothing of the detail of the proceedings in the other House on that bill; and, if it could be known by any in direct means, it would, of course, be irregular to allude to it here. But one must naturally suppose that it was maturely considered and amply debated in a full House; that the whole proceedings were conducted with that gravity and serious deliberation which the importance of the case required; that all the ministers of the crown attended in their places, as it was their duty to do, in order manfully and openly to oppose the bill, if they thought it an ime proper one, or to support it with all their strength, if they were of a contrary opinion! It must at least be supposed, that if the House was not so full as it might be, their lordships, out of respect to their own character, and a due regard to the unanimous opinion of the House of Com mons, would have consented to an adjournment of the debate on the bill for a short time, in order to enable those who might be absent to attend their duty! It must be supposed that the discussion on so important a bill was not disgraced by an empty House, lest there should be an appearance of gross neglect, insufferable insolence, or some motives of a worse description! Of course the Commons could not know who proposed the rejection of that bill, or by whom that motion of rejection was sup ported! But they might be fully assured that it could not have been by a person who was himself in the possession of a reversionary office of great emolument! They might be assured that it was utterly impossible that the motion of rejection could have been supported by a person who was in possession of any reversionary office! But even supposing this possible; even supposing that the ministers

of