be pushed to a decision, should vote for it.

Mr. Lyttleton concurred in the suggestion of his right hon. friend, and recommended to the committee to defer the further consideration of the subject until both the amendment, and the original resolution should be in the hands of gentlemen. Lord Folkestone was ready to enter into the discussions of the question at that moment, and would vote for the amendment, though he had no hesitation to accede to the sugges tion of putting off the discussion to another occasion. He could not, however, avoid saying, that the object of former times had been to curtail the influence of the crown, and to prevent placemen from having seats in that house.

Mr. Whitbread, though he wished for a decision upon the subject of the amendment, had yet no objection to put off the final discussion to a future day. He saw no reason why chief judges should be made peers, nor why Welsh judges should be allowed to become members of that house. Neither could he admit that, because a person abandoned his profession, he should have a provision for life made him for having abandoned it.

The first resolution was then read, and carried without a division.

Mr. Whitbread proposed to make a separate motion to the house of his amendment on Thursday next: when the house adjourned.

Saturday, June 3.

The Speaker having attended in the house of lords in consequence of a requisition to that effect by Mr. Quarme, deputy usher of the Black Rod, on his return he informed the house, that he had heard the royal assent given, by commission, to a number of public and private bills. In a committee on the Irish revenue regulation bill,

Sir J. Newport introduced a clause for preventing revenue offi

cers from accepting fees or bribes. The clause went to impose a penalty to the amount of three times the sum so to be received, and also to declare the person so receiving it incapable in future of holding any office, civil or military, under government.

This clause was agreed to, and the report ordered to be received on Tuesday.-Adjourned till Tuesday. Tuesday, June 6.

The SEATS IN PARLIAMENT BILL having been recommitted,

Mr. Perceval rose, and said, that he found no good reason to change his former opinion with respect to the propriety of an amendment which he submitted to the committee on a former evening. He objected to the mention of the word "implied" as relating to the gift or grant of office, and thought it would be better to specify and limit the agreement as an express one.

The amendment was then proposed, and read from the chair; when after some words from Mr. S. Stanhope against the original clause, and from Mr. C. Wynne in support of it,

Mr. Tierney could not see why the word " office" should be o mitted; what was called influence should have, as it were, a monopoly over what might be called the competition of the monied interest. They should consider the object of the bill-it was to prevent the sale of seats; and therefore, in conformity to that object, they ought to make it a misdemeanor in any person, how ever circumstanced, trafficking for a seat in that house in any way, for no matter whom. He, therefore, should propose, as an amendment, "That all persons concerned in any such engagement on account of gift, benefit, employment, profit, or reward, should be incapacitated, and deprived of their voice at elections." He wished to make provisions af fecting, in the first instance the traffic itself, in the second, the per

son or persons returned; and in the third, the persons selling the scats; which persons, for such offence, he proposed should be fined in the penalty of 5001. He objected to the omission of the epithet " implied," as applied to engagements entered into to procure seats upon the grant of offices. He wished also to pronounce those aiding, abetting, or assisting, in that species of traffic as guilty of misdemeanors.

Mr. Perceval said that there were three criminal parties-that giving the money-that receiving the bribe -and that obtaining the seat. And he contended that those three were all that were necessary to be included, and that they actually were included in the form already proposed. He defended the propriety of omitting the word implied,' as it regarded any agreement where offices were to be granted.

6

Mr. Tierney, in reply, said, that he thought if the word " implied" was to be kept in either case, of money or of office, that it would bear equally hard on the man who in a cold winter gave ten guineas to a distressed elector, though that gift could not be traced to any canvassing motives.

Mr. Ponsonby said that the act would be a perfect delusion, if the word "implied" was not inserted; because thus in no one case would the engagement be express, and in every case would it be implied, and thus the traffic would be encouraged in defiance of the main and avowed object of the act itself. He objected also to the penalty of five hundred pounds beeing attached to the offence. If they would do, or meant to do, their duty, they ought rather to pronounce the offence itself a misdemeanor.

Mr. Tierney said, that the short statement of his right hon. friend (Mr. Ponsonby) was unanswerable. If "implied" was omitted, the ex

press agreement must necessarily in every instance be proved.

Lord H. Petty was of the same opinion.

Mr. Whitbread expressed a wish that the amendment should be withdrawn.

Mr. C. Wynne said, that if the present was agreed to, he should not be surprised if there was another amendment, proposing that all such engagements must be proved to have been written on stamp agreements.

Mr. D. Giddy went at some length in speaking to the principle of the bill, and apologized for taking that opportunity of doing so. He recapitulated some of his arguments upon the same subject on a former night, and expressed again his opinion, that there was at present a very general mistake respecting influence and corruption.

Sir T. Turton reprobated strongly the language of the last speaker, as if there was any such thing as the honourable and legitimate use of money in the purchase of seats in parliament! He disapproved of the words " express or implied," in every part of the clause.

Mr. W. Adam contended that the omission of the word " implied," so far as offices were concerned, would have the effect of making the act operate as a protection, rather than as a check upon the evils sought to be removed.

66

Sir J. Anstruther believed it was on his suggestion that the words express or implied," were inserted. He had no idea, however, that any distinction was to have been made between money and office. In every act against bribery, the two offences had always been esteemed the same; but the omission of the word "implied" in this case, would have the effect of doing away the criminality of bribery by means of office.

Mr. Perceval said, his sole object was, that the committee should not

public money was yearly expended. He trusted, however, that during the recess, steps would be taken to alter these things, else he would make a specific motion early next session, on the subject. Mr. Huskisson said, a number of those serving by deputy, had been allowed to do so, on account of their inability to bear the fatigue of business. But before next session he expected those things would be better regulated.

Mr. Huskisson having moved the third reading of the VOTE OF CREDIT BILL,Sir T. Turton objected in strong terms to any subsidies being granted to either Spain or Austria, unless we had a moral certainty of their success; whereas their affairs were becoming more hopeless!

General Tarleton traced the progress of the present campaign as far as it had yet gone; and admitted that the bulletin he had just seen was extremely favour

able to the Austrians. He also adverted to the present campaign in Portugal, but considered the victories attributed lately to Sir A. Wellesley's army there, as scarcely deserving the name of skirmishes; and added that he thought the Marquis Wellesley an unfit ambassador to the Spanish nation.

Mr. Curwen dwelt with peculiar pleasure on the accounts just received of the success of the Austrians; and if it should prove a check of any importance on the progress of Bonaparte, he would wish the vote of credit to be SIX MILLIONS INSTEAD OF THREE! This being the first reverse Bonaparte had ever sustained, he (Mr. C.) hailed it as a favourable

omen.

Lord Castlereagh defended the late exploits of Sir A. Wellesley, as being by no means inconsiderable. As to the successes of the Austrians, he agreed with Mr. Curwen, but defended the country from being too sanguine.

After a few words from Mr. Herbert, the bill was read a third time and passed. In a committee of supply, Mr. Perceval moved, that 100,000l. be granted to his Majesty, to be entrusted to the governors of Queen Anne's bounty, for the purpose of increasing the poor livings in England to 1501. a year each. He said he would, some time next session, move an address to his Majesty, for acCounts of the poor livings in Scotland and Ireland.

Lord Milton thought no permanent good would result to the poorer clergy, equal to abolishing the plurality of livings. VOL. VI,

Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. S. Thornton gave their warm approbation to the motion; the latter wished it was 200,0001. Sir J. Newport, Lord H. Petty, and Mr. Barham highly approved of the sent proposition.

pre

Mr. Perceval next adverted to the machinery invented by Dr. Cartwright for the improvement of weaving wool, sail-cloth, &c. &c. and stated that the prejudices at first entertained against the invention, had prevented him from deriving any benefit from his patent.→ Dr. Cartwright had expended a large private fortune in bringing to perfection a machine, of which the public was now reaping the benefit. One witness had stated that he had expended no less than 30 or 40,000l. He imagined, therefore, that a grant of 10,000l. would not be objected to; and moved a resolution ac cordingly.

Mr. W. W. Smith approved of the grant, which was then agreed to.

The next sum was 31571. for printing the journals; the next sum was 4,5001 for the New Forest.

Mr. Rose moved the sum of 35,000l. for erecting the buildings of the Naval Asylum, and supporting the establishment for the present year.

Sir C. Pole had many objections to this establishment, and particularly to the enormous salaries enjoyed by the officers belonging to it.

Mr. Rose replied, that the persons there had no larger salaries than officers holding similar situations in other institutions.

Sir J. Newport said, the auditor of this asylum was a clergyman, holding two valuable livings in Ireland, to neither of which he paid any attention.— The house then, by voting a large sum of money to him, was encouraging a nonresident to neglect the duty of his parishes!

The resolution was agreed to.

The house having gone into a committee on Mr. Curwen's bill, and several clauses having been negatived without any observation,

Mr. Perceval proposed a clause, providing that nothing in the bill should extend to any legal and BONA FIDE sale of lands, tenements, or hereditaments.

The clause being put, and read à first time,

Mr. W. Smith objected to it, and con tended that to any stranger it would pear to have no connection with the ob

ар

ject of the bill; and that such a person would be apt to imagine either that he had mistaken the title of the bill, or that it had crept accidentally into the bill-the object however of the clause, though apparently irrelevant, was sufficiently

obvious.

After some further observations from Mr. Tierney, the Attorney-General, Lords Porchester and Milton, the clause proposed by Mr. Perceval was agreed to without a division.

Mr. Perceval brought up his clause for levying certain penalties on the person procuring his return by any express covenant to give or take any office.

Lord H. Petty stated his objection to the clause as now read. He contended, that, in place of remedying corruption, it went to concentre it. It would give the whole management of that species of influence to the treasury. He concluded with moving, as an amendment, that the word "express" be left out.

Mr. Perceval did not suppose that, after the discussion of the last night, any new light could be thrown upon it. It did however appear, that if it should be left open to imply an agreement, juries would always presume that the grant of the office was in consequence of the vote given.

Sir J. Anstruther considered the attack of Mr. Perceval upon the juries of this country as the greatest libel he had ever heard uttered, when he said that juries were not to be entrusted with the character of men in public situations. Where was the express agreement in the measure which gave origin to this bill? There was certainly a transfer of patroin that case intended, although no nage express engagement appeared on the face of any instrument. Was it intended to legalize every artifice which led to the same effect, and only to inflict penalties on the bungler?

Mr. Lyttleton stated that if the word express" was continued, the very principle of the bill was altered. If it should be continued, he felt it was his duty to vote against the bill itself.

The Speaker stated his wish, on the first view, to extend the provision of this bill to the purchase of seats in parliament, as well by office as by money. The great rule was, to strike at the prominent and most flagrant points of offence. Amongst those, most certainly, was the proof of any express contract. This he would state, always impressed with the

conviction, that this species of traffick, whether carried on by implied or express covenants, was an offence against the law of parliament, and, in his opinion, punishable as a misdemeanor at common law. He considered the resolutions of that house, in 1779, bore fully upon a traffick carried on by an implied contract, and therefore he saw no reason to oppose the clause as now worded.

Mr. Ponsonby considered the resolutions of 1779 as not efficacious to redress an evil, which all admitted to exist,-at which the house itself connived, and of which, with the circumstances known by all the members, they would have been greater hypocrites than Mr. Bowles when he wrote his book, to affect ignorance.

Mr. Tierney declared, that, upon a question which ought to be considered without any reference to party feelings, the government of the country had exerted a most successful hostility. Upon them rested the responsibility of that disappointment which the nation must feel. Mr. Perceval appealed to the hon. proposer of the bill (Mr. Curwen,) whether he felt that ministers had endeavoured to defeat the object of the measure?

Mr. Curwen, without imputing any such intentions to government, still regretted that the most material points were negatived, and that the disposition of the house was not friendly to the principle of the measure. He conjured the government, in place of anticipating guards for themselves, to yield to the opinion of the country; and not to suffer it to think, that, where its influence was to be affected, nothing was done.

Sir S. Romilly and Mr. Bankes both argued, that the insertion of the term "express" wholly vitiated, and defeated the object of the proposed remedy. It was stated by the former, that in no other legislative enactment such a term could be found.

The Attorney-General vindicated the conduct of his right hon. and learned friend during the progress of this bill, before the house, and gave his support to the clause as it stood.

Mr. Adam spoke in favour of the amendment, which he conceived necessary, to guard against impunity in those who gave or accepted bribes after an election.

Mr. W. Stuart said a few words in opposition to the amendment. »