A division took place, and the numbers were-For the amendment 43-Against it 78-Majority 35.

The bill passed through the committee, and the report was ordered to be brought up on Friday.

Thursday, June 8.

Mr. Whitbread presented a petition from the Rev. Mr. Humphries, curate of Sanlay, in the county of Derby, stating, that the rector of the parish derived 2400l. a year from the same, and that he himself had no more than 40l. a year for his labour; and praying for such relief as the house might think fit.

Mr. Whitbread said, he would not pledge himself for the truth of this statement; he would therefore content himself with moving that this petition do lie on the table.-Ordered.

Mr. Creevey rose to bring forward a motion relative to a house in Downing street, for the president of the board of controul, as an official residence, which had cost 90001. He could see no reason for this official residence. Neither of the secretaries of state had, any such; and if any place was required for transacting business, it should be in Leadenhall-street. The hon. gentleman concluded with moving a resolution, "That 66 it appears to this house, that applica❝tion was made by Mr. Dundas, when president of the board of controul, to "the lords of the treasury, for a house " in Downing-street; and that in pursuance of such application, he was "allowed to occupy such house."

་

After some observations from Mr. Dundas and Mr. Perceval, the motion was negatived without a division.

He

Mr. Whitbread rose, in pursuance of his notice, to make his promised motion with respect to the propriety of limiting the number of PLACEMEN and PENSIONERS holding seats in that house. In what he was about to say he meant no personal allusion whatever. The first description of officers he should mention was the lords of the admiralty, confessed he could see no reason why ALL the lords commissioners of the admiralty should have seats in that house, Now, what he had said with regard to the lords commissioners of the admiralty, he thought would apply with equal jus tice to the lords commissioners of the treasury. He would say the same thing of them, that he did not think that all the lords should sit-two out of the five would be enough to have seats in that

house; and one of the secretaries to the treasury might also sit. He thought that, of those two lords of the treasury allowed to have seats, the chancellor of the exchequer ought to be counted as one. With regard to the ordnance office, he would go so far as to allow the clerk of the ordnance and the secretary of the ordnance to have seats; but he would suggest the propriety of excluding other gentlemen in this department holding seats-such as the storekeeper, the treasurer, and the clerk of the deliveries: these officers, he thought should not have ◄ scats. With regard to the board of controul, he saw no reason why-any officers of that board should have a seat in the house, except the president, and accordingly he would be for excluding all others but the president. But there was one class of placemen that called for their peculiar consideration, as to the propriety of permitting them any longer to have seats in the house of Commons. He meant those persons employed in the household of his Majesty. The people had every right to be jealous of such an order of representatives, because, from the nature of their office, they might gradually be brought to identify their interests with that influence with which it was the first duty of that house to watch with a jealous eye, and so they might be looked upon as mere instruments of the crown, and brought down to that house to vote upon all prerogative questions, against the true interests of the people. The offices to which he principally alluded in this department were-all the grooms of the bedchamber, the King's first equerry, the vice-chamberlain of his Majesty, and also the Queen's vice-chamberlain. He next adverted to the pensioners, and observed, that by the statute of Queen Anne, all persons receiving pensions during pleasure were disqualified from holding seats in parliament. The next class he adverted to was, that of sine cure placemen; and here he knew not how he could be prevailed upon to make any exception at all. He thought that all such persons, without distinction, should be disqualified from becoming representatives of the people of England. And here, in offering the suggestions he had done, he wished gentlemen not to take any alarm about reform. It was quite a different question. He thought, however, it was calculated to unite both the advocates and opponents of reform,

in agreeing to it, and he did expect that he would have the support of both sides. The hon. gentleman then concluded with moving a resolution to the following effect

"That this house will, early in the ' next sessions of parliament, proceed "to take into its most serious conside"ration the propriety of further exten"ding the limitation disqualifying per"sons holding places and pensions from "the crown from having seats in that "house."

Mr. Rose, as one of the persons alluded to by the hon. gentleman, and whom he wished to disqualify from holding seats in that house, begged to say a few words. The whole of the persons in Great Britain holding places or pensions, and who had seats in parliament, amounted to 50. The hon. gentleman in the first instance sought to disqualify eight of these; and the whole number to whom his object would ultimately extend might be about 25.

Mr. Perceval contended, that the existence of some partial influence of the crown in that house was never at any time disputed—but that the feelings of the people bore testimony to the existence of abuses, he denied!

Mr. Tierney said, if his hon. friend would limit his motion to a resolution, that the house should in the next session of parliament enter into the consideration of the subject alluded to in his notice, he should agree to the motion. He did not pledge himself, however, as to the extent he should go on this subject.

Lord Folkestone objected to pensioners for life holding seats in parliament, not because they voted for or against administration, but because they had not the same interést as the body of the people at large, or had rather an interest distinct from them. If they did not expect any thing from ministers, therefore, they had their debt of gratitude to pay to them, and did not continue with the people, as true and honest representatatives ought to do. On this ground he objected to them as much as to persons having pensions during pleasure.

Lord H. Petty supported the motion. One reason why he agreed with the motion was, because he thought the Welsh judges ought to be excluded from seats in that house, as should also the masters in chancery. He once more begged to recommend to the right hon. gentleman

the review of the establishment as to the Welsh judges, and particularly that fiction of law, that there was one Sovereign of this country, and another of Wales. He thought the Welsh judges should be removed entirely, that Wales should be treated, as a part of England, and three more added to the number of the judges of this country.

Mr. Ponsonby had no difficulty in supporting the motion of his hon. friend in the sense in which he viewed it.

Mr. Canning could not agree with the premises of the hon. gentleman; of course, it could not be expected that he should agree in his conclusion.

Sir F. Burdett observed, that amongst the many evils which the defective state of the national representation engendered, there were none more grievous than the obligation under which the house frequently was, to resort to palliatives for the purpose of staying the evil---an evil which admitted of no palliative. Within a very short period the country was called upon to pay pensions to four different chancellors of 5000l. ayear each! Why were persons holding such offices removed on the change of every successive administration, hereby impeding the course of public justice, at the same time that it aggravated the public pressure. Would any man pretend to say that a pure and free election existed, when it was asserted and proved in petitions before the house, that 157 boroughmongers influenced returns to that house?

Lord Porchester reprobated the proposition of excluding official characters from that house, as replete with evils of serious magnitude. The noble lord had determined to vote however for the resolution, under the impression, that there may possibly be a description of persons holding places and enjoying pensions, whom it would be proper to remove from that house.

Colonel Ellison said, he could not vote for the proposed resolution, brought forward at a time at which the general purity of public management was so universally admitted!

Mr. Whitbread ably combated all the arguments of those hon. gentlemen who opposed the motion.---Adverting to the observations of Mr. Rose, he said, he did not allude to the situation of treasurer of the navy which he held, but he was a servant of another branch of the legislature, he meant a clerk to the house of

Lords. [No, no, from Mr. Perceval.] He is, said Mr. Whitbread, as surely as that you are the greatest reversionist of the admiralty department! The hon. member expressed himself a decided friend to a temperate and constitutional reform in the commons, carried into effect by the house itself. To lead to that successful result, the whole country must, in a temperate and firm manner, express its wishes. The great danger to be apprehended was, from any precipitancy in pressing, and thus, by the people's own conduct, throwing theinselves into the power of their opponents. He strongly recommended the people not to fall into such a snare as the royalists, who, when seeing Oliver Cromwell upon an opposite hill, prematurely rushed into his object, crying out, that the Lord had delivered him up into their hands.

The house divided, and the numbers were-For the motion, 54-Against it, 113-Majority, 59.

The house then went into a committee on the third report of the finance committee.

Mr. Martin called the attention of the committee to the sinecure offices attached to the courts, of law, which he stated to amount to 26,000l. per annum, which sum was sufficient to provide for the proposed increase of the judge's salaries, and so it ought to be applied. He concluded with proposing a resolution in substance as follows:

his own.

Mr. Bankes thought that every unnecessary office ought to be abolished, and that the salary of every office executed by deputy should be reduced to that actually paid to such deputy. He proposed an amendment to that effect.

Mr. Perceval opposed this amendment, because it would involve the abolition of all sinecures, which, as a means of rewarding public service, was a fundamental principle of the constitution! Mr. Bankes was of opinion, that no money ought to be paid by the public but for public duty actually performed,

and it was known that there were 120 or 130 offices highly objectionable on this ground.

Mr. Canning supported the arguments of Mr. Perceval.

Mr. H. Thornton supported the amendment of his honourable friend (Mr. Bankes), and adverted to the sinecures in Scotland and the West-Indies. In his opinion, sinecures were not a convenient way of rewarding public services.

Lord H. Petty conceived, that if sinecures were removed, some other means of remuneration for public services ought to be provided.

Mr. Ponsonby concurred in the argument of his noble friend (Lord H. Petty.) Mr. W. Smith protested against the latitude of the doctrine laid down in the debate on the subject of sinecures, and quoted the authority of various reports from committees of that house, combined with the opinions of some of the best men the country had known, to sustain his objection. In point of fact, those sinecures were not applied to reward public services, but to gratify ministerial favouritism, which rendered their existence still more objectionable. The hon. member read a list of sinecures in Ireland, to the amount of 26,000l. a-year.

The amendment was then negatived without a division; and the resolution, as proposed by Mr. Perceval, was carried.

Lord Ossulston gave notice, that he would propose a resolution, at another opportunity, to the effect, that sinecures were an inexpedient mode of remunerating public servics.

The chairman reported progress, and the business was ordered to be resumed on Tuesday,

Friday June 9.

Mr. Foster moved the order of the day for the third reading of the Irish revenue bill.

Sir J. Newport moved that it should be read a third time this day six months, because it contained a clause of indemnity to officers who had defrauded the

revenue.

Mr. Foster repeated the same arguments which he had used when the motion was made respecting the promotion of Mr. Beauchamp Hill.

Sir S. Romilly said, that the clause, if allowed to remain, would be an everlasting stigma to the house of commons, because it was not, as was imagined, to

grant an indemnity to informers against persons who had committed offences, but an indemnity to persons themselves, a case of which there was no precedent.

Mr. Perceval defended the clause. A division was theu called for, and there appeared-Ayes, 41 | Noes, 47--Majority against ministers, 6.

On the motion of Mr. Curwen, the house took into further consideration the report of his bill.

On the motion of Mr. Perceval, the bill was re-committed, for the purpose of amending the first clause.

In the committee some conversation took place, in which Mr. Bankes objected to the proposed alteration; but it was agreed to without a division.

The Speaker then resumed the chair, and the clause was read, which was to -the following effect:-"That every person who shall give any money, office, "&c. for a seat, shall forfeit the sum of "1000l. and be disabled from sitting for "that county, city, &c. for which he was chosen."

86

market.--Should the bill thus pass nothing could be more dangerous to the constitution.

Sir F. Burdett said, he had all along thought the bill so nugatory, that he felt little or no interest in its success. For his part, he would rather have men entering that house by paying their way, than be coming in under the wing of government. It was not merely office which produced the undue influence, but the expectation of office. With regard to this clause, he thought that it necessarily placed the exclusive influence in the hands of those who were most likely to abuse it.

Mr. Wilberforce and Sir W. Milner considered the term "express" as replete with hostility to the principle of the bill.

Sir J. Newport, in making the distinction between money and office, stated, that the latter influence was armed with a two-edged weapon of injury, viz. It gave you a dependent and corrupt member of parliament, and a bribed and bad officer.

nation to support the bill were that term even admitted to stand part of the clause.

Mr. Perceval saw no reason for inflicting a severer penalty in this case than in that of bribery, which incapacitated for the particular seat only.

A division then took place, and there appeared for Mr. Bankes's amendment, Ayes, 49 Noes, 74.

Lord Milton proposed that the word "express" should be left out before the words "agreement to give any office, &c. in return for a seat.' Were not this done, the bill would be worse than useless.

Mr. Perceval contended that unless the word "express" was retained, no member of parliament could enjoy any security!

Lord Porchester supported the amendment. Even one of his Majesty's ministers had confessedly entered into an implied contract of this kind; and we were then desired not to visit the past, for this bill would prevent future abuses. But now, it seems, the bill was to have no such effect, but ministers were to be allowed the exclusive enjoyment of the

Mr. Canning thought that if the word "express" were omitted, not only those who gave, but those who received offices, would be in a constant state of jeopardy.

Mr. Whitbread would ask, whether, had this bill passed some time ago, gentlemen would not be found to defend the traffick of Lord Castlereagh with Reding, upon the ground that it was not an

66

express contract? [No, said Mr. Perceval across the table.] Mr. W. declared his belief of the contrary; and if the right hon. gentleman thought otherwise, why did he defend the act of Lord Castlereagh, which, according to the undisputed authority of the chair, was a violation of the law of parliament, and which the preamble of this bill declared to be the principle of the constitution? But he valued not that declaration as other gentlemen did. What availed the recognition of a principle, if that recognition was accompanied by a palliative for its violation? If ministers were provided with a protection which would enable them to violate with impunity, the law would be utterly useless. Indeed it would be worse than useless---it would be mischievous; and, however the house might be deceived by such a measure, they

ر

might rely that the public would not be deceived by it. In fact, such a bill, with the insertion of this word " express," promised no good, and threatened much harm; and, therefore, if that word were not omitted, he would feel it his duty to vote against the bill altogether.

Mr. Lyttleton expected much from this bill at the out-set, but it had since been so mutilated, and would be so totally changed if the word objected to were retained, that he could not think of supporting the shadow when the substance was gone. He lamented very seriously the conduct of ministers, who were pursuing a course calculated to disappoint the reasonable expectations of the country, for that moderate reform which he would prefer to any violent change.

The question being loudly called for, the house divided, and the numbers were---For inserting the word " express," 97 Against it, 74-Majority, 23.

Saturday July 10.

and the Scotch militia families bill.Adjourned to Monday.

Monday June 12.

On the motion for the third reading of the SEAT-IN PARLIAMENT SALE BILL. Sir T. Turton rose to express his sentiments on the principle of the bill, not having had an opportunity to do so in a former stage. He expressed his assent generally to parliamentary reform. The bill was greatly docked, but still he hail ed it as it stood as the harbinger of future good things.-At the same time he must say the bill had greatly disappoint ed his expectations.

Mr. Johnstone contended that the conduct of parliament of late years had been such as to entitle them to the thanks of the country, in comparison with what it had been uuder their ancestors

Mr. Abercrombie would have voted for this bill if his only objection had been that it did not go far enough. But this was far from being the only objection. As the bill stood at present it would do a great deal of mischief.

Mr. H. Thornton thought it absolute→ ly necessary that there should be at least a declaratory law to shew that the sale of seats in parliament was a crime.

The Secretary at War was a great admirer of the British constitution as it existed, and saw no reason for any reform. He would, however, vote for the bill.

Mr. Adam observed, that when it was stated and admitted that seats in that house were bought and sold to a great extent, some remedy was necessary. He objected to the word " express," as applied to an agreement, which was a novelty in the law.

The Solicitor-General defended the word "express,” and contended that it was a common expression applied in this sense in acts of parliament.

Lord A. Humilton contended that the gentlemen on the other side were making an experiment on the vitals of the constitution, by the continuance of the most glaring abuses. To correct these ruinous principles and practices his hon. friend (Mr. Curwen) had introduced his bill, of which he was a warm supporter. But it was entirely altered, and would tend only to make the matter worse. thought that it would be better to reject the bill, and take up the business next session.

He

Mr. D. Giddy maintained that property ought to be the criterion of representation in that house-and as a corollary