(Mr. Curwen's) had only made matters worse, by throwing a monopoly of the market for seats into the hands of the treasury. These partial remedies could be of no use where the system was fundamentally wrong. The resolution of 1779, had often been appealed to in vain; and where then was the use of new enactments, the intended effect of which the system necessarily prevented? There was another point to which he was desirous of calling the attention of the house, as he had been misrepresented respecting it, or, at least, as inferences had been drawn from it which were not warranted by the facts. He alluded to the representation which he had made respecting the bargain with the treasury for the borough of Cashel. That part of the charge which stated, that Lord Castlereagh suggested to Mr. Dick the propriety of resigning his seat if he could not vote in favour of the Duke of York, had been denied. But it ought to be observed, that the denial was confined to this-and the inference was, that the rest of the charge, which was by far the most important, was positively true. He was ready to prove that 5000l. had been paid to the treasury for the seat, and that Mr. Dick had been induced to vacate upon a difference arising between him and the ministry, as to his vote on the question respecting the conduct of the Duke of York. This was the important part of the charge which no one had attempted to deny. Under all these circumstances there was the strongest ground for giving a pledge to the nation, that the house would take the subject into consideration. The plan now offered corresponded in its great and leading features with those of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Grey, who were sometimes supported by great divisions, and once the question was lost only by a majority of 20 or 25. In the year 1784 the King had in his speech recommended the subject to the consideration of the house. It had been proposed by Mr. Pitt, that members should be returned for Bir mingham, Leeds, Manchester, &c. instead of the close boroughs, that Mary le-bone, Pancras, &c. should have the right of returning members, and that the right of voting should be extended to the copy-holders. He gave his most hearty concurrence to the motion of his hon. friend, and thought that to give the pledge required, would only be doing justice to the memory of our ancestors,

Sir R. Williams was averse from the imputing of bad motives to any one, and certainly he imputed none to the hon. baronet. But he doubted whether he might not be influenced by those whose views might be less pure. One of the greatest objections which he had to the proceedings of the hon. baronet was, that he did not propose to carry on his plan of reform in that house, but endeavoured to effect his object by means from without.

Sir James Hall observed, that the hon. baronet, though often accused of obscurity, was now plain and explicit. He had stated, in pretty strong terms, that the house did not deserve the confidence of the country--and yet he came forward in that very house with his plan of reform. The motives of the hon, baronet might be good, but his conduct, he thought, extremely dangerous. He could not assent to the motion of the hon. baronet; but he highly complimented Col. Wardle, who had so well conducted himself in adversity. He hoped he would be enabled to bear prosperity with equal magnanimity, and not suffer his brain to be turned by the intoxicating influence of three times three.

Mr. Hutchinson thought that the hon, baronet had not, on the present occasion, been kindly treated. The question was most important, and it was not new; it had often been before the house, and it was impossible to conceive a speech more constitutional in the manner, or more calculated to conciliate and to sooth, than that which had been delivered by the hon. baronet: If he was not authorized to bring forward the subject, who could be so? Few had a greater stake than he had in the country -few had more enlightened minds, or were better qualified to judge of this or any other subject. How the honourable baronet behind (Sir R. Williams) could have imagined that the hon. baronet near him did not wish to effect his object in that house but out of it, he was at a loss to conceive, for the whole of what was proposed must depend upon what should be done in that house. He was anxious that the motives of the vote which he should give to night should not be misrepresented. He was aware of the difficulty of the question-he was aware of its importance--he was sensible that he ran the risk of exposing himself. in some quarters to suspicion-in others, perhaps, to ignominy. In a constitu

tion which afforded so many blessings, we were naturally jealous of every proposed alteration, and the attempt was in danger of being condemned whether it proceeded from the purest patriotism or a desire to overturn our establishments. These apprehensions would appear even more excusable when we looked at the fate of other nations. But much as he valued public opinion, and much as he dreaded his being exposed to misapprehension, he would not deserve a seat in that house if he were to shrink from declaring what was the full conviction of his mind, that there was a crying necessity for reform. He did not pledge himself to any particular plan, but he was ready to declare that there was a necessity for reformationand he would add, a speedy reformation. To prove this, he might advert to many decisions of this eventful session. Many questions would have been decided in a different manner, if the house had been otherwise constituted. He particularly mentioned the rejection of the question of Irish tithes-the fate of Mr. Curwen's bill-the attempt to legislate respecting the Irish revenue, on the ground of irretrievable corruption, &c. &c. If the house had been otherwise constituted, it would have been impossible so long to have resisted the just claims of Ireland. The gentlemen opposite surely ought not to be surprised that others besides the hon. baronet were anxious for reform, when the house had been daringly insulted by the avowal within its walls, that seats were bought and sold.

Mr. Western said, he should give his assent to the motion of the hon. baronet. But he wished to be understood by no means to pledge himself to support the particular plan suggested by the hon, mover in the course of his speech. He had been a constant friend to parliamentary reforın. He voted for the motion which was brought forward in the year 1795 upon the subject, and again in 1797, and he certainly was of opinion, that a reform in the representation was not less necessary at the present moment than it was at that period; and he was satisfied the times were more favourable to the consideration of such a measure than at the periods alluded to. He thought it essentially necessary to give an assurance to the public, that the house would take the question into consideration early in the ensuing session.

Mr. Barham was averse from the pledge, because he was not convinced that the generality of the people were anxious for a reform. But at the same time, he agreed that the hon. baronet had been unkindly treated. No speech was ever more distinguished for its candour and moderation, or less calculated. to irritate the passions, than that of the hon. baronet.

Sir T. Turton asked, whether the constitution in ancient times depended so much upon the borough system? In this respect it might be purified. In ancient times the representation was a representation of property. These boroughs were once places of great wealth and property, and upon that ground sent members to parliament. But circumstances being altered, the representation ought to be varied accordingly. In former times, none were free except freeholders; but now copyholders were equally free and secure, and might therefore partake of the freeholders' privileges. As to the personal reflections thrown out against the hon. baronet, any one conscious of the purity of his motives might easily despise these; and in truth, it was always a proof of a bad cause on the side of those who resorted to such means of defence. As to the particular plan of the hon. baronet, he saw very great objections to it in many points of view. But he understood the hon. baronet to require no more than a pledge from the house, that it would consider the subject. He was not over fond of pledges, but concurring in the principle, he should vote for it if pushed to a division. The gentlemen opposite were averse to any consideration of the subject; they would have nothing reformed, and resembled Squire Western in Tom Jones, who, in one of his disputes with his sister, exclaimed," that he would “be d―d if he went to church if the "liturgy was amended."

Mr. H. Tracey declared himself friendly to the question of reform, and would vote for entertaining it without pledging himself to the particular plan. The right hon. gentleman opposite said, that the generality of the people were not disposed for reform. How did the right hon. gentleman ascertain this? The people in their public meetings had, from one end of the kingdom to the other, expressed themselves in favour of reform; and how could their sentiments be collected except in their public meet

the same way the great King of Prussia did; who, when a soldier in a fresh breeze had his hat blown off, had the soldier severely punished for this accident: and it certainly was observable afterwards, that whether the man was innocent or not, fewer hats fell off afterwards. He, however, was not for atguing in this manner in order to justify the punishing the innocent, which he took to be impossible. Every means should be tried to get at the end desired, before they should adopt so harsh and unjust a mode as was suggested by the report of the committee,

Mr. Wallace defended the report of the committee, and thought the plan proposed the most effectual remedy to check the growth of the evil.

Mr. Stephen was of opinion that the committee went farther than they need have gone, in recommending the proposition they had done; the young men who would be sufferers in consequence of such a proposition being carried into effect, had not been guilty of the offence they wished to punish.

Mr. Grant was convinced that the practice which the court of directors wished to suppress, had a tendency to overturn the whole efficiency of the East India establishment. If situations were allowed to be obtained by corrupt means, all the confidence existing between the company and the servants in India would be overthrown. Therefore the only remedy which could be adopted was to strike at the root of the evil at once, by removing all persons who got into places under the company by corrupt means.

Mr. Perceval asked, if the house adopted the resolution as it then stood, whether it could leave the question in an unprejudiced state? Were it fit all at once to declare, that the directors. had acted contrary to justice and humanity? If the resolution passed, it would then be necessary to legislate for the directors, to make bye-laws for them, and to take all their power out of their bands.

Sir S. Romilly considered this as a case of great injustice, and he was rather surprised to hear such austere sentiments of justice fall froin gentlemen on the other side of the house, which were so inconsistent with the doctrines that had been promulgated by them during the present session. Gentlemen would recollect how the secretary of state defended his corrupt conduct, and

how William Beauchamp Hill, a man who had been convicted of taking bribes, was defended; and yet, after this conduct of their's, they must now, from a desire of inculcating pure and rigid morality, ruin a number of innocent young men, who had committed no crime, and whose parents or friends might have given the money for their appointment,

The Attorney General thought this question ought to be left altogether to the court of directors, and that the house should not interfere with their functions.

Mr. P. Moore deprecated the recal ling of the young men in India, who are fighting their country's battles in that

country.

Mr. Lushington voted for the previous question.

Sir T. Turton said, all questions respecting India of this kind, are by ministers enveloped in the previous ques tion.

The house then divided-For the previous question, 77-Against it, 35.The resolution was of course lost.

Mr. Wardle rose to make his promised motion on the subject of PUBLIC ECONO

MY.

He said, he hoped he should be indulged in the observations which he was about to make, as he had been so particularly called forward. It had been represented that he had talked widely of the burthens of the country, and the grievances from which it might be relie ved. He thought it but justice to himself now to state that which he had be fore stated on the subject; he had said, that if the house of Commons was reformed, and placed upon the original footing upon which the constitution intended it should stand, the amount of the income tax might be saved to the country. If gentlemen in that house thought proper to reprehend him for such language, he need only refer them to the terms in which a great statesman, whom they were in the habit of looking up to with, reverence, had expressed himself on this subject in 1802. In that year Mr. Pitt, speaking on a reform in parliament, said, "that if the house of Commons had been always steady to the interests of their constituents, then no such burthens as now existed would be suffered by the country." Now the language which he (Mr. Wardle) had used, was by no means equally strong with this. It had been made a matter of public accusation against him, that he

had attacked public men; he took this Occasion of solemnly declaring that he had never done so. He might have accused ministers, or men in place, but as individuals he certainly never did, or at least, if he did, he was sorry for it, as it was contrary to his intention. If it was meant, however, by attacking men, that he attacked corruption, he was proud to plead guilty to the accusation, and to declare openly, that while he held a seat in the house, he would with all his powers attack corruption both in and out of that house. In 1802, Mr. Pitt also declared, that the defective state of the representation was the disease under which the nation laboured, and that WITHOUT A REFORM NO GOOD

MINISTER COULD BE OF USE, AND NO HONEST MINISTER WOULD REMAIN IN

OFFICE. If this was the opinion of that statesman, why should the same sentiments be reprehended in others now? Without dwelling further on those opinions, he would now come to the principal object of his speech, the saving which might be made to the public. In 1808, the public expenditure amounted to 71 millions of money. In 1809, it increased to 79 millions. A great saving, instead of this great increase, might have been made. The first article to which he should refer was, that of the household troops. There were two regiments of horse guards, upwards of 800 men each, and one regiment of blues, of 600. Now it was well known, that these troops were never sent on service; and if 500 of them were kept for parade, it would be fully sufficient. The amount of cavalry also which was kept up on, our establishment exceeded all bounds. At present we had of dragoons 23,399 men. He was convinced that 15,000 would be fully sufficient for any service we might require, exclusive of those in the East Indies. By this dimunition he would propose to save 1,276,000l. annually. He would next refer to Foreign corps. These amounted to 22,978, the expence of which amounted to 1,800,000l. annually. This he thought by far too great a force of this description of troops. He was not singular in this opinion; he was borne out by no less an authority than that of Lord Chatham, who, in 1757 when the bugbear of invasion was stalking through the land, thought it most politic to dismiss these foreign troops altogether. He did not mean to cast on them, as men, any par

ticular reflection; but he thought a sus picion ought always to light on merce nary troops. To justify this opinion, he need only refer to the expeditions to Quiberon, to Malta, to Hanover, where many of our native troops were wholly employed in keeping the foreign troops from desertion. At all events, they were a most doubtful species of force, and it was astonishing to think that some of their officers even had been placed in rank above British officers by having their commissions antedated!

The next corps to which he should allude was the royal staff corps, which cost annually 20,000l. and was a perfectly novel description of force, for it belonged to the Engineers; and if any such force had been wanted, it would have been easy to increase the Engineers, instead of instituting this new denomination of troops. The militia also cost annually three millions, of which, by allowing half the men to spend a month employed at the harvest,300,0001. might be saved. The expence attending the local militia amounted to 1,218,000l. out of which 800,000l. was allowed for the staff! This he must call an expen diture both unnecessary and profligate, and one which would be spurned at by a reformed house of Commons. The clothing of this corps was most extravagant, it amounted to no less than 31. per man; whereas half-a-guinea per man would have been fully sufficient to procure them a jacket and trowsers, which was all that was necessary for the purposes of uniform. By this, 700,0001. annually might be saved. The expence of the volunteer force was also estimated at 1,000,000l. per annum. This was also useless; for the spirit of the country, and the attendant advantages on the service, such as exemption from ballot, &c. ought to be sufficient to induce men to enter into it. the case in Ireland in 1782. For such

This was

a species of force military clothing was not necessary. What had attire to do with men who could be employed but six weeks in the year?

He next adverted to the Royal Wag gon Train, in support of which 48,9931. was annually expended-it was quite useless, for it could only be employed at home, where its service was not requisite. He also objected to the institution of the Manx Fencibles, which cost 24,000l. per annum; Volunteers also were in use in the Isle of man. But,