FINANCE COMMITTEE

HC Deb 30 June 1807 vol 9 cc692-715

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his notice, in consequence of the general sense of the house, and in obedience to the recommendation in the lords commissioners speech, for the renewal of those inquiries which had been interrupted by the late dissolution of parliament, rose to move for the renewal of the Finance Committee. In recommending the proposition he had to submit to the house, it was unnecessary for him to enlarge upon the importance of such inquiries to the public interest, because no difference of opinion existed, no objection was felt to the revival of the committee. The only question upon which any difference would arise was, as to the appointment of the committee, and the persons whom the house might think proper to select. He had reason to think, that a difference of opinion would prevail on this subject, because he had, on a former night, heard expressions from the other side of the house, that the gentlemen there would be disappointed, if all the members of the former committee, who were now members of the house, should not be appointed. He was sensible of the inexpediency of such an appointment, that though he should propose to continue some of the members of that committee, he should leave out others, in order to make room for the introduction of members of a different description. The noble lord opposite (lord Howick) had said, that all the members of the committee ought to be appointed, except two, his hon. friend (Mr. S. Bourne), and the hon. baronet (sir H. Mildmay) who had, on the preceding day, made a satisfactory statement in his justification from the charge which had been imputed to him. He should follow, therefore, in that instance, the advice of the noble lord, and not press the appointment of either of his hon. friends; and as the noble lord, who had originally recommended the committee, had not appointed any person in office, he should adhere to his precedent. His hon. friend (Mr. S. Bourne) being now in office, would not, therefore, be proposed on the committee, though acquitted by the noble lord opposite of the charge urged against him; and the hon. baronet, acting under the influence of a sense of delicacy greater than the occasion called for, had requested that he might not be proposed, as it appeared to be the opinion of some members of the house of commons, that some farther explanation was necessary.—He could not help here calling to the recollection of the house the manner in which the committee had been originally appointed, so different from any committee that had ever been appointed in parliament, and composed almost exclusively of one description of persons. There were only two persons upon it, who could be supposed, from their parliamentary conduct, to be friendly to the present administration; three others were not biassed towards either party, and all the rest were such as would de disposed to view subjects in the same light with the noble lord (hear! hear!). A committee so appointed could not be impartial, or answer the expectations of the house or the public. As he did not mean to enlarge the number beyond 25, the number of which the former committee had consisted, because that was the greatest number that could conveniently assemble for business, he meant to exclude some of the former members, in order to introduce others, for the more impartial constitution of the committee. The five that had been removed by the event of the election, were not enough for that purpose, and the house would in its discretion decide upon that point. In the appointment of the committee also, he meant to adopt the suggestion of the noble lord, by giving the preference to the appointment of it openly to a ballot. It was his opinion, however, that the appointment by ballot was in general to be preferred. Nothing could be more invidious than the discussing whether any particular individual was a proper person to be appointed on the committee; and the fitness of persons to act together upon such a committee, could be better consulted by individuals making out their lists, for a ballot. He had acceded, however, to the suggestion of the noble lord, because he should thereby get rid of any suspicion that any thing was intended, which he was afraid to avow openly. Before he made any motion, he should read over the list of the committee he meant to propose, in order that the house might see whether he had not retained the most efficient members of the late committee. He had already stated the necessity of making some alteration in the constitution of the committee, because there were many acts of the last administration which would be subjects of inquiry. He could state many facts which would induce the house not to trust with implicit confidence to those, who were disposed only to praise the late administration, and who, by their overbearing authority in the committee might keep back the inquiries into their particular acts. The late ministers had expressed themselves, on the first appointment of the committee, very much averse to the grant of places in reversion; there was, however, the instance to which his attention had been called, of their having a short time before they went out of office, appointed two offices in reversion of a most extraordinary nature; he alluded to the appointment of a Collector and Surveyor of Customs in the port of Buenos Ayres, a place not then in the possession of his majesty. These were reversionary grants to take place upon an uncertain contingency, and made by those gentlemen who appeared to be so nice on this subject. (hear, hear!)—He had, on a former occasion, stated, without giving any opinion upon the propriety of appointing such officers, the nomination of 300 Surveyors of Taxes. The nomination was founded on a representation from the Commissioners of Taxes, made in March, 1806, but the appointment could not take place till the business was submitted to parliament. When the dissolution took place in October, without any sanction of parliament having been obtained for these appointments, the persons were designated to the offices, in the way the noble lord had said on a former night: members of parliament waited on the minister, they were received civilly, and the promise made. But the parliament met in December, and sat some months; the measure for sanctioning the appointment was not brought forward, and the hon. gentlemen opposite, when they lost the power of performance, were compelled to revert to the condoling letters which he had before alluded to. This circumstance would induce the house not to place implicit or peculiar confidence in those gentlemen, who viewed every thing in the same light as the late administration. Another appointment made by the late administration, was that of Gazette Writer, created by patent, for Scotland, with a salary of £300 per annum. This office had been before divided between the editors of three newspapers (hear! hear!). He wished the hon. gentlemen to hear his statement, and to bear in mind that the business of the office was performed by these three persons, without any expence to the public, though they made a profit of £200 a year by the publications in their newspapers. These persons had been turned out of their employments, and an appointment by patent given to the present possessor; and he should ask whether any gentleman believed that this had been done with any other view than to give the place to that person? He should not dwell in detail upon all the acts of the late ministers, but he confessed himself at a loss to understand what they could mean by the appointment of a Professor of Medical Jurisprudence. (a laugh, and hear! hear!). He acknowledged that he was ignorant of the duty of that professor, and could not comprehend what was meant by the science he professed. There had also been three new sheriffs appointed in Scotland, with salaries of between £250 and £300 a year, on a division of counties, where the duties were before executed as in one Shrievalty. These were some of the many acts of the late administration, which would be likely to come under the consideration of the committee. Another appointment, which was equally censurable, was the grant of a pension, during pleasure, of £400 a year, to a civil and criminal Judge in Scotland. (loud cries of hear, hear!). This grant had, no doubt, not been carried into effect, but that was owing to the doubts entertained by the person who was to carry it into effect in Scotland, as to its legality. He should not go through the other exceptionable appointments made by these gentlemen, as he had stated enough to shew, that those who thought exactly with them were not to be exclusively confided in. He should next proceed to read the names of those whom he proposed to be appointed as the committee. It had been usual, that the person who named the committee should always stand the first on the list; but from this he begged to be excused. The noble lord opposite him (lord H.Petty) had done the same; but the house had declared it to have been the usual practice, and on that alone he was induced to continue on it. He hoped, however, there would be no irregularity in his requesting to be left out of it. The following were the gentlemen he proposed;—On the former committee—Mr. Bankes, Mr. Biddulph, lord H. Petty, Mr. Grattan, lord A. Hamilton, Mr. H. Thornton, Mr. W. Cavendish, Mr. N. Calvert, Mr. Alderman Combe, Mr. Brogden, and Mr. T. Baring.—New members—Mr. Leycester, Mr. Alderman Shaw, Mr. Hawkins Browne, Mr. Joddrell, Mr. Hiley Addington, Mr. Richard Wharton, Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Milnes, Mr. P. Carew, Mr. Leslie Foster, Mr. Ryder, Mr. Ellison, and Mr. Wigram.—These were the persons whom he wished to have appointed on the committee; and he trusted that the house would be sensible of the propriety of the selection he had made. They would observe, that in the list, there were two of the Northern members for Scotland, namely, lord A. Hamilton, and Mr. Rutherford; and two for Ireland, Mr. Grattan and Mr. Foster. Having said thus much, he should first move, "That a Committee be appointed to examine and consider what regulations and checks have been established in order to controul the several branches of the public expenditure in Great Britain and Ireland, and how far the same have been effectual, and what further measures can be adopted for reducing any part of the said expenditure, or diminishing the amount of salaries and emoluments, without detriment to the public service." He should then propose the members individually.—On the question being put upon the first motion,

Lord Henry Petty said, that it would be impossible for him not to admire the candour of the right hon. gent. who at the moment of moving for the appointment of a committee of inquiry, had introduced his motion by a gross and partial statement of facts, which the committee was to decide upon. He said the statement was gross and partial, because it was unsupported by any document. He did not impute any unfair intention to the right hon gent. who appeared to him to have spoken from that bias which gentlemen on either side of the house usually felt. If he should fail of refuting the observations of the right hon. gent. it was because he had no notice of the attack, and could not have had the advantage of consulting those documents which would have enabled him to repel it. The conduct of the right hon. gent. was the more extraordinary, as he had sheltered an hon. baronet, on the preceding night, from the effects of a charge against him, till the document should be produced to justify it; and yet, without any documents to bear him out, that right hon. gent. now called upon the house to receive his various charges against his majesty's late ministers. Unprepared as he must be from his ignorance of the intention or attack of the right hon. gent, he should, so far as his memory served him, endeavour to follow the right hon. gent. through his statement. One of the charges made by the right hon. gent. was, the appointment of a Collector for the Port of Buenos Ayres. Would not every gentleman imagine, from the manner in which this charge had been urged, that a considerable expense was incurred, a heavy burthen accrued in consequence to the public? Was it not common candour, or rather was it not a gross want of candour in the right hon. gent. not to have stated, that no expence was to be incurred on the part of the public, till the duties of the office were to be performed on the recapture of Buenos Ayres? Considerable inconvenience had been felt from the want of an establishment for the collection of the duties in the first instance, and the appointment had been made to guard against a similar inconvenience in case of the re-capture of the settlement. The right hon. gent. had renewed his statement with respect to the appointment of the 300 Surveyors of Taxes, a measure which had originated with the Commissioners of Taxes. As to the nomination of the officers, some might have been so nominated, but since the matter had been mentioned, several persons had stated to him, that they had recommended individuals to these offices, but it had been uniformly answered that no appointment could take place without the sanction of parliament. Another charge was the creation of an office, to which some might object, but which had been given to an individual, who had devoted a long life of disinterested service to the public, and who had in the University but an income of 135l. per annum. It had been thought a better mode to provide for this distinguished and meritorious gentleman, Mr. Dugald Stuart, by giving him that place, which had before been enjoyed by three newspaper writers, than by a pension. Were editors of newspapers the only literary men the gentlemen opposite would protect? was theirs the only science they encouraged? As to the pension to a civil and criminal Judge, he had heard nothing of any such grant. He should not be bold enough to say, that any administration might not fall into abuses, and he had always, since he had a seat in that house, supported motions for inquiries, whether in the shape of naval or military commissions. He was glad to see the right hon. gent. following the example which he had himself, for the first time, given of excluding persons in office from such a committee. As to the gentlemen whom the right hon. gent. left out from the number of the former committee, he should only say, that he saw no good ground for such exclusion. He thought the object of the right hon. gent. would be gained by introducing eight new members in the place of those who were not members of this parliament, and of the hon baronet (sir H. Mildmay) and the hon. gent. opposite (Mr. S. Bourne) now in office. If the parliament was not dissolved to get rid of the committee, why not revive it, as far as that could be done, as it existed before the dissolution? The members who had proceeded with the business in the former committee, would more readily take it up in this, and he should therefore object to any individual who should be proposed to the exclusion of any of the former members who were eligible. The following was the list of the former members in the present parliament: Mr. H. Thornton, Mr. Bankes, lord Mahon, Mr. Biddulph, lord A. Hamilton, Mr. Lamb, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Baring, Mr. Brogden, Mr. Calvert, Mr. W. Cavendish, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Western, and Mr. Alderman Combe. If these members should be appointed on the committee, he should not then object to the nomination of any other members whom the right hon. gent. might think proper to propose.

Mr. Boyle, (Solicitor-General for Scotland), contended, that it was the duty of the committee to investigate the jobs of one administration as well as those of another. It was not only the cases alluded to by the noble lord opposite that challenged inquiry, but others also. The appointment of a collector for Buenos Ayres, among others, called most loudly for investigation. It was true, the appointment would not take place, unless the settlement should be reduced by his majesty's arms; but the nomination constituted a new species of reversion contingent on an event which might or might not happen. The appointment of Gazette writer of Scotland, an office quite new, and the purest of all possible sinecures, was also a proper object of inquiry. He allowed the high merit of the individual who was appointed to this office, but that merit ought to be rewarded by a less exceptionable provision. The printers of the Edinburgh newspapers had been allowed to publish what was called a Gazette, when a change was introduced in the Bankrupt Laws of Scotland, in 1793, on the express condition stipulated by an illustrious individual now no more (Mr. Pitt), that it should cost the country nothing. Now it was taken out of the hands of those newspaper printers, to whom it had afforded a profit of £200 a year, and with a salary of £300 annexed, it was transferred to Mr. Dugald Stuart, his heirs and assignees. This was surely a grant which in every shape called for investigation. It was a sinecure and a reversionary grant united.

Mr. Biddulph said, that though he had introduced the measure of the Committee of Inquiry, he had not been allowed to chuse the members. Yet he was anxious to impress upon the house the propriety of adhering, as much as possible, to the names of which it was originally composed. He had attended the committee constantly, except on a few days, on which he had been prevented by ill health, and he could say, that the candour, the good understanding, and the inquiring spirit that had been manifested in it, had never been surpassed. It was impossible to state any political grievance to which it did not attend. The act which it had brought forward, was the application to the house upon which the bill for restraining the grants of places in reversion was founded. The time required for the investigation necessary to prepare well founded and useful reports, had prevented those reports from being made as early as they might otherwise have been. As to the persons who were to be introduced to fill the vacancies created by the changes in the representation, he saw no great exception to the persons proposed. At the same time, he should take occasion, when the names should come to be considered, to propose the name of one person, whom he should, at present, designate no further than by saying, that he appeared to have the keenest sense of the public wrongs, and the strongest disposition to investigate and to reform the wasteful expenditure of the public money.

Mr. Brand wished for a fair and honourable inquiry, such as was due to the character of the house, such as was expected by anxious country and a suffering people. He was partial to the right hon. gentlemen on the bench below him (the late ministers), from a high opinion of their talents and in- tegrity. But if any charge should be made on them, he would be the first to call for inquiry and investigation into the grounds of that charge. But when he looked to the bench opposite (the Treasury Bench), and saw on it men certainly all remarkable for their talents, but of whom no two were without pensions, sinecures, and reversions, settled on themselves, or on their families, inquiry was loudly called for, to shew how they and their infants had become possessed of those drains from the public purse. He was shocked at the mode of meeting one accusation by retorting another. When those most remarkable for ability in investigation were excluded, when the names of the new committee were more numerous than those of the old, when the present ministers, not satisfied with introducing eight names instead of those of the old members not returned, he was sure the country would not think the present committee auspicious to the cause of retrenchment and reform. To baffle a people loaded with burthens by holding out a delusive investigation, could lead to nothing but disappointment and discontent. He lamented the insinuation, that no set of men could be found in the house free from party devotions, or from party animosity, an insinuation that must sink the character of the house in the opinion of the country, and must diminish the hopes entertained from the investigation.

Mr. Secretary Canning had no doubt that the hon. gentlemen opposite wished for a fair inquiry, and perhaps they thought the appointment of the former members the best means of securing such an inquiry. In answer to them, and particularly to the hon. gent. (Mr. Biddulph), who was entitled to particular consideration in every thing connected with this subject, he had to say, that if human affairs could be conducted without partiality or prejudice, the plan they recommended would be entitled to preference. But as the contrary was the fact, and as personal and party attachments were known to be almost universally prevalent in that house, he saw no danger in avowing to the public what was already well known, the prevalence of those party attachments, and to guard against any unfair preponderance of those attachments, by balancing the numbers of the parties. It was therefore desirable to avoid appointing those whose party prejudices ran all in the same course. He would, indeed, be ready to allow, that if there was one set of men free from all party prejudice and animosity, that if those men had been for many years out of office, and if on coming at length into office, they exercised their power, neither to stigmatize their opponents, nor immediately to reward their adherents, he would allow that it would be very fit to encourage so brilliant an example of purity, by appointing these men to be of the committee. If not perfectly pure, they would at least be perfectly unaccused, while the conduct of the inquiry would be in their own hands. If, however, he were called upon to point out the description of men most free from political animosity, it was not to the opposite bench that he would look. If he was called upon to point out those who had abstained most from the use of power for the advantage of their dependents, he would look there as little for the reality of the fanciful perfection which was so much to be wished for. If, on the contrary, he were to look for those who made the best use of a very short interval of power for the benefit of themselves and their adherents, the hon gentlemen were those on whom he should fix. A noble lord (H. Petty) had, upon a former occasion, told a story of an old Roman Moralist, who wished to live in a house of glass, that all his actions might be seen. The noble lord had expressed a wish to live in such a house himself. He could not avoid, however, repeating to him the vulgar proverb, "Those who have a house of glass, ought not to begin by throwing stones" [a laugh]. Those by whom this principle of parliamentary practice had been not long since laid down, were now unwilling that the house of glass, which this inquiry was to constitute, should be enlarged by a bow window, so as to include them (a laugh). It was impossible to state grounds for inquiry, otherwise than generally in detail. When his right hon. friend made general charges, he was called as loudly to particularise, and when he did particularise, those who forced him to do so cried shame. Well, indeed, might the specification be objected to by the noble lord opposite, and his colleagues. The noble lord and his colleagues had found out, that a collector, comptroller, searchers, and tide waiters, were wanted at Buenos Ayres, a place not yet in our possession. Common reversions were at least exempt from the fault of bringing immediate charges on the country. But this appointment conveyed so many reversions, which would become immediately chargeable, unless, indeed, the place should not be taken, and the mischief would fall entirely on the unfortunate collector, comptroller, searchers and tide waiters. But it was not only in the burthen that this ap- pointment was mischievous, but in the influence which it created. If it had been in the contemplation of a government that covered sea and land with its glories, and was to extend its power over the world, to apply this system to all its conquests, not only to those actually atchieved, but to those they meant to accumulate one upon another, opening a scene which would have made Buonaparté little in comparison—we should have had collectors and comptrollers of the Bosphorus, and searchers and waiters of Rosetta (a laugh). There was here to be observed, a great change in the tone of the hon. gentlemen on the subject of Buenos Ayres. When the conquest of that place was effected, the hon. gentlemen thought it not worthy of being mentioned in the king's speech. Now it had acquired a vast importance in their eyes; and why? not from its importance to the commerce, or navigation, or to the general resources of the country, but because it was a place that afforded room for the appointment of collectors, comptrollers, searchers, and tide waiters. This was a complete key to the whole policy of the late ministers—and a most happy illustration it was of their large, liberal, and enlightened views! However far the range might have extended in contemplation, the actual list ended here, and it became necessary to return home to the 300 surveyors of taxes. The noble lord's defence here, as in the former instance, was, that the appointment was prospective. But was the influence prospective? Why did the appointment take place on the eve of a general election? If the coincidence was accidental, the hon. gentlemen were certainly the first favourites of fortune! He acknowledged the high literary merit of Mr. Dugald Stuart, who had besides the merit, and he thought it no light one, of having educated the noble lord. He acknowledged and lamented the general insufficiency of the rewards bestowed on literary merit in this country; but he highly condemned the mode of reward here adopted, by constituting a new sinecure, and bestowing it on Mr. Stuart and his assignees for 21 years. As to the comparison instituted by the noble lord between this grant and the rewards granted to the writers of the Anti-jacobin, he for one, felt no shame for the character or principles of that work; nor any other sorrow for the share he had in it than that which the imperfection of his pieces was calculated to inspire. He was told that this provision of Mr. Stuart was substituted for a professorship of medical jurisprudence, which it had been intended to institute. He should like to see the hon. gentlemen in the full swing of their insolence of power, making this appointment, immediately after their unqualified attacks upon their antagonists, as much as to say, "Though you can do nothing, we dare do every thing." He doubted whether this same science of medical jurisprudence could be found any where mentioned, even in the Scotch Encyclopædia. In answer to what the noble lord had said about newspapers, he would ask, was there no instance here of a newspaper (the Morning Chronicle) conspicuous for its attachment to the constitution, and for the fairness of its mode of detailing all transactions in which its party interests had a place, whose proprietor was appointed Secretary to the Barrack Board, at which a secretary was a new and a sinecure institution? With such an instance in their own conduct, how could they tax the present ministers with partiality to newspapers? There was another act which he looked upon as a flagrant breach of the constitution, the grant of a pension of 400l. a-year during pleasure to a Scotch Judge, [lord H. Petty said, across the table, he knew nothing about this matter]. The hon. gentlemen, when in power, were so united, that no difference of opinion prevailed among them; when out, and charged with a job, they fled in all directions, and left it to light on what head it would.

Mr. Curwen rejoiced to see the right hon. gent. throw the first stone from the glasshouse. Though he was partial to his hon. friends below him, he was not one of those who would defend any man through thick or thin. He was sorry there were those who acted on the contrary system. There was a vote of the house, declaring the propriety of abolishing sinecure places. He was glad to hear the hon. gentlemen opposite so strenuous in condemning the creation of such places. It was a pledge that no such thing would be done in the administration of the hon. gentlemen. It was however reported, that all the right hon. gentlemen opposite held sinecure places for themselves or their families. If such a system was conquered, though our allies might have lost a battle, we should have acquired a great victory, when the money that was wrung from the people could no longer be absorbed in this manner. The right hon secretary had said, there was no independent man in parliament: he was at least thus far independent, that he had never accepted a favour from any minister, nor ever would. He would ask the right hon. secretary, whether or not he himself had a pension?

Mr. Secretary Canning denied having said there were no independent men in the house. He had asserted only that party attachments were prevalent. As to the hon. gent's. question, the answer was, that on his retiring from the office of under secretary for foreign affairs, Mr. Pitt and lord Grenville proposed to make a provision for him, which he had accepted, and settled by his desire one half on himself, and the other half on two very near and dear relations, who were dependent for their subsistence upon his labours.

Dr. Laurence thought it was extraordinary, that on the very day when we had received from the continent news most disastrous to our allies, the secretary of state for foreign affairs, should, in the course of his speech, amuse the house so much with idle fancies, with jokes and epigrammatic points. As to his argument, it did not bear at all upon the question. The question was for the appointment of a committee, to consider and report what retrenchments might be made in the public expenditure, and what useless places might be abolished. Now, there was no one instance mentioned, either by the chancellor of the exchequer or the right hon. secretary, which could be referred to that committee. As to the appointment of a Collector or Comptroller of Buenos Ayres, there was no burden now upon the country on that account, and if the place should be taken, it was evident that there must be such officers. The question, then, between the late and present administration on this point was merely who should have the influence that was to be obtained by the appointments? Next, as to the place given to Mr. Dugald Stuart, the right hon. gent. did not object to the burden but only to the mode, and thought it would be better to provide for him by a pension than a place. On this point, therefore, there was no retrenchment proposed. With respect to the 300 Surveyors of Taxes also, the right hon. secretary confessed that the appointment of them was right, and that the present ministers meant to pursue the same measure, but that they intended to appoint the surveyors themselves. In all those instances which the chancellor of the exchequer had mentioned, there was not one in which they proposed the least retrenchment of expence, or any matter which could be referred to the committee. They only seemed angry at having their own patronage and influence somewhat intrenched upon by the appointments of their predecessors.

Sir S. Romilly lamented that the simple question before the house had been so much wandered from. Much was expected from the inquiry which it was now proposed to institute. The character of the house would depend upon the issue of that inquiry; and the confidence in it would depend on the description of men of whom it would be composed. When it was sought to replace in its proper situation every thing else that had been disturbed by the dissolution, this most important matter ought not to be deranged. Though other gentlemen might be as well qualified in other respects, the knowledge already acquired by those who composed the last committee rendered them by far the fittest persons to be re-chosen now. If they were not appointed, the pledge given in his majesty's speech would not be kept.

Mr. Bankes said, that it was with the utmost pain he had heard the accusations and recriminations which had been brought forward this night. He thought the effect of them must be to degrade the character of all public men in the eyes of the public at large. He could not avoid expressing his strongest disapprobation of some of the acts which had been stated to have been done by the late administration. As to the granting a pension, during pleasure, to a civil and criminal Judge in Scotland, he thought it a measure so unconstitutional, and in every point of view so reprehensible, that it must be seriously investigated before the committee. As the Finance Committee was a committee of inquiry only, and had not the power of acting upon whatever might be the result of their investigation, he did expect that not a single member of the late committee would have been excluded on the re-appointment of it. What danger, he would ask, was there to be apprehended from the same persons that had already shewn themselves to be both able and industrious in the pursuit of these inquiries, continuing to inquire, and to report the evidence which they received, together with their opinion thereon, to the house, when the house would afterwards have the power of judging for itself upon the evidence, and of agreeing or disagreeing with their committee as to their discretion might seem fit, and of acting only according to the judgment of the house? There was one point, in fact, upon which the late committee had not entirely made up their minds; it was but justice, therefore, that an opportunity should be given them that they might be enabled to come at that final determination. The particular point to which he alluded was that of a discovery which was made by the committee of some abuse in the office of the Paymaster-General. At the time when that discovery was made, no apprehension was entertained of the sudden dissolution of parliament which afterwards took place. Under the impression that they were likely to sit much longer, they came to a resolution not to deliver in their report, as to the facts on which their discovery rested, until they should have hit upon the means that would be most likely to prevent a recurrence of similar abuses in future. Upon that point they had not come to any determination; but for his own part, he believed that the only radical cure for such an evil was the speedy passing of Accounts. But, as the committee had not come to any determination on that head, that was one reason why he wished that the same persons should be again appointed to an office which they had already most honourably filled. But, exclusive of this consideration, there was another, namely, that the zeal, ability, industry and integrity which he had already witnessed in the former members, had such weight upon his mind, that he in fact regretted that any one of their names should be omitted on the present occasion; but he was most peculiarly sorry, he must say, at seeing the name of an hon. friend of his (Mr. Sharpe) omitted, as he had been one of the most active, the most eminently useful servant to the public in the former committee—a gentleman to whose acuteness and industry, the house and the public were principally indebted for the discoveries which were made in the first report. But as a plain matter of fact, he was confident it must be obvious to every fair, candid and impartial man, that those who had already given up a good deal of their time and bent their mind to inquiries of the nature which was spoken of, must be infinitely better qualified to enter on such inquiries in the present parliament, than any other gentleman whatever who had not heretofore turned his attention that way.

Mr. Whitbread said, that from an expectation that the committee would have much longer time to continue their investigations than he found was afterwards permitted them, and knowing as he did, that owing to his mind being otherwise engaged at the commencement of their sitting he was unable to attend at the first of their investigations; he therefore did not think fit to attend the committee during the latter part of their sitting, but waited until they should have made a report, intending then to join them on their entering upon a fresh subject of inquiry. For this reason he agreed with the hon. member who spoke last, and on the ground which had been by him stated, he could not complain that his name was omitted in the list of members to form the present committee.

Mr Addington thought that it was necessary his vote on a former evening should not lead to any misconstruction. He did not vote for the address, and oppose the amendment, because he considered the dissolution of parliament a laudable measure, but because this recurrence to the sense of the people was to be justified on constitutional grounds. He was fully aware that it must be attended with great and serious inconveniences, and therefore he was most anxious that matters should be restored as nearly as possible to the state in which they were prier to that appeal, or to the condition in which they would have been, had there been no dissolution of parliament. Such were the views with which he conceived the chancellor of the exchequer brought in the bill last night, and he hoped his expectations would not be disappointed. With regard to the names, he had only, one objection to make, and it respected a person, of whose abilities or deficiencies he was the most competent to judge. He hoped the house would exclude himself, as he felt that he was not adequate to discharge the important duty. He entertained always a high opinion of his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the exchequer, and he earnestly hoped caution would be observed, in the present arrangement, in order to avoid those suspicions that any partiality must unavoidably produce.

Lord Cochrane declared, that he did expect that the same regulation would have been adopted on this occasion, as that which had been agreed to with respect to Private Bills. Besides this, from their actions he judged that the last committee was better than any new one that was likely to be appointed.

Colonel Shipley declared that the former committee had the entire confidence of the country, when what he felt himself entitled to call the unjustifiable conduct of ministers, the dissolution, deprived the country of the further benefit of their labours. For this reason he thought that ministers owed it to the individuals who composed that committee, to the house, and to the country, to re-animate, now they had an opportunity of doing so, that virtuous body whose vital powers the pestilential breath of ministers had for a time suspended.

Mr. Stuart Wortley asked an hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Bankes), whether the report was regularly drawn up before him, or with his approbation as chairman of the committee, and ready to be delivered at the bar of the house when the dissolution took place?

Mr. Bankes answered, that that was the only day on which he was absent from the committee. He understood, however, that the report was drawn up, approved of by the committee, and ready to be presented at the bar of the house. As he had already stated, the committee had come to the resolution of relating the facts, and pointing out the remedy at the same time, but such a resolution was very fairly alterable according as circumstances might suggest to the committee; of such circumstances the dissolution was certainly one.

Mr. Huskisson observed, that the committee had adjourned to two o'clock on Monday; consequently they had not time to have prepared such a report as that which was spoken of, before the dissolution took place.

Mr. H. Thornton declared that he was of opinion that the statement of facts and the remedy proposed for those evils ought to be given together; the committee was of the same opinion; but the resolution of the committee, he thought was repealable, as circumstances might appear to them to justify it; and for his own part he was of opinion that it would be much better that a naked report of such facts as had came to their knowledge should be given to parliament, than that the report should be entirely lost, and the committee deprived of the power of stating what they knew, by the dissolution.

Mr. Alderman Combe assured the house that in consequence of the absence of their chairman, another gentleman was called to the chair. The report was distinctly read, and he never saw or heard any act of any committee of that house meet with more unanimous approbation, than the report which was now mentioned.

Mr. Sharpe acknowledged, that he felt the full force of the two compliments which had been paid him. To his hon, friend (Mr. Bankes) he was extremely thankful for the very handsome manner in which he had mentioned his name. To the gentlemen on the other side, he had also reason to express his acknowledgment of the kindness which they had done him; for he considered it to he as high a compliment as those gentlemen could bestow, when they thought proper to express their objection to him by the omission of his name in the new list. There was one fact, however, with which he thought it right that he should acquaint the house, that was, that if he should not be again chosen a member of the Finance Committee, and should those that were to be the chosen people of the new ministry, attempt to suppress any statement of evidence that had been already entered on, it was some consolation to him to have it to say, that he had in his own hands a number of extracts and minutes from the intended report, which he pledged himself to bring forward whenever he should see any necessity for doing so. But in point of fact, he had much rather that he should not be again appointed to serve in the Finance Committee, as he would now stand in a very different situation from that in which he formerly acted.

Mr. Lamb declared that he took on himself his full share of the responsibility which was attached to the framing of the report.

Lord A. Hamilton added his testimony to that of his hon. friend as to the necessity which there was for the formation of the report, and took also upon himself his full share of the responsibility which was attached to it.

Lord Howick said, there were some points in the debate upon which he could not forbear to offer a few observations. Before, however, he proceeded to these points, he begged leave to say, that there seemed to be some misunderstanding among the gentlemen on the other side, with regard to the Report, which was ready to be presented on the day of the prorogation. If gentlemen were but recovered from their warmth upon this subject, he thought it might be easily proved that the conduct of the committee alluded to was strictly correct and impartial; that they had done no more than their duty, nay more, that they would have violated their duty, if they had not acted as they had done. The hon. gent. who acted as chairman of that committee, had resolved not to report until a statement of the evils they discovered should be accompanied by a description of the remedy to be recommended. But that resolution was revocable, and the hon. gent. admitted that the committee had completed their inquiries. They had materials to report upon, and in fact, if he was rightly informed, the committee were in daily expectation of the hon. gent. coming down as chairman, with a report prepared for their consideration. But the report of a sudden dissolution being communicated to the hon. gent., that hon. gent., and he did not mention it for any purpose of blame, thought proper to leave town in order to secure another object, where he had reason to expect a contested election. The other members remained in town; and hearing the prospect of a speedy dissolution, he would put it to the house and the country, whether they were not bound to take care that the fruit of their laborious investigations should not be lost? With a view to guard against that, and with the prospect before them, the committee were, he contended, perfectly right in proceeding as they had done, although, owing to a little dexterity, the attainment of their object was prevented for the moment. That, however, this committee had, on the whole, acted a most meritorious part; that they had been active and diligent in their inquiries, and that in the conclusion of their labours they had done what their duty required, he would be ever ready to maintain. But this committee was not to be revived as it stood before, because, as the secretary for foreign affairs had stated, it was necessary to introduce into it a different set of men, of a different party in politics, which change that rt hon. gent. declared to be necessary with a view to impartiality. For according to that right hon. secretary's declamatory strain of observations there was no chance of obtaining impartiality, but through what he called a collision of opposite opinions, and that too in a committee of inquiry. Now, for himself, he would say, that he was now, and had always been, a party man, and for these reasons; first, because he thought a party connection was the most effectual way to promote any public object; and secondly, because, to say the least of it, he could not think from what he had seen in that house, or heard out of it, that men who disclaimed party, were the most remarkable for independence and purity. But, much as he preferred a party connection, and was convinced of its beneficial operations for the public, still he would deprecate the idea of it if he thought the attachments it engendered were likely to stifle inquiry, or to conceal the public malversation of a party man. Sure he was that among that party with which he had the honour to act, there existed no such disposition; and yet, unless the gentlemen on the other side entertained such a suspicion, he could not conceive a reason for the manner in which they prepared to new model this committee. Among the names of those members of the former committee whom the chancellor of the exchequer thought proper to exclude, he desired to have one pointed out to whom any suspicion could reasonably attach, of being influenced by party attachments in the examination of public delinquency. He would take, for instance, without any disposition to particular preference, his hon. friend near him (Mr. Whitbread). Would the gentlemen on the other side object to his independence, after the swelling compliments which the house had heard some time since applied to his hon. friend's manly independence by the secretary for foreign affairs? He meant upon the discussion of the conduct of the negociation. He would ask of these gentlemen, whether they could suspect that his hon. friend would, if appointed to this committee, attempt to screen even him, were he guilty, from the consequences of any malversation? Upon what ground, then, was the name of his hon. friend excluded? And he might put the same question as to any of the other gentlemen on his side of the house, whose names were omitted; but it was the resolution of the gentlemen on the treasury bench, for the purpose of a fair collision of parties even in this committee, to construct it of an even balance of opposite parties. The house, however, would judge of this proposed fairness when it was understood, that out of the 25 members no less than 14 were selected from among the connections of the minister.—With regard to the charges and insinuations thrown out against the conduct of the last administration, he should, in the first place, answer their accusers by saying, that he only desired inquiry. All he should ask of the house and the country would be, not to adopt any opinion; not to come to any conclusion; not to pronounce any judgment upon the accusations loosely thrown out by the gentlemen on the other side, particularly without any notice to himself or his friends, without affording them any fair opportunity of answering them. Upon every such charge he desired only inquiry, and that such inquiry might be made in the most hostile form. If the gentlemen on the treasury bench thought they could substantiate any charges against the last administration, let them do it. But let the old administration go on with its investigation, and his wish was, that a new committee should be formed to inquire into the conduct of the last administration, composed altogether of members from the ministerial side of the house (a loud cry of hear! hear!), excepting only such as held offices.—The noble lord next proceeded to animadvert upon the particular charges brought forward by the chancellor of the exchequer. First, as to the appointment of a collector to Buenos Ayres, with which was connected some question as to the sincerity of the late ministers. Upon the subject of reversions, he would appeal to the hon. gent. (Mr Bankes), whether he did not express to that gent. his anxious wish in favour of an act to prevent the further grant of reversions, and that long before the last committee was appointed? Indeed, the sincerity of the late ministers was proved by their conduct, for they did not grant a single reversion, and it was notorious, that, among others, a very valuable reversion fell in during their administration. But to return to Buenos Ayres; the appointment could only be objected to on one of three grounds; either that the office was quite unnecessary, that the person appointed was exceptionable, or that the late ministers by such an appointment, improperly interfered with the patronage of their successors. As to the first, no one could deny that a collector would be necessary at such a place as Buenos Ayres, if we had it in our possession, and if we had it not no expence would arise out of the appointment; as to the second, sure he was, that no objection was likely to be made to the person who was appointed upon his recommendation, namely, Mr. Wilberforce Bird; and as to the third, no interference with the patronage of the present ministers could be alleged, because the appointment was revocable at pleasure.—After commenting on this and the other accusations advanced by the chancellor of the exchequer, the noble lord begged to observe, that for the most part he never heard of the cases to which they referred, until they were mentioned by the right hon. gent. in that house. This was particularly the case with regard to the 300 surveyors, for he had no connection with that department; but how, he would ask, did that case stand upon the right hon. gent.'s own shewing? Why, the appointment of these officers was recommended by the tax office, some short time after the late ministers came into office. Proper persons were immediately appointed to ascertain the number of officers that would be necessary to carry into effect the object proposed by the tax-office. It got abroad, that such appointments were intended, and applications were made to the treasury, and some of these applications succeeded. Promises were made, and such promises formed what the chancellor of the exchequer called the nomination, which he objected to. But these nominations required an act of parliament to render them of any avail, and, strange to tell, unfortunately for the right hon. gent.'s argument, no such act was ever proposed. Thus, an administration so very greedy of patronage, so very anxious to provide for its friends, was so negligent as to go out of power without taking care to dispose of those good things!—The third point to which the chancellor of the exchequer directed his accusations, referred to the appointment of what he called a new office in Scotland. But what was the fact? Why, that his majesty having determined to settle a pension of £300 a year upon Mr. Dugald Stuart, as a reward for his services, the late ministers rendered an office, already existing in Scotland, available, as far as it would go, to discharge a part of that pension, and thus produced a saving to the public. Such was the plain state of the case. Now, as to another charge, of which he declared, on his honour, he never heard a word until stated by the right hon. gent. this night, namely, as to the intention to grant a pension, during pleasure, to one of the Scotch Judges—["Intention," observed a voice across the table, "the warrant was actually made out."] The noble lord repeated, that he was quite ignorant of the transaction; but it appeared that the thing was not completed. However, he was ready to say, that jealous as he was, and ever would be, of the independence of the judges, he could not approve of such a grant as that described. But he confessed that he had doubts of the fact; and he begged the house to suspend its judgment till inquiry should be made respecting it. This suspension of judgment, which justice warranted him in demanding, was all that he requested of the house and the country.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied to the observations of the speakers on the other side. The accusations of partiality in the nomination of the proposed committee he retorted upon the gentlemen on the other side, by stating, that in the names he proposed there were a considerable proportion of their friends, while it was to be recollected that in the former committee there were only two gentlemen who were understood to have any attachment to the party with which he had the honour to act. The right hon. gent. ridiculed the rumour so industriously circulated, that the dissolution was occasioned by a desire of ministers to prevent a certain transaction from being reported by the former committee; which transaction was in fact notorious, and all the evidence with regard to which was to be referred to the new committee (we understood the right hon. gent. to allude to the affair respecting Mr. Steele, see Appendix to the present volume.) Adverting again to the appointment to Buenos Ayres, the right hon. gent. mentioned, that which he wished to contrast with the conduct of the noble lord and his colleagues, and as a proof that the present ministers were not so anxious about influence; namely, that Mr. Wilberforce Bird having applied to them for the office of collector of Monte Video, conceiving it to be included in his appointment to Buenos Ayres, they denying expressly the validity of his appointment, but still unwilling to disappoint the expectations of any man, did appoint Mr. Bird to the collectorship of Monte Video.—The first motion, that a committee should be appointed, &c. was then unanimously agreed to. Upon that for confining the number of the committee to twenty-five,

Lord Howick rose, and adverting to the suggestion made by an hon. gent. (Mr. Biddulph), relative to the propriety of the appointment of sir Francis Burdett as one of the members of this committee; took occasion to observe that, although he could assure the house there was no gentleman on the other side more adverse to the general conduct of that person than he was, although no man was more the subject of that person's attack, and that of the party, if such they could be called, who acted with him, still he would advise the adoption of the hon. gent.'s suggestion. It would be recollected by any person acquainted with the history of the times, that notwithstanding the attempts always made, said the noble lord, to connect us with this person's party, there was no party in the country more obnoxious to them than that with which I have the honour to act. This gentleman, it will be observed, stands forward as the enemy of public abuses, and I would recommend ministers to keep a vacancy open for him in this committee. There he will have an opportunity of inquiring into the abuses of which he complains, and proposing the remedy in a much more proper way than he has heretofore done, or attempted to do. I should therefore wish to have him afforded the opportunity, although I happen to be so obnoxious to his attacks, probably not so much from the impulse of his own mind, as in consequence of the incitement of others.

Mr. Biddulph observed, that he was actuated wholly by public motives in proposing the hon. baronet's name, and that he acted without any connection whatever with the hon. baronet. But having perceived that the hon. baronet had a quick sense of public wrongs, and was anxious to remove them, he thought him a very fit person to be appointed a member, and to promote the objects of this committee.—A member under the gallery, whose name we could not learn, announced his intention of opposing the appointment of sir F. Burdett, as an ineligible person, upon the ground that he had not yet taken his seat, and also upon other grounds.

Lord Howick proposed the division to take place upon the proposition of a name from himself.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he should put to the house the names he had already mentioned, and it would be competent to the noble lord, or any member, to propose such other name as they might think proper, in lieu of any that he proposed.—The names of Mr. Bankes and Mr. Biddulph were unanimously agreed to. Upon the name of Mr. Leycester being proposed,

Lord Howick rose to propose the name of Mr. Sharpe in lieu of it, observing, that he should not wish it to be understood generally, that the division was to take place upon the propriety of nominating Mr. Sharpe. At the same time he had objections to Mr. Leycester, which the noble lord was proceeding to state, when

Mr. Home Sumner, who said, that he thought it improper that strangers should be present at a discussion of the merits of individual members, moved that the gallery should be cleared. Strangers were accordingly excluded during the remainder of the debate. On the division for the nomination of Mr. Leycester, the numbers were, for the proposition 244; against it 149; majority 95.—After this division, we understood that the name of sir Francis Burdett was proposed by Mr. Biddulph. Upon this proposition a debate arose, which continued above an hour, and terminated in the rejection of the hon. baronet's name without a division.—The Committee was then appointed, consisting of the members proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Adjourned at three o'clock.