Commons Sitting of 17 April 1809

COMMITTEE TO INQUIRE INTO ABUSES, &c
Lord Folkestone, on the order of the day being read for taking into further consideration the Minutes of Evidence respecting the Conduct of the Duke of York, rose. He said, he should trouble the house only with a few words. Indeed, he thought it impossible that the house should not see the nature of the motion he had now to submit to them. The house would recollect that in the course of the Inquiry on which they had lately been engaged, other matters had come out not immediately affecting the Commander in Chief. It was obvious from the evidence which the house had heard, that great abuses prevailed in various departments of the state. He did not allude to the fact, that it had come out that improper uses had been made of the patronage of the East India Company, which had given rise to an Inquiry, which again had produced a voluminous Report, crowded with instances of the abuse of the patronage of that Company. The Evidence adduced before the Committee, also proved that abuses existed in other important departments of the state. It shewed that there were a certain number of men employed as agents in the disposal of offices in every department of the state. It was impossible for the house to allow such a scandalous practice to prevail without inquiry.

49
Such inquiry was necessary, in order not only to punish those who were guilty of the practice, but to apply a remedy to the evil. Other facts likewise came out as to complaints in the practice of the army; that the Commissions in that service were disposed of by brokers, contrary to the regulations of the Commander in Chief. Another abuse was also disclosed in regard to Levies, of which an instance was before the house in the case of colonel French's Levy. Here mal-practices of the most serious sort had been exposed, and it appeared from the evidence of the person best acquainted with the nature of the abuses, that the most minute attention was not sufficient to prevent them. It was impossible therefore, he presumed to think, that the house could refuse its attention to the nature and abuses of those other Levies. When his lordship gave notice of his motion on this subject, he did so only from the feeling at the time of the existence, from what the house had heard, of other abuses which from the nature of their inquiry they were then precluded from going into. Circumstances, however, had since occurred, to afford great additional reason for going into the inquiry for which it was now his object to move. The evidence adduced before the East India Committee, he thought it impossible to read and not to see that there were other abuses in the various departments of the state, and that these abuses were proceeding to a great extent. On these grounds he was of opinion, that the house was called on to institute an Inquiry into these points, and to see that the abuses were remedied wherever they should be found to exist. He therefore moved, "That a Committee be appointed to enquire into the existence of any corrupt practices with regard to the disposal of Offices in any department of the state, or any agreement, negociation, or bargain, direct or indirect, for the sale thereof; and of any corrupt practices relative to the purchase and sale of Commissions in the Army; and also, to examine into the terms on which Letters of Service have been granted for raising men for the Army by way of Levies, and the manner in which the said Levies have been conducted; and to report the same, as it shall appear to them, to the house, together with their observations thereupon; and that the said Committee have power to report the Minutes of Evidence taken before them, and their proceedings, from time to time, to the house."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, be could not allow the present motion to be put without declaring his opinion that it was by no means advisable for the house to agree to it. The noble lord grounded his motion on the Evidence brought before the Committee appointed to inquire into the Conduct of the Duke of York, on these two grounds, that by farther inquiry other individuals might be found out who might be brought to censure or punishment; and that such inquiry would prevent the recurrence of similar abuses in time to come. The noble lord seemed to think a general inquiry necessary without any specific grounds of charge being assigned. Now, he was of opinion, that such inquiry could not go to an investigation into the conduct of every individual who might have by chance been concerned in the disposal of any offices. There might be a variety of instances in which persons might have erected themselves into a sort of agency concern, misrepresenting themselves to be authorised by this person and the other who had power to dispose of offices, while with such persons they had no concern; and in this manner might procure money under the pretence of using their interest with the person who had the actual power of disposing of the office in question, while of this proceeding the person having the gift of the office was utterly ignorant. It might also happen, that the person who had the power of disposing of an office might, as in the case of Mr. Thellussen, give it to a near relation or friend in whom he had confidence, but which might be abused. If the Committee were to institute inquiries of this kind, they would be investigating what they had no right to punish. Any farther inquiry, therefore, he submitted, was not desirable. He asked, was it convenient or politic to set on foot an inquiry into all abuses that might or might, not have happened, for the sake of keeping the public mind in a ferment? (A laugh.) Gentlemen might, laugh. He was satisfied that there were, on the other side, gentlemen who would not agree with, him in this opinion. He believed that these gentlemen, from no improper feeling whatever, were of opinion that nothing was to be apprehended from the keeping alive this spirit among the people. He therefore was not surprised that they should differ from him. But, he had stated what he believed, that there was no reason to suppose that there were such abuses to be detected as those which the noble lord

51
suspected, and he submitted it to the feeling of the house, if from the expectation of discovering abuses, they would agree to set on foot an inquiry. He was of opinion it would not be expedient or proper to do so, and he hoped the house would consider before they assented to it. The other object of the noble lord was to prevent any farther abuses. The house had a notice of this already before them; and farther inquiry might only produce farther evidence to the same effect, without shewing any new or more extended system of abuse. On this subject, however, there was a Bill before the house, which he had introduced the day before the recess. He hoped it would be found adequate to every object which might seem to be required; at all events, it was in the power of the house, and of the noble lord himself, to consider how far it should be extended He was, therefore, on the whole, of opinion, that the inquiry proposed would neither be beneficial nor politic. No particular statement of delinquency had been brought forward, and to a general statement the house could not listen, especially after the Parliamentary Inquiry which had lately taken place.
Lord Archibald Hamilton. Sir; I can by no means agree that the discoveries made in the course of the. Evidence brought before the house were of that loose and insignificant kind as to require no farther inquiry and elucidation. On the contrary, I consider farther inquiry indispensible. The right hon. gent, deprecates the idea of keeping the spirit of the people alive, or, as he terms it, in a ferment. The ferment will certainly be increased, and not diminished, if you attempt to stifle further inquiry. That ferment will, by such attempt, most certainly be still further inflamed. If corruption does exist, can the Chancellor of the Exchequer think that no danger is to be apprehended to this country? Does he think that, if such ferment really exists, it would not be more wise to detect, expose, and punish those abuses which are so Strongly suspected to exist? As to the alarming extent of the powers of this Committee—they are, it is true, extensive and general, but they may be revoked at the pleasure of this house.—With respect to the dangers to be apprehended from the fermentation in the minds of the people—those dangers, I will venture to assert, are infinitely less to be dreaded than what must ensue from the people discovering our unwillingness to prosecute inquiry into
52
corruption and abuses.—The only way to satisfy the people, and reconcile them to the endurance of the enormous burdens they sustain, is to shew them that we are sincere in our prosecution of those inquiries that will lead to a general reformation of abuses.
Lord Folkestonesaid, that although the speech of his noble friend had rendered it less necessary for him to trouble the house, yet he wished to say a few words. As to the Bill alluded to by the right hon. gent., he could say nothing, as it was not before the house. It was rather strange, however, that the house should be told to act upon a measure of which they knew nothing; and even if its provisions were known, he submitted that the house must be legislating in the dark, without further inquiry. His lordship submitted that it was impossible for any gentleman to read these proceedings and not to see that farther inquiry must follow on them. The right hon. gent, had said, however, that though inquiry did follow, the law would nut reach the parties concerned. The house, however, he trusted, had more than one way of proceeding and would not allow its own labours to fail to the ground. If it was at all politic or convenient for the house to eater into the investigation of abuses: if every thing was fair and proper, the right hon. gent, himself ought to be the first to support the motion, and to convince the people that the abuses alledged did not exist. The right hon. gent, had said that he was afraid of continuing the ferment on the public mind; but as his noble friend had properly asked the right hon. gent, Which was the better way to allay this ferment; to go into, or to refuse to go into, the investigation of the abuses said to exist? The impression on the public mind was that these abuses did exist to a great degree. He called on the house to go into the inquiry, and if they did exist to punish the persons guilty of them; if not, to set the government to rights in the eyes of the people, by convincing them that it had been belied. This should be the conduct of the right hon. gent, whether he thought the abuses did exist or not. He ought, in either event, to feel anxious that the investigation should be gone into; and such, the noble lord insisted, would be his conduct, if he were not afraid of inquiry. On the contrary, he, the friend and associate of the alleged culprits, was found strenuously opposing investigation of every kind.
Lord Henry Petty, agreeing as he did, with some of the observations of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, must differ from him in thinking that a prospective measure was all which the house or the country could require on a perusal of the evidence before them. Though he, therefore, agreed with the noble lord who brought forward the present motion in thinking that some farther inquiry, arising out of the evidence on the table, was not only proper but necessary, he must at the same time differ from him on the motion as worded. What he felt a reluctance in acceding to was in the extent of the trust which by the present motion parliament was called on to delegate to a committee. He came down to the house expecting that the motion would be for a reference to a committee to inquire into certain facts contained in the Minutes of Evidence, and pointed out by the house to the committee to be by them inquired into. As the motion stood, however, it would be for every member of that, committee to suggest to the committee what facts they should go into. This was a power which the noble lord contended could not be given to any committee, as the house was not entitled to part with any of the powers which it could exercise itself; and he submitted, if there was any power which it could delegate to a committee, which would not be better exercised by the house itself. If he looked to the motion, it extended to every thing, and to every department. He did not say that it would not be right that such investigation should take place, if the particular facts to be inquired into, and on which the reference to a committee was founded, were pointed out and referred to; but he could not agree to confide so general and extensive a power to any committee. His lordship was willing to support any specific motion, founded on any specific fact developed in the Minutes of Evidence, whether the motion were made by the noble lord or by any person else. In the present spirit of the public mind, he was disposed for inquiry of every kind; but when he looked to such instances as his memory furnished him with of the house instituting general inquiries, he could not forbear from thinking that they almost all proved abortive. His lordship particularly alluded to the Tory Administration in the reign of queen Anne, and the committee appointed to enquire
54
into sir R. Walpole's administration, neither of which had produced any general good. He therefore thought it better that the house should determine itself to discharge this meritorious duty, more particularly at a moment like the present, instead of referring it to any committee. In doing so they would pursue a course, more conformable to the practice of the house, and better calculated for the public good. In appointing a committee such as that now proposed, the house would be conferring on them accusatory powers, which he was satisfied it would be far from their intention to do. If, however, the noble lord would limit his motion to any one specific enquiry, he should support it.
Mr. Whitbread.— I feel it. Sir, impossible to give a silent vote on a question of such high importance as the motion of the noble lord, and more especially as I conceive that what has been urged in the course of this debate, so far from amounting to a justification of the conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, only tends more strongly to shew that a general inquiry is absolutely necessary. The existence of general abuses, is not now pretended to be denied—that time is gone by. In the levity of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained, in one part of Ls speech, I fell no disposition to concur; I am not disposed, at anytime, to treat with levity, any thing that is said by that right hon. gent., and least of all at this moment, when the serious situation in which we stand calls for our most serious and profound attention. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has acknowledged, that, if inquiry should be instituted, abuses might possibly be traced. This fact I take it, he has admitted—I shall, however, at any rate, myself assume it. Whatever may be the sentiments in this house, there can be no doubt, that out of it there is an universal feeling of the people, that various mal-practices would be brought to light by the institution of a general inquiry, such as that which has been moved for by the noble lord. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer has argued, that even admitting abuses to be discovered, he should think the appointment of a Committee useless.—'It is not,' says he, the 'punishment of past grievances which we should so ardently seek, as remedies and preventives of a repetition of such abuses. Against this, he tells us, it is the very object and foundation of his Bill to provide.

55
But much as we know, I must be allowed to question the possibility of his framing any Bill on this subject, which shall be effectual in its provisions, unless we shall first be informed of much more than has hitherto come to our knowledge. And here I conceive the argument which was made use of by the noble lord, to be unanswerable. How can you tell, says he, in what manner to frame a Bill to prevent the repetition of abuses, the nature and fill extent of which are yet undiscovered? The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that before the investigation which has occupied so much of our time and attention, he was informed of certain nuisances in the city. He had heard of the office of Messrs. Pollman and Keylock, who were able to dispose of an extensive patronage, for the most corrupt of all things, meney, the grand source and medium of all corruption. Now when the existence of that office was first mentioned in this house, it was received with universal levity, it was laughed at on all sides of the house. But the right, hon. gent, on that occasion, so far from betraying the least consciousness of the existence of any such office, did not even countenance the possibility that the representation which was then made could have the slightest foundation; and he laughed, with the rest, at a statement which was so generally received as improbable. That these gents. Messrs. Pollman and Keylock, had carried on this sale of patronage for year, was very well known; and no attempt was made to put a stop to practices so nefarious, no inquiry was ever instituted; till at length, when the investigation took place, it suggested itself to the right hon. gentleman to put a stop to that species of traffic, by the introduction of his promised bill. Now will any gentleman pretend to say, that these negociators of patronage may not, somewhere or other, have connections either in the army, or the navy, or in the civil departments of the state; for their negotiations it seems were almost universal, which it is highly desirable for this house to know. When it is considered what facts have come to light with respect to East India patronage, when we reflect on the names that have come out on the inquiry into that subject—can the right hon. gent. affect surprize that the public mind should be in a state of ferment? The public are alarmed, sir, at the discoveries that have been made; and unless we shew them by
56
our proceedings that every thing will be investigated; that every delinquency will be dragged forth to public view and punished, if not by the immediate sentence of the law, by the censure and contempt of this house, a punishment exceeding perhaps any which the law can inflict; I say, unless we convince the public of our sincerity in the pursuit and prosecution of corruption, it is wholly unreasonable, nay absurd, to expect that the popular ferment of which the right hon. gent, has so pathetically, complained, should subside. But above all, to endeavour to shelter or screen delinquencies, by precluding inquiry, on the ground of the too great generality of the motion of the noble lord, is a procedure which I do assert to be pregnant with the most imminent danger. I do not deny that the motion might have been in terms more definite, and more specific; but I solemnly declare, that I do not see any thing in the nature or expressions of the motion which can form any reason why I should vote against it. It is alledged, that the power to be granted to a committee, if this motion should be agreed to, is indefinite, and greatly too extensive. But I would ask, is it not in our power to make a selection from amongst the members of this house, of men deserving of our confidence, to sit on that committee? Can we not change, and even dissolve that committee at our pleasure? Sir, I do think that twenty-one persons may be found in this house, to whom this general power may with great safety be delegated, even admitting the extent of such power to be of importance fully commensurate with what has been stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Such a power vested in a committee could never be attended with the slightest danger, or even inconvenience, being at all times under our immediate controul, and revokable the moment that an inconvenience, or even apprehension was felt, from the manner in which it might be exercised. I cannot but think that my noble friend (lord Henry Petty) has taken a wrong view of the subject:—such a committee would not be furnished with the power of accusation; the members of that committee would not become the public accusers; their province would be simply to investigate; and having investigated, to report, where they should see occasion, matter of accusation, subject to the consideration and decision of the house of commons. For my own part, I must sin-

57
cerely wish that I could feel a doubt, whether matter of accusation would probably be found by such a committee; but I deeply lament the necessity I am under of stating my firm belief, that there would be found much matter and strong ground for accusation, in instances almost innumerable; and I greatly fear, that on a general investigation, practices of a nature most corrupt, would be found to exist in departments where their existence cannot even have been dreamt of by the public. Sir, I will venture to assert, that by such an inquiry, practices would be brought to light, the exposure and punishment of which are the only means by which you can continue a safe government, such as you now are. My noble friend has reminded us of two special instances of general inquiry, from which no beneficial effects were found to result. But there is a question which, determine as we may, the public will very naturally ask; and that is, whether in the progress of those inquiries, when the committees touched on some fact of magnitude, so great that it ought to have been exposed, and laid bare to the view of art expecting and indignant public; they will, I say, naturally ask, whether the committees did not on those occasions blink the question? if, sir, those committees neglected to do their duty, I cannot hold that to be an argument why we should shrink from the performance of that duty which we owe to the people, by whom vie are, or ought to be, sent into this house. There is, I admit, a very powerful reason for minute caution in scrutinizing the qualities of those whom we may appointon that committee; but whatever danger may be apprehended by the appointment of such a committee, and with such general powers, and which committee seems to be so greatly the object of terror, it is my firm conviction that the refusal or hesitation of this house to grant and even promote a general inquiry into those abuses, of the existence of which the people are impressed with so firm a conviction, will be attended with danger paramount to any that can be suggested by the apprehensions of those gentlemen who oppose the motion of the noble lord. Whatever may be the extent of their apprehensions of danger, I cannot but think that an investigation of the abuses existing, or which are suspected to have existed, is of the highest importance to the welfare and tranquillity of the country; and it is my unqualified opinion,
58
that nothing can so certainly allay the ferment which has been raised in the minds of the people, as that the true colour of every transaction, whether black or white, should be displayed. If black, let exposure and punishment follow; if white, let us have the satisfaction of displaying to the nation the purity and innocence of those into whose conduct inquiry has been instituted. With these views, and for these reasons, I shall certainly support by my vote the motion of the noble lord.
Mr. Tierneyremarked, that the house had certainly something to complain of with respect to the proceeding of the noble lord, who had not given a notice of that specific nature which the magnitude of the case required. For if he had been asked even ten minutes before he came into the house, what the nature of the noble lord's motion was, he would have said that the object was, leaving the duke of York out of the question, to refer some collateral points in the Evidence to a committee, to determine what further proceeding ought to be had on the evidence there stated. He did not think it altogether fair to come upon the house ail of a sudden with one of the most important steps that could possibly be suggested, considering the ferment into which the public mind had been thrown. The object of the motion was no less than to arraign the whole system of the government of the country through all its departments (Hear! hear! from the ministerial benches). He did not think that a motion of this vague and general complexion ought to be entertained. He admitted, that where a specific case was stated, it would be disgraceful to the house to blink it; but while the house attended, as it was bound to do, to the interests of the people, it would always recollect that it owed something to the government of the country (Hear! hear!). Was this a mode of proceeding which any one would venture to propose with regard to an individual? If not, why should a different principle be entertained with respect to the government? The noble lord, he supposed, had some cases in contemplation, for he could not imagine that he would propose the appointment of a committee without having something to lay before them. But why did he not tell the house what these cases were? He conceived it to be impossible to accede to a motion put in these general terms, embodying suspi-

59
cion, as it were, against the whole of the government of the country. He differed from the gentlemen opposite in many important political subjects, but neither with respect to them, nor with respect to any man could he agree to this vague sort of motion. He himself had been in office; he knew the responsibility attached to the situation, and was ready to meet any accusation if fairly stated. But this motion extended back—how far nobody knew; and was calculated to put all those, who, for a great number of years past, had been employed in public situations upon their trial; many of whom were precluded, in the course of nature, from giving those explanations that might be necessary to defend themselves against charges, or to prevent suspicion. He did not wish to throw a veil over delinquency; all he wished was that the delinquency and the nature of the evidence should be stated; that the charges should be specifically mentioned, and the individuals named against whom they were to be preferred, and then the house would consider whether the motion was such as ought to be entertained. Even on the ground of precedent he did not think that this was a proper mode of proceeding. His hon. friend (Mr. Whitbread) had said, that the house might watch over the proceedings of the committee. But the house could not know what the committee was about till they reported. He gave the noble lord credit for the most honest and upright intentions; and after what had come to light, he could blame none for being desirous of inquiry; but the house ought not to depart from the ordinary grounds of its proceedings. The motion assumed that the government was corrupt through all its departments, and this without pretending to state any evidence (Hear! hear!). Even in the abuses that had been found to have been carried on in the patronage of the East India Company, there was nothing that related to the public government of that department. The abuses at most reached only to the Court of Directors, who were governed by a separate law; and he was even surprised that a committee on the abuses in the patronage of the Directors had been granted. These abuses were of a description amenable to law, and to this they ought to have been turned over. If any abuse had been discovered to have existed in the public government of the East India Company, that, no doubt, would have been a proper
60
subject of parliamentary inquiry. In the Minutes of Evidence, the existence of abuses at the Horse Guards had been made out; but this was the only point of which the noble lord proposed to keep clear. His motion went to impute corrupt practices to the admiralty, and every other department of the government, without the shadow of evidence; and all were to be put upon their trial without any specific charge! He hoped the noble lord would withdraw his motion, and put it in a different shape. He did not wish to protect delinquency, but he could not consent to put the whole government on its trial without specific charge alledged. The motion, he thought, could scarcely have been brought forward with any hopes of its being carried. The noble lord must have something in his mind to lay before the committee; of which, as the mover, he would be a leading member. All he asked of the noble lord was, to state what that was. Doubts were certainly entertained of the purity of some parts of the government. Public opinion was strongly excited on the subject of these abuses. But, however anxious he might be to expose corrupt practices, avid to punish the delinquents, no popular cry should make him vote for a motion of this kind.
Mr. Brandrose to give a brief statement of the grounds upon which he found himself compelled to dissent from the motion of the noble lord. He differed from him merely as to the mode of inquiry. The motion was so worded, its generality was of such a nature, that nothing like it was to be found in the history of parliament. He agreed with those who thought it more satisfactory that the cases which the noble lord had in contemplation should be stated to the house before they appointed the committee, that they might be aware of the nature of the reference to be made to the committee. As no specific charges were stated, he thought the motion very objectionable, and he felt it his duty, however reluctantly, to oppose it.
Mr. Lethbridgeobserved, that he had come to the house prepared to vote for the noble lord's motion, under the impression that he meant to alledge specific charges against particular individuals. He was anxious to do so, both upon the justice of the case, and from the knowledge which every one must have of the suspicions prevailing in the minds of the people, who were calling loudly for inquiry. But finding that the motion of the noble

61
lord was not such as he imagined it would have been; finding that it was one of a general nature, and that its tendency was to put whole departments upon trial without any specific charges of delinquency stated, he could not concur in the motion.—He felt himself bound to dissent from it in its present shape, and he would wait till either the noble lord, or some one as well able as he was, or better, came prepared to state particular charges against particular individuals.
Mr. Ponsonby. Sir; I hope that I shall not be accused of wishing to protect abuses, for there is no man in this house, not even the noble lord himself, more anxious to promote the punishment of corruption and abuses, wherever they can be proved to have existed, than myself. But I certainly will not agree to the adoption of the noble lord, because he takes for granted the existence of abuses in every branch and department of the government, without any proof whatever on the subject. The noble lord might with great facility have obtained his object by proposing other means than this motion for a Committee of General Inquiry. If he had followed the example of an hon. gent. (colonel Wardle) he might, by adhering to that line of proceeding, have obtained the most ample redress that he can wish or desire. In the motion brought forward by that hon. gent., a specific ground was stated, on which he meant to found the charges against the Duke of York. On that ground, so specifically stated, and on the statement of the nature of the evidence which he meant to adduce in support of his charges, the house of commons supported his proposition, and a committee was accordingly appointed, in conformity to his wishes and request. But I do not believe that there ever was an instance in which powers so unlimited and indefinite have been entrusted to a committee, merely because allegations have been made, and examinations taken on other matters tending to charge Corruption, out of which it is supposed that some fresh matter may arise. It cannot even be supposed that the house of commons, on such grounds only, will adopt a resolution which tends in fact and in substance to criminate every man in every department of the state. I find it impossible, on the occasion of so extraordinary a proposition, to content myself with a silent vote, and more especially when I see a disposition in some persons not in the house, to
62
charge every public man in the kingdom with corruption. This is a charge of a most serious nature; and particularly when it is considered how readily and with what avidity every thing that is charged against this house is received out of doors. The people are even industriously told in some places that there is no distinction whatever in this house, that we are all knaves and rogues alike (Hear! hear! hear!); that it does not signify in what hands the government is placed; for, provided they are parliamentary, the country can expect nothing but corruption (Hear! hear! hear!). These, Sir, are most foul, impudent, barefaced, and infamous calumnies; for, I will venture to maintain, that there are in this house, men as honest, as upright, as uncorrupt, and possessing as great integrity as those who make these gross and unfounded charges. And, be he who he may, I do assert and maintain, that he is not an honester public man than I am, nor do I see the smallest reason why I, or any other member of this house, should hesitate for one moment to repel this unmerited and general stigma. My conduct has already proved, in numerous instances, that in all matters of public economy and reformation of abuses, I am disposed to go as far in the protection of the people against extravagance and abuse as any man in this country; and I am still disposed to persevere in that conduct, which I conceive to be only a faithful discharge of my duty to the public. But to the motion now before the house I cannot agree.
Mr. C. H. Hutchinsoncould not content himself with a silent vote on a motion of this importance. He would support the motion of the noble lord, and would briefly state his reasons. He considered this as a most awful moment: he did not attribute improper motives to any man, but he had unfortunately long been of opinion that the system upon which the government had for some time acted, was not such as ought to be continued—and had the further misfortune to concur with many others, who thought that if it was continued the most calamitous consequences might ensue within a period, up to which, those in that house, who were not very old, might live. Therefore, great as was the inconvenience of granting those unlimited powers, which it was proposed to vest in this committee, he must, without any prejudice or partiality as to this or that government, rote for the noble lord's motion. Considering the

63
times, considering the state of public opinion, he thought that the investigation, however inconvenient, ought not to stifled. He took it for granted, that the noble lord was prepared to bring some points before the committee as soon as it was constituted; and he could conceive that he might have some very rational reasons for not chusing to mention them at present. Understanding the motion to be directed not particularly against the existing government or any other, but generally against abuses, he felt it his duty to support it. He venerated the antient institutions of the country, and no better proof could be given of that veneration than to strike at the abuses which had crept into them and threatened their destruction. The great object was to root out the system of corruption and abuse, and believing this to be the design of the noble lord's motion, and conceiving it, notwithstanding its inconveniencies, to be well calculated for that purpose, he could not refuse to give it all the support in his power.
Mr. Parnell.—Sir; the right hon. gent. below me, who made the charge against the noble lord, of not having stated in his notice the nature of his intended motion, can certainly not support that charge; for the noble lord did in his notice distinctly state, in substance, the nature of his motion; and that, too, in terms sufficiently explanatory to authorize him in bringing it forward in its present shape. Sir, I cannot agree with those gentlemen who object to the adoption of this motion, on the ground that it is of too general and indefinite a nature. The objects which are intended to be included in the inquiry are three; and they are certainly specifically stated. The first applies to the mode that was adopted of augmenting the army at the time of colonel French's levy being on foot; the next, to the illicit purchase and sale of commissions in the army; and the third, to the infamous traffick in the disposal of places in various departments of the State. The powers demanded for this Committee are therefore by no means of that general nature which has been asserted. It has been said that the Committee would have an object of inquiry to seek, as their labours would commence without having one before them But this I deny; for here are three specific objects, every one of which is specifically named, to which the inquiries of the Committee are proposed to be directed. I make these observations with a view of showing
64
that no such charge as that which has been brought against the motion can be supported. But, were the motion more general even than it is, I for one, should certainly vote for it. It is impossible to have sat in this house, and have heard what has passed here, and to have read so much of what has passed elsewhere, without entertaining a strong suspicion of the existence of numerous, crying, and notorious abuses in various offices and departments; an inquiry into which, it is my opinion, is imperiously demanded.
Mr. C. Wynnobserved, that if he understood the motion correctly, it went to an inquiry into all corrupt practices and abuses, without any restriction as to time, place, or circumstance. All abuses, at whatever distance of time, whether those concerned were dead or alive, might be brought before this committee, though those who might be able to explain or defend, might be in their graves. To such a motion he could not accede. The want of limitation, as to time, was a strong objection; but he fully agreed with the noble lord below (lord H. Petty), that it was improper to delegate to any committee that discretionary inquisitorial power, which belonged to the house itself. On every case brought before the house, it was customary to act from considerations of prudence, as well as with a view to abstract justice. In the first place, the house ought to be enabled to decide, whether the case was of sufficient magnitude to call for inquiry; and, secondly, whether the evidence stated was sufficient, if actually produced, to bring home the charge to the accused. He had heard that there might be cases brought forward, which had taken place in Ireland previous to the Union; cases which might affect lord Cornwallis and Mr. Pitt, who were in their graves. He was ready to say, that the greatest inconveniences would result from this. In short, there was no case, at whatever distance of time it might have occurred, which a committee, constituted as the noble lord proposed, could refuse to entertain. Such a motion could not be acceded to, and it had his decided opposition.
Mr. Thomas Foleydid not conceive that there was any weight in the argument as to the suspicion which the motion was said to cast upon all the departments of government. An inquiry would be the most effectual way to do away those suspicions, if they turned out to be unfounded. That there was a strong suspicion in the

65
public mind could not be doubted. If that suspicion was not founded in fact, those who laboured under it ought to have an opportunity of clearing themselves. But if, on the contrary, crying abuses actually existed, inquiry was necessary to expose those abuses, and to prevent their recurrence. In every view, therefore, he was convinced of the propriety, of the necessity, of inquiry, and would certainly vote for the motion.
Sir John Anstrutherobjected to the motion on account of its generality, and its assuming as a fact, that there existed abuses in all the departments of the state, in proof of which there was not a tittle of evidence. But the hon. gent, behind him (Mr. Hutchinson) Went farther, for he said, that the general system of the government was such as ought not to be continued. The house of commons was part of that system, and he, therefore, now called upon the house of commons to try itself. A gentleman under the gallery had said, that it was right to suspect persons in office: What right had he to suspect them? If he had any facts to produce, let him state them; but if he had no facts to state, then he had no right to suspect. As to the inadmissibility of the motion, he thought there could be no doubt upon that point. It went to inquire into one did not know what, and was utterly incompatible with any practical plan of conducting business. If particular facts were stated, it might be fair and reasonable to investigate; but at the same time he could not listen to vague and loose stories even against individuals. The proper plan was to send them to the Attorney-General, and not to place the justice of the country in the worst possible hands; not only in the hands of the house of commons, but what was still worse, in those of its Committees.
Mr. P. Moorehoped the noble lord would receive back his motion, and bring forward some specific case. He understood, that his motion was to be of the nature described by his right hon. friend next to him (Mr. Tierney), that it would relate solely to some collateral matter arising out of the investigation of the charges against the Duke of York. If the noble lord had read the Eighth Report of the Commissioners of Military Inquiry, it was strange that he should have mentioned French's levy only as a subject of investigation. He might have found in that Report, that there were no less than twenty-one such levies.
66
It would have been well worth his while to investigate into the manner in which these levies were obtained, how conducted, and the result with which they were attended. He would find that no less than 500,000 l. of the public money had been lavished in this way, and that the produce of men had failed almost in every instance. The examination had only yet proceeded as far as 211,000 l. of this expenditure, and it was discovered that of this sum no less than 96,000 l. had been drawn by fraud and imposition. There was matter sufficient in these to have afforded a Committee employment for the rest of the session.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that considering the impression which the notice of the motion, given by the noble lord previous to the recess, had made out of doors, and the public expectation it appeared to excite, he felt it incumbent upon him to state his sentiments. It would not become a person filling the situation he did to give a silent vote. It would be impossible for him, consistent with his duty, and valuing the frame of the constitution as it stood, not to give his most marked and decided disapprobation of the motion. In opposing it, he did not oppose a motion for a specific inquiry into specific abuses, but he opposed a motion that had no relation whatever to it. A specific inquiry would have fastened on individuals, or abuses; but the object of a motion, so general and undefined as that before the house, could have no other purpose than to scatter general censure, to keep up a ferment in the public mind, and to do mischiefs beyond the apprehensions of those whose apprehensions were strongest. The noble lord had accused his right hon. friend of a disposition to screen abuses, and had reproved the remedy which was proposed by him to prevent confederacies out of doors, for the corrupt disposal of patronage. Another gentleman had pointed out to the noble lord objects for inquiry, which it appeared were already under examination. It did therefore appear that these manifold abuses, which were supposed to prevail in every department of the state, were not wholly without remedy. If these remedies were insufficient, why did not the noble lord say so, and propose those that might be more effectual? He deprecated the practice of pointing at government as the source of corruption. The effect of exaggerating this evil was, not to all ay but to perpetuate the public ferment. An hon. member under the gallery said, that the people had

67
a right to suspect government; another hon. member blamed the whole frame of the, government: and to this Committee it was proposed that the task should be delegated, of enquiring into the whole frame of that government; of inquiring into the conduct of every man who was engaged in any one of its departments! This important investigation was to be made, not by the house itself, but by a Committee. A Committee! If ever there was an instance in which a mighty labour was to be executed by a diminutive power, it was this. He could not conceive for what rational or practical purpose this motion was brought forward. Was there no mischief in keeping a persuasion alive in the public mind, that it was the opinion of impartial men in that house, that so much rottenness and corruption existed in every part of the state, as rendered such an inquiry necessary? The motion held out no hope of immediate advantage to the people; but it held out the whole cast and class of public men to suspicion. They were all represented as eagerly struggling for places and power, and as having nothing in view but the emoluments of office. The emoluments of office! If there was any man who considered the labours of an official situation, the duties that were to be performed, the anxieties that were undergone, the warfare which a public man had to support, not only in that house, but from the malignity which assailed him out of it, and could think that these things were to be compensated by money, he did not envy such a man his feelings or frame of mind. If there was any man who could think so, it was to him a subject not of regret, but of pride, to be the object of the suspicion of such a man. The noble lord and his abettors might succeed in fixing this imputation on public men, and driving them from power; in rendering them a degraded class, that he and those who supported him might succeed to that ruin and degradation. He could not agree in this wide wasting motion, without admitting the truth of assertions, for which he was persuaded there was no foundation.
Lord H. Pettyrose to explain. The noble lord observed, he had been entirely misapprehended; he had not said, nor did he mean to say, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer had a wish to screen delinquency, or to prevent inquiring into abuses.
Lord Folkestone. Sir; the right hon. gent, on the bench below me, has com-
68
plained of my conduct with respect to the imperfect notice which, he says, I gave of my intended motion, to which he states his dissent from the two extensive powers with which, from the generality of the terms, it would invest the committee. With respect to my notice, I can only say, that it appears to me to be unfounded. With respect to the motion itself, I am in fact merely doing that which he wishes me to do, specifying the objects of the motion, which, to my no small surprize, it has been stated are not specified. Sir, I am confident that a great part of what has been said in opposition to this motion, arises solely from misapprehension. It is said that I am bringing forward a general charge, and involving every man, in every office, in every department, in one general indiscriminate accusation. But what is the true state of the case? My motion was grounded on the order of the day, and certainly refers entirely to the evidence that was taken before a committee of the whole house: out of this evidence, I propose to refer particular points to the consideration of a committee. If this motion had been an original proceeding, the accusation which has been made against me would have been correct. But as the motion which I have made is grounded on the order of the day, I conceive the objections which have been made against it in that respect to be wholly-groundless and indefensible.
The house then divided, when there appeared,

For lord Folkestone's Motion

30

Against it

178

Majority

148

List of the Minority.

Lord Ossulston

S. Whitbread, esq.

Lord Viscount Forbes

Lord A. Hamilton

Sir Wm. Lemon, bart.

C. C. Western, esq.

Sir T. Miller, bart.

H. Tracey, esq.

Sir John St. Aubyn, bart.

T. W. Coke, esq.

George Hibbert, esq.

Joseph Halsey, esq.

George Knapp, esq.

H. C. Combe, esq.

Thomas Foley, esq.

John Calcraft, esq.

J. Scudamore, esq.

Hon. C. Bradshaw

T. J. Symmonds, esq.

Lee Antonie, esq.

Thomas Creevey, esq.

Hon. W. Lambe

Lord Althorpe

Hon. W. Lyttleton

Wm. Ord, esq.

J. M. Lloyd

Hon. C. Pelham

TELLERS:

D. North, esq.

Lord Folkestone

Henry Parnell, esq.

Hon. C. Hutchinson.

G. L. Wardle, esq.