Commons Sitting of 20 April 1809

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Sir Charles Hamiltonpresented a Petition from Daniel Butler, the Sheriff's officer, by whom he had been arrested, and who had been confined in Newgate, in consequence of such a breach of the privileges of Parliament. The Petition stated, That the petitioner with all humility and contrition, most humbly begs pardon of the house, and particularly of sir Charles Hamilton, bart., the hon. member whom he so grossly and personally insulted on Wednesday the 12th day of this instant April, as appears by the Votes of the house as follows; "That, on Wednesday last, about half an hour after three of the clock in the afternoon, he was arrested in his own house by the said Daniel Butler (an officer of the Sheriff of Middlesex), and that he was insulted by him for endeavouring to convince him that he was not the person specified in the writ, in breach of the privileges of this house;" upon which Complaint the petitioner was by the house committed to Newgate; and that the petitioner has been an officer to the Sheriff of Middlesex ten years, in which situation he trusts he has conducted himself with the strictest propriety; and intentionally to give any offence, or to attempt to arrest any hon. member of this house, is the last thing he could think of, well knowing how they are privileged; but this unfortunate mistake arose from the instruction he received from a brother-officer, who requested the petitioner to execute the said writ for him, it being a practice for one officer to oblige another in that way; and the petitioner had a paper to that effect in his hand when at the bar of the house on Friday last; and that the petitioner, after he was so committed, in the lobby of the house expressed his sorrow and contrition to the said sir Charles Hamilton for the great offence he had committed on his person in so arresting him for another baronet of the said name, the writ being for a sir John Charles Hamilton; and the petitioner begs to state that he has a wife and seven

101
children that depend upon his exertion for their support, and they as well as the petitioner lament this unfortunate transaction, and humbly implore the house, that, in their mercy, they will pardon the petitioner's great crime, and order him to be brought up to the bar of the house to be discharged, the petitioner being fully convinced of his crime.
Sir C. Hamiltonmoved, that he be brought to the bar of the house to-morrow, for the purpose of being discharged.—Agreed to.

PAPERS RELATIVE TO THE ARMISTICE IN PORTUGAL.
Mr. Yorkerose for the purpose of making his promised motion, relative to the Convention and Armistice in Portugal. He wished particularly to call the attention of the house to some political circumstances, by which it would appear, that some opinions of gen. Bernardine Freire, with respect to the Armistice concluded in Portugal, coming to this country before the dispatches of sir Hew Dalrymple, had tended to prejudice the public mind against that officer. A plain statement of the circumstances would tend to shew things in, perhaps, their proper colours. Sir Hew Dalrymple, it appears, landed in Portugal the day after the battle of Vimiera, and had proceeded, not from England, where he might obtain exact information in every point of view, but from Gibraltar, where he must necessarily have been uninformed. He had not been in the country above an hour and a half, when general Kellerman arrived with a flag of truce; in this situation, he of course was under the necessity of being completely guided and governed by the officers whom he found on the spot; he then, under their guidance, concluded an Armistice, with a view to negociate a Convention, and a copy of this Armistice he communicated to gen. Freire, for the purpose of ascertaining his sentiments upon it. What was the consequence of this highly political step? Why, gen. Freire, to whom sir Hew Dalrymple had sent the Armistice, in order to profit by his judgment on it, immediately wrote off to ministers here, the most unfounded comments concerning it! This was made public here, and tended very much to inflame the public mind against sir Hew Dalrymple. He therefore thought it now material that his own letter on the subject to lord Castlereagh should be laid before the house. Sir Hew Dalrymple had not thought proper to avail himself of these
102
papers before the Court of Inquiry, because they were of a political nature, and the court had been instituted for purposes merely military. In justice, then, to the character of that officer, he hoped these documents would be now produced, from whence he was likely to acquire some advantage. The only representation which had been made to our generals in Portugal, by the Portuguese generals upon the subject, was a letter from the bishop of Oporto to sir Arthur Wellesley; and this communication was made some days after even the Convention had been signed. He should be one of the last men in the house to move for any papers by the production of which government might be in the least degree embarrassed; he trusted there would be no objection on their part to comply with his present motion. He was of opinion, that the conduct of sir Hew Dalrymple had been much misunderstood, and he would ask whether it would be candid in the house to refuse him a justification. He had met a most severe censure; a censure, too, which perhaps those who gave it did not justly estimate. The heroic spirit of our army was almost proverbial, and those who condemned our officers on slight grounds, condemnations eagerly echoed by a venal press, ought to be severely reprehended. He would appeal to the case of sir Robert Calder, who, after much service and splendid victories; had been very hardly treated. He then moved, "That an humble Address be presented his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this house, copies or extracts of a Letter from lieut.-general sir Hew Dalrymple to lord viscount Castlereagh, dated 23d Dec. 1808; together with such of the Enclosures therein contained as relate to any representations stated to have been made by any of the Portuguese authorities at Oporto to the Portuguese minister in London, or to lieut, general sir Arthur Wellesley, upon the subject of the late Armistice in Portugal, signed at Vimiera on the 22d of August 1808, in so far as the production of the same may not be prejudicial to his majesty's service; and also, copy of a Letter from lord viscount Castlereagh to lieut.-general sir Hew Dalrymple, in answer thereto, dated 10th Jan. 1809."
Lord Castlereaghopposed the motion, on the ground that he had left it to the discretion of sir Hew Dalrymple, whether or not he would have those papers produced

103
at the Board of Inquiry, which he declined. He was not aware that any impression had been made on the public mind adverse to the officer in question, or that it would be of such importance to his character, as the right hon. gent. seemed to think, to have these papers made public. Of this he was certain, that every representation which could be favourable to sir Hew Dalrymple, had been laid before his majesty before the final decision.
General Tarletonsaid, although he would not object to the motion, yet he could not help thinking it would not have any beneficial effect in justifying that disgraceful Convention, nor any of those connected with it. This general succeeded to the command of an army, equal if not superior to the French, in cavalry, in infantry, and in spirit. These were opposed to an army composed of bad materials, for the army of Junot, it must be recollected, were not like the army of Spain; in short, it was such an army as might very likely have triumphed over the Portuguese, but not over the British forces. He should be sorry to hear any officer expressing himself as that right hon. gent, had done, for although he (Mr. Yorke) had been Secretary at War, he appeared to have a very different tinge of mind from any military person as to military transactions. Many officers had told him that a great and pernicious effect had been produced in Spain, in consequence of the previous Convention of Cintra; and this he believed, as it could not be deemed honourable for any officer to go with the placard of Cintra about his neck. Never were there 28,000 men of a finer description than those employed under sir Hew Dalrymple, and yet we had nothing like the Convention of Cintra that stood in the annals of the British history. God forbid that we should ever look upon it in any other view than as most disgraceful; for he would rather place his hand in the fire, than put it to such a Convention as that was. The letter called for had not been transmitted till eleven days after the Convention of Cintra, and he thought that the generals ought to be condemned for their delay in sending dispatches.
Lord Ossulstongenerally differed from the hon. mover on the subject of the Convention of Cintra, which he did not consider as at all honourable or advantageous to the country. He often found it the case that where men very strenuously
104
upon all occasions stood up for the royal prerogative, they were very little interested in the honour of the country. (This we understood to be the substance of the noble lord's speech, but as he spoke in so low a tone we may not be completely correct.)
Mr. Yorkerose in some warmth to repel the insinuations of the noble lord; he had held a seat in that house much longer than the noble lord, and was as warmly interested both for the country and constitution. He had been educated in the principles of the Old Whig School, and was as zealously attached to the interests of the people as the noble lord, or any of his ancestors.
The motion was then put, and negatived. Mr. Yorke then moved, That the copy of a Letter, dated Sept. 8, 1808, containing an account of the number of transports employed in carrying French and Spanish troops from Lisbon, should be laid before the house.—Agreed to.

SPANISH TREATY.
Mr. Ponsonbyrose to put a question to a right hon. gent, opposite, as to the interpretation of the Treaty entered into with Spain, that part of it, he meant, which went to bind his majesty to an alliance with the Spanish Government. He would read to the house from a paper he held in his hand, the passage of which he now sought the explanation, it ran thus, "His Britannic Majesty engages to continue to assist to the utmost of his power the Spanish Nation in their struggle, against the tyranny and usurpation of France, and promises not to acknowledge any other king of Spain, and of the Indies thereunto appertaining, than his catholic majesty Ferdinand the Seventh, his heirs, or such lawful successor as the Spanish nation shall acknowledge." Now in his judgment, this might admit of either of two interpretations, and yet he was not at all prepared to say, whether either of those two interpretations was such a one as the treaty itself was meant to bear: one, that it admitted of, was that the king was bound to acknowledge Ferdinand, and no other in any event, as king of Spain; the other, of which it might equally admit, was, that the king was bound to admit as the successor of Ferdinand a king de facto, being so acknowledged as king by the Spanish nation, and considered by them as the lawful successor of Ferdinand.
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that the Treaty in question was not meant to bear either of the two interpretations mention-

105
ed by the right hon. gentleman. The Treaty was not in either of those senses. It certainly did go to bind his majesty in strict alliance with the Spanish nation, and, of course, to the exclusive acknowledgment of Ferdinand as their lawful sovereign; but this was only so long as the Spanish nation thought proper to hold good to their part of the contract. Ferdinand, and the immediate successors to the Spanish throne, were then in the power of France: and it had been understood, that in the event of the removal of their claims by demise, it would become a matter of grave question amongst the Spanish jurists, upon whom the superior right of succession to the crown would devolve; it was therefore but provident to word that part of the Treaty so as it might bear a prospective relation to such an event; for it would not be denied, that in a question of that nature, this country would have no right to interfere with the exclusive privilege of the Spanish people. That part of the Treaty had that bearing and the most desirable object in the case of such an event they had in view was, the legitimacy of the successor, qualified by the acknowledgment of the nation. As to any question arising out of the successful issue of French usurpation, when that usurpation was acknowledged and acceded to by the Spanish nation, Spain and England would be no longer acting in concert against France, and therefore the avowed object of the present Treaty would be given up, and the contract between the two countries dissolved. Whenever the Spanish nation should cease to consider France as her enemy, while France was ours, from that moment the Treaty would be ipso facto annulled.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, that as far as related to the divided claim to the crown of Spain eventually, and the doubts upon that subject among the Spanish jurists, he knew nothing of either till the right hon. gent. had then informed him. With respect to the nature of the contract entered into between the two countries, he was ready to admit the explanation of the right hon. gent, to be perfectly satisfactory; but, in giving this opinion, he did not thereby pledge himself to an approbation of the Treaty itself, or the grounds upon which it had been entered into. The next question he had to ask was in reference to a Letter from Mr. Frere to sir John Moore, dated Talavera de la Reyna, Dec. 3, 1808, and beginning, "Sir; In the event which
106
I did not wish to pre-suppose of your continuing in the determination of retiring with the army, &c." This letter he (Mr. Ponsonby) understood to conclude with a request that the bearer of that letter might be previously examined before a council of war. Now, considering the respective situations of that gentleman and sir John Moore, he could not help saying, that this request appeared to him to be one of the most extraordinary, that ever was made (Hear! hear!). Was it to be believed that a person—
Mr. Secretary Canningrose to order; though the right hon. gent, had said full enough to tempt him to enter into some justification of the conduct of his right hon. friend, as well as from a sense of public duty as the motives of private friendship, he should, however, forbear, provided the right hon. gent. would stop there, and confine himself to the putting of any question he might think proper to propose.
Mr. Ponsonbyadmitted that the right hon. gent was right, and that he was wrong. The questions he had to put were—He wished to know the name of the bearer of this letter from Mr. Frere to sir John Moore; who this messenger was, and what the nature of his message?
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that he could give no answer to the latter part of the right hon. gent.'s question, as he himself was not aware of the nature of the message. As to the name of the messenger, he must be excused if he declined answering that; but he believed his right hon. friend, in requesting that the messenger might be examined before a council of war, did so, not with any view of questioning the military authority or judgment of sir John Moore, but that the council might have every advantage of any extraordinary information possessed by a person so lately coming from Madrid, and an eye-witness of the scenes passing at such a distance.
Mr. Whitbreadasked, what were the powers and instructions given to Mr. Frere, and whether the messenger alluded to already was a Frenchman or an Englishman?
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid that the instructions could be best learned from the papers that might be laid before the house referring to this subject. As to the nativity of the messenger, he believed, as was more probably the case, that he was a native of the country where he acted.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he had asked the last question because he had it in contemplation to offer a motion to the house for the removal of Mr. Frere.
Colonel Wood, supposing that the letter from Mr. Frere to sir John Moore was in answer to one from that general, wished to know whether there would be any objection to the production of that letter.
Mr. Secretary Canningreplied, that all the correspondence between sir John Moore and Mr. Frere, that had reached his office, was either in copies or extracts before the house. He took that opportunity of moving, That there be laid before the house copies of all the notes which had been exchanged between the Spanish minister and the Secretary of State relative to certain Articles of the Spanish Treaty.—Ordered.

CHELSEA HOSPITAL—COLONEL GORDON.
Mr. Huskissontook occasion to call the attention of the house to a subject which, in consequence of the motion of an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett), had on a former evening produced so much discussion. That motion had been submitted upon Friday; and, as from the statement preceding it there was some reason to apprehend that the building about to be erected by colonel Gordon, would interfere with the comfort and convenience of the hospital, he had thought it his duty to survey the place. This duty he felt due to the house and to the hon. baronet, and accordingly he visited the grounds alluded to. The result of this visit was that colonel Cordon's house being about to be erected upon a scite very inconvenient for the infirmary, he felt dissatisfied; and so far he agreed with the hon. baronet. But yet he wished it to be understood, that this discovery involved no contradiction of the statement he had on a former evening submitted to the house with regard to the conduct of the Treasury. In consequence, however, of this discovery, he thought proper to take a lord of the Treasury to view the premisses, and the effect of that visit was that upon a consultation with, and a recommendation from the governors of the Hospital and the medical gentleman attending it, supported by the opinion of the Surveyor General, the scite of col. Gordon's house was removed. But still he wished it to be understood, that this removal did not take place on account of any change of opinion on the part of the Treasury, with regard to the grounds originally laid before them. To the grounds
108
upon which the Surveyor-General originally reported, that officer still adhered; while the physician and surgeon fully approved of the place chosen for the building of colonel Gordon's house, conceiving it in no degree inconsistent with the comfort and accommodation of the Hospital. The hon. gent. concluded with motions for the production of Letters addressed to the Treasury from the Surveyor-General of Crown Lands and the medical gentleman of Chelsea Hospital, with regard to the grounds to which his observations referred.
Mr. Maxwellsaid, that in order fully to satisfy his mind with regard to the premisses in question, he sought to see them on Monday last; but was informed by a person who had the care of the gate, and also by the workmen who were employed about the place, that it was as much as their employments were worth to admit any one. He was, therefore, refused admission, although he stated that he was a member of that house, and also the object of his visit. The refusal surprised him the more, as he understood from other quarters, what had been confirmed by the hon. gent. who had just sat down, that any or all persons connected with government promptly obtained admission.
Mr. Longprofessed to be unaware of any orders prohibiting the admittance of the hon. gent., or any other member, from viewing the premisses alluded to. He had seen those premisses, and he thought the projected erection exceptionable; at the same time, he begged it to be understood, that no person connected with the Hospital either in a civil, military, or medical department, had communicated any objection with regard to this building, up to the very day upon which the hon. baronet had made his motion. The consideration of the lease granted to colonel Gordon, was, that he should not raise any building, or even plant any tree likely to create any inconvenience to the Hospital. When the papers explanatory of the whole proceeding were laid before the house, he had no doubt that the conduct of the Treasury would meet with its approbation.
Sir Oswald Moseleyrather wished to suppose that the gentlemen on the other side were unaware of the very exceptionable character of the whole of this transaction. The hon. baronet to whom the merit was due of bringing it before the house, was unfortunately unable, from indisposition, to attend since its original

109
introduction. But he could say for him, that he was not inattentive to the investigation of every thing connected with the subject. As to the prohibition of persons from seeing the premisses alluded to, the hon. baronet slated that he heard such an order of prohibition had proceeded from the present Commander in Chief, adding, that he believed his information was correct. The motive for such an order was suspicious, and that motive must be glaring to every man who considered the subject. It was stated on the part of ministers, that the scite upon which colonel Gordon's house was to be erected had been altered. But that was not enough; the whole of the ground ought to be appropriated to the accommodation of the Hospital. For that purpose it was avowedly purchased from lord Yarborough. Indeed he was informed that, upon such an understanding, lord Yarborough was induced the more easily to dispose of his interest in the lease. If this were true, he must observe that an additional degree of blame attached to the whole transaction. It would be, however, for the gentlemen on the other side to explain this point.
Mr. Huskissondeclared, that he had read the whole of the correspondence with lord Yarborough upon this purchase, and that no such consideration as that alluded to by the hon. baronet had the slightest influence. The only object being, on the part of the noble lord, to obtain the highest price for the ground. Before, indeed, it was proposed to dispose of it to government, a proposition was made to sell it for the purposes of a wharf, but according to the opinion of Mr. Copland, such a disposition of it could not be made. That proposition therefore was abandoned. But with regard to the manner in which the ground was now to be disposed of he was enabled to say, that no person whatever connected with the Hospital objected to the place in which it was proposed to build colonel Cordon's house; no one pretending to say that this ground was necessary to be appropriated in any manner to the accommodation of the Hospital; that the free circulation of air to the Infirmary, or the proper ornament of the Hospital, was likely to be interfered with by the proposed structure. The propriety, indeed, of guarding against any such interference, had, in consequence of some intimation from another quarter, occupied the consideration of the Treasury before the hon. baronet had made his motion upon the
110
subject. It was in consequence of that intimation, and his having viewed the premisses on Saturday, that he had thought it necessary to have the references made, the reports upon which he now proposed to have laid before the house.
Sir O. Moseleywished to know why these premisses were not applied altogether to the accommodation of Chelsea Hospital, and to the Infirmary in particular; and also, why the gentlemen of that house, who were to judge of the propriety of their application, were prevented from seeing them?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserved, that the premisses had been purchased in order that what was necessary might be appropriated to the use of the Hospital. The hon. baronet, when he stated, that the order for excluding persons from the ground proceeded from the Commander in Chief, appeared to him to proceed upon supposition, having heard the order disclaimed on the part of the Treasury and the Pay Office. If he could venture, without having- any information upon the subject, to make a conjecture, the order had been given by the person having a right to the possession of the ground. If any order had been given to exclude members of parliament, it would have been both improper and foolish. But when it was considered how pointedly public attention had been lately drawn to this piece of land, within a mile and a half of this metropolis, it would be obvious how desirable it must be to keep out the great number of persons who might wish to visit the place. He did not think it expedient that a case of this description should day after day continue to occupy the attention of the house, when the most that could be said in the worst view that could be taken of the case was, that there might have been some irregularity in the inferior agent employed in the progress of the transaction.
General Tarletonobserved, that this was only the second time this subject had been under discussion. The effect of the first discussion had been that the scite of the house had been changed; and the advantage that would result from the second would be, that the bar placed against the admission of members, by some invisible hand, would now be removed. He had heard from the nearest relation of the noble lord, that he wished to get a renewal of his lease, but that ministers refused, and stated, that they wanted the

111
whole for the use of Chelsea Hospital; and a pretty application they had made of the land, in appropriating one quarter of an acre to the hospital, and giving the whole of the remainder to an officer not at all connected with it. As our military establishment could not be expected to be diminished, the means of extending the hospital should be kept undiminished: The hon. baronet, who had brought forward this subject, therefore had done well for the public interest.
Mr. Ponsonbyjustified his hon. friend (Sir Oswald Moseley) in having stated the report, which he had heard, that the order of exclusion had been given by the Commander in Chief, which he had done only to give the right hon. gentlemen opposite an opportunity of contradicting the rumour if they could. He had risen, however, to ask whether the grant of colonel Gordon had been perfected, so as that by law it could not be avoided; because if so, colonel Gordon having the right to the land, might still erect his house in the very situation, which, it was allowed on all hands, would be inconvenient for the hospital. [It was here stated across the table, that the agreement and grant were conditional that no house should be erected in a situation inconvenient to the hospital.] Well, then, the attempt to erect a building in such a situation was a violation of the condition, and no inquiry had taken place respecting it, until the subject had been brought under the consideration of the house by the hon. baronet, not then in his place. The secretary to the treasury, too, had stated on a former night, that the whole of the ground was such, that a house could not be built upon any part of it, except the spot which had been chosen for the intended house; and yet it now appeared that another situation fit for building upon could be found upon the land.
Mr. Huskissonhad only stated, that a great part of the ground could not be built upon; he had not, nor could he have said, that it was such that the proposed building might not be removed a little to the right or to the left of the situation first marked out.
Mr. Calcraftfelt himself bound in justice to his hon. friend to state that he went on Tuesday to inspect the ground, and had been refused admittance, and, as he was informed, by order of col. Gordon. He rang the bell, when a boy came out and informed him, that he had positive orders
112
from col. Gordon, not to admit any person. He then went on to the hospital, in order to get a written order for admission, from some of his friends there. He was not fortunate enough to meet with any of them, but left a note for one, requesting of him to send an order. The answer he received was, that it was not in his power; but, that upon application to sir David Dundas, he might get an order. It was now said, that in the opinion of the physician and surgeon of the hospital, the former situation was not a proper one; but this was the first time the house had heard of that fact. The right hon. gent. (Mr. Long) had said, that on the day of the debate upon the subject in that house, a complaint had been made to the Chelsea board against the projected situation of the building; but the right hon. gent. must remember that a notice had been given of the motion, [It was on that day, observed Mr. Long, that the complaint was made.] and a notice given in that house the day before the discussion took place, might easily travel to Chelsea, and give rise to the complaint. [It was on the day of the notice, again said Mr. Long, with some earnestness, across the table, that the complaint was made, as will appear from the minutes of the board.] There certainly could be no ground for the warmth shewn by the right hon. gent.; his own object having been calmly to state his view of the case.
Mr. C. Wynndid not doubt the statement made by the right hon. gent.; but he was surprised, if that had been the case, that the circumstance had never been mentioned until this day. If he remembered what passed on the former occasion, not a word of this had been stated, and he even was persuaded that it had been said that the physician and surgeon of the hospital approved of the scite of the house.
Mr. Longcontended that he had stated the circumstance, and added that it was I he scite of the Infirmary that was said to have been approved of by the physician and surgeon of the hospital.
Mr. Barhamthought, that as many members had been prevented from inspecting this ground, it would be desirable that the house should, on some future day, be made acquainted with the person who had given the order for exclusion: it required explanation, why, when a suspicion had been excited respecting the grant of this land, members had been refused the power of

113
inspecting it; and he trusted that the right hon. gent. (Mr. Long) would enquire into the matter, and communicate it to the house on some future day.
The Papers were then ordered, and Mr. Huskisson presented them from the bar.

GENERAL CLAVERING.
Sir T. Turton, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, was aware of the difficulty in which he was placed by the late proceeding in that house respecting gen. Clavering. If he were not convinced of the importance of the question not only to the justice of that house, but to the liberty of the subject, he should be the last man to appeal to the magnanimity of parliament, or claim its indulgence for a proposition for altering a former decision. In doing this, however, he was solely actuated by a regard to justice, and for the character of that house, as he was wholly unacquainted with the connections of the officer to whose case he was to refer. The hon. baronet then proceeded to state, that if he had been present at the discussion, he should have employed his humble efforts, though he durst not flatter himself he should have been successful, to dissuade the house from the decision it had come to. He then contended that prevarication could not apply to the evidence given by that officer, and was proceeding to an examination of the evidence in the printed minutes, in order to establish that point, when
Mr. Whitbreadcalled the hon. baronet to order, as he understood his object to be to induce the house to reverse a solemn decision it had come to in this session, which was contrary to the usage of parliament.
The Speakerdecided, that if the motion of the hon. baronet was to call upon the house to rejudge what it had already adjudged this session, it was inconsistent with the practice of the house to entertain it. It would be for the hon. baronet to state whether such was his object.
Sir T. Turton, after several ineffectual attempts to establish the regularity of the course he proposed, and upon being distinctly informed from the chair that it was highly irregular, was at length induced to wave his motion altogether.

SALE OF OFFICES PREVENTION BILL.
On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Lord Folkestonesaid, the present bill professed to check abuses in the Sale of Offices in every department of the coun-
114
try. He felt it difficult to follow the bill in its different parts, referring, as it did, to the act of Edward the sixth on the same subject. He was satisfied that the object of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been to make the bill as comprehensive as possible, for which he gave him full credit. He was, however, of opinion, that little good would attend the bill, as indeed, little good in general attended Bills of Prevention. The house knew well what bills had been passed to prevent bribery and corruption in the elections of members of parliament, yet that the evils sought to be provided against still existed, because the only effect of these acts was to render the persons concerned more circumspect, and the practices more difficult of detection. If the Inquiry, for which he had moved the other night, had been allowed, it would have been in the power of the house to see whether the bill proposed would be likely to do any good. That Inquiry, however, had been refused, and he was therefore bound to say, that however an act like the present might increase the difficulty of continuing the practices sought to be checked, the evils themselves would still exist. He did not quarrel with the right hon. gent., however, on this account. He had no doubt the right hon. gent. had done what he thought best; but he would ask, why any exceptions had been made? Why had offices in the Courts of Law been exempted, they being the most objectionable of any? Was it fitting that offices connected with the administration of justice should be made the subject of sale? It surely was not so, and the present was a fit opportunity of eradicating the practice. There was, however, another exception in the present bill more important than that to which he had just alluded; more important, on this account, because the attention of the house and of the country had been more particularly called to it in consequence of the Report of the East India Patronage Committee, that Seats in Parliament were trafficked for. When he considered that this practice had been of such long standing, he thought it impossible that the house should not take some notice of it. He threw it out, therefore, for consideration, if it would not be proper that a provision to prevent this disgraceful practice in future should not be introduced? Or if it would not be the better plan to institute an inquiry in the first instance, and then to pass such a provision? He was satisfied the right hon. gent. would not object to

115
the introduction of such a provision. The Treasury was said to have a great trade in this traffic. The Secretaries of the Treasury were understood to be the great persons concerned in carrying it on. If the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or his friends, chose to deny the charge, he should be glad to propose the appointment of a Committee to inquire into it. He was not, nor ever had been, connected with any traffic of the kind. He could not therefore say that it consisted with his own knowledge that the charge was true; but this he could say, that he understood and believed that it was. (Hear, hear! from the Ministerial bench, particularly from Mr. Rose). He was happy to hear himself cheered by the right hon. gent. What he stated was matter of public notoriety; and it was even understood that previous to every election an Office was opened in the Treasury, for the purchase of seats in parliament, which again were sold to others, of more or less interest and ability, who again in proportion to their possession of those qualities, paid a higher or lower price for their seats. There had even lately beers a vacancy in that house, because the person holding the seat had not been willing to comply with the stipulation on which he received it. His lordship believed the right hon. gent. would not deny what he had stated. If he did, his lordship was anxious for a Committee to inquire into the fact. He should not propose the appointment of one at present, but only threw out the observation, that the attention of the right hon. gent. should be directed to it. According to what should fall from him, he should regulate his conduct. He could not, however, forbear from expressing his surprize, when the right hon. gent. assisted by the Attorney and Solicitor General, saw occasion to bring forward a Bill of this kind, that they should have kept out of view that offence which was more important than any other species of trafficing whatever.
Mr. Bankessaid, the East India Patronage Committee had not expressed any opinion, that sales of offices in the service of that Company should be exempted from the operation of the present Bill, but only that there was no necessity for any separate and specific legislative measure applicable to that Company. They had done so the more particularly on this account, because the East India Company were already armed with greater powers than those which the country possessed;
116
the former being permanent, while the latter was subject to change, and dismissal from office always following the commission of the offence in the one, while it was by no means so necessary a consequence in the other. He did not know whether the noble lord objected to this bill or opposed it. For his own part, he did not see how any man could expect from a legislative measure, that it should operate to the extinction of crime. If it rendered it more difficult, he conceived it did all that could be expected from it. He was desirous to entertain the Bill, and if any thing could be added to it in the committee, so much the better. The great object was to make the hazard and risk greater than the temptation. He believed it would be a long time before any abuses were again heard of in the patronage of the East India Company; and if the instance of the dismissal from the Stamp Office was acted up to, the evil would be greatly done away.
Mr. Creeveysaid, that the noble lord was perfectly correct in stating, that Seats in Parliament had been notoriously bought and sold by the Treasury. He would say, that this was not only his belief, but that it was within his knowledge. The Treasury not only openly bought and sold those seats, but they kept, in a great degree, the monopoly of that market. If this was attempted to be denied by ministers, he should be glad to have the opportunity of proving it, and he could easily prove it from the lips of any one who had ever been Secretary of the Treasury. It was absolute nonsense and delusion on the public, for the house to spend their time in considering abuses in the Commissioners of the Lottery, and every other minor department, when they knew, and when the public knew, that, the greatest of all abuses was constantly practised by every Secretary of the Treasury, in buying and selling Seats in Parliament. To talk of a dissolution of parliament as an "appeal to the people" was mere mockery and imposition. It was perfectly well known that a dissolution of parliament was not an appeal to the people, but to the Treasury (Hear! hear!). Although he had great respect for the last government, and owed some personal favours to them, yet he must say, that their dissolution of parliament, at the end of four years, like the dissolution by the present ministers, at the end of about four months, was not an appeal to the people but to the Treasury (loud cries of Hear! hear!). Until the

117
house was disposed to suppress this odious and unconstitutional traffic, the legislating on those minor abuses was mere mockery and delusion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid he could not help congratulating himself a little on the declaration of the noble lord (Folkestone), that he was satisfied that any obscurity which was to be found in the bill proceeded from a wish on his part to make the act comprehensive. If there was any obscurity, he hoped it would be removed, and this might in some measure be effected by introducing and incorporating into the present Bill the Enactments of the act of Edward the 6th, rather than by referring to that act. The objection that the Bill only went to increase the difficulty in committing the crime sought to be prevented, he suspected, would apply to every bill. He had even attempted to do away the temptation to commit the crime, by annexing forfeiture of office to the detection of it. As to the omission of offices in our courts of law, he suspected the noble lord had not calculated the disadvantages which would arise to counterbalance any good arising from their being comprehended under the present bill. Never was the administration of justice more pure in this or any other country than at the present moment. However much we might be surprised, therefore, that the sale of offices in our courts of law should ever have formed any part of the emoluments of our judges, yet having done so for ages, and it following as a necessary consequence, if the sale of these offices were now to be abolished, that some remuneration must be granted instead of them, the question was, if the inconveniences arising from a fresh call on the country on this account, and other disadvantages with which the alteration would be attended, would not greatly outweigh the advantages to be expected from it? There were also a certain description of patent offices granted for life, with the privilege of disposing of other offices connected therewith. These he had also omitted out of the bill, as for them too, if the sale was to be prevented, an equivalent must also be given. He did not believe the advantages to be derived from introducing these into the bill would at all equal the disadvantages attending it.—There was only one other point in the noble lord's speech to which he felt it necessary for him to advert, namely, that no provision had been introduced into the bill
118
to prevent the trafficing for Seats in that house. This question, he presumed to think, would come more properly to be considered in another stage of the bill, and if the noble lord would bring forward his proposition in that stage, he (Mr. Perceval) would consider if the provision was capable of being applied effectually to prevent the abuse of which the noble lord complained. The hon. gent. who spoke last had borne testimony, not only to his belief, but also to his knowledge, of the abuses alluded to by the noble lord, declaring that the practice of these abuses was common to all administrations. As that hon. gent. had particularly referred to an administration with which he himself was connected, it was natural to suppose that he had special knowledge and information on this head, particularly so far as that administration was concerned. He (Mr. Perceval) however, did not recollect that the hon. gent., when a particular charge was brought forward on this subject against that administration, had told the house all that he had the means and knowledge of observing on this subject, because, if he had, that would have been something confirmatory of the charge, and would have tended to elucidate the truth or falsity of the statement of the then Secretary of the Treasury, that what he had done, and the influence he had exerted, had been used by him, not in his official situation of Secretary to the Treasury, but in his private character of a freeholder of Hampshire. If the hon. gent. was then in possession of all this information, belief, and knowledge on the subject, why did he not appeal to the house then, as well as on any other occasion? Why did not his patriotism then actuate him, as it did on the present moment, to divulge every thing which he knew? To the general inquiry he should oppose himself as decidedly as he did on the former day. But let the hon. gent. only bring forward those circumstances to which he alluded, as consisting with his own knowledge; let him do so impartially, not forgetting the practices of the administration with which he himself was connected, and with which, of course, he must be most intimately acquainted, and the house would know how to deal with them. He again declared that he was ready to receive and to attend to all the suggestions of the noble lord, as well connected with trafficing for seats in that house, as for offices.
Mr. Creevey, in explanation, said, that

119
what he had stated was not as a charge against any particular administration, but a mere matter of fact. The knowledge which he spoke of by no means proceeded from any confidence which had been reposed in him by his friends.
Mr. Whitbreadsaid, he was so well pleased with part of what had fallen from a right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval,) that he should say the less on that part to which he objected. He was happy to observe, that the right hon. gent. agreed with the noble lord, that the practice of trafficing for money in seats in that house was a scandalous abuse; one which should not be allowed; and that the right lion. Gent. would meet the inquiry and expose the practice wherever it should be seen to exist. He hoped, however, as the right hon. gent. called on others to expose the practices of other administrations, that he would not be backward in stating all that he knew of his own administration. It was impossible that the right hon. gent. could be ignorant of the abuses which existed. Every person knew that abuses did exist, and there were few who did not know, more or less, of the nature and quality of them. The public knew well, many members of the house knew well, that there were in that house persons who represented nothing but their own money; that there were some, who were not even then free agents, but that there was occasionally such a thing as conscience in the transaction, which sometimes forced them to abandon both their seat and their money too. Why, then, he asked, should the right hon. gent. use these tauntings, when the practice was well known, even to himself, to exist? The right hon. gent. talked of Hampshire. It was the right hon. gent.'s fortune on that occasion, which it had been during only a very small period of his life, to be in a minority. He seemed on that occasion to be impressed with a belief, which he (Mr. W.) had felt a great deal more frequently, that minorities were not always in the wrong. But to reconcile himself to this one misfortune, he could only recommend to the right hon. gent. to look to all the rest of his political life, and from thence he would be convinced that majorities were not always in the right. There, too, (in the case of Hampshire) he would find that the Secretary of the Treasury was a freeholder of the county. But that in general Secretaries of the Treasury for the time being were not only in the habit, but
120
even reduced to the necessity of carrying on such a traffic as that described, and that a public market was opened for it. If smaller evils required being corrected, why should not this flagrant and shameful abuse be guarded against? Why not strike at the roots of the evil, and cut up a traffic of magnitude? If the rt. hon. gent. really entertained any doubt on the subject of the purchase and sale of Seats in parliament, let him turn to his near neighbour (lord Castlereagh) and learn what they had done in Ireland, where one million and a half of money had been taken out of the pockets of the people, to pay for the purchase of boroughs.—It was impossible, he conceived, for the right hon. gent., to consider these circumstances without feeling that, in one way or other, an end must be put to this system, or it would put an end to them. An hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) talked of the benefits likely to result from the removal which had taken place from the Stamp Office of an inferior person there, detected in improper practices. He hoped that persons of every description would be obliged to relinquish them, and that superior officers, if detected, would not be spared. He agreed that the administration of justice in this country was as pure as it could be, and that the practice of the sale of offices in courts of law had no effect on the administration of justice; but still he did not think it proper, that even the very idea of the sale of any tiling connected with justice should be allowed to exist. Whatever expence might thence arise he was of opinion might be made up by throwing the fees of these different offices together. At all events he thought the practice of selling such offices should be abolished, that no ground of objection on this head might remain even to the most captious caviller. He could not help differing from his hon. friend (Mr. Creevey) as to a general election being at all times an appeal to the Treasury. He believed the Treasury did possess a most preponderating influence; but at the same time he knew that the people had a voice which would be used. The infringement therefore on the elective right of the people was not so great if they were not first driven mad and then appealed to; if they were not first driven into a State of phrenzy and then desired to make use of their senses. Parliaments were not so difficult to be won that dissolutions were at all times necessary. The last parliament but one had furnished majorities to three

121
different ministers, and each found itself strong enough to carry every question it required. He felt infinitely obliged to the noble lord (Folkestone) and to the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval) for the hopes which from their joint efforts were now held out to the country. With the expectation he entertained on the subject, he felt inclined to hail the present Bill as one of the happiest restoratives of the country and constitution. He hoped the right hon. gent. would not, in the course of the bill, draw back from those expectations which he had this night held out.
Mr. C. Wynnsaid, that though this was not the time to argue the clauses of the bill, yet he could not but observe that the provision against the sale of Offices in the law departments should not be included in the present bill, as the adjustment of the remuneration, which undoubtedly must be made on the abolition, was a subject of great importance, and fitting for a substantive measure in itself, whereas introducing it now, would, in his opinion, rather tend to check the progress of a measure they had all so much at heart. With respect to the clause in the bill, dismissing from their situations, such as obtained them through the medium of corrupt practices, however innocent of the existence of the means, he could by no means approve of it, as a principle equally contrary to justice and humanity.
Mr. Bankesexplained, that such a measure did not come recommended from the Committee upon East India Affairs, but was a positive rule laid down in their regulations.
Mr. H. Thorntonagreed in the propriety of including the purchaser of seats in that house among the offences of the bill, as it would be unfair to inflict a punishment upon minor offences, and at the same time to pass over those of greater turpitude and mischief. The nature and extent of the remedy itself would be best considered when the clause for that purpose was brought in.
The Bill was then read a second time.