rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice some days ago, relating to corrupt practices of the Treasury with respect to the return of Members to Parliament. He observed, that he was fully aware that he had no claim on the attention of the house, but that which he derived from the very important nature of the subject that he felt it his duty to lay before them. The task he had undertaken was most ungracious and unpleasant; and nothing but a strong sense of public duty should have induced him to place himself in the situation of becoming the accuser of any man. It would not be necessary for him to trespass long upon the indulgence of the house. The substance of the motion he meant to propose lay in a very narrow compass. It consisted in a charge of corrupt practices against two of its members. He wished only to be permitted to make one prefatory observation, and it was this, that the facts that came to his knowledge were so dangerous, so prejudicial to the genuine spirit and principles of the constitution, that he would have justly merited to be stigmatized as a traitor to his country if he had declined to lay them before the house. Before he proceeded further, he would move that the several entries on the Journals relating to the proceedings against the two Shepherds, members of that house, be read. [The clerk here read the entry, dated the 13th of Feb. 1700, in which it was stated, that Samuel and Francis Shepherd, esqrs. members of that house, were ordered to attend in their places, on charges of corrupt practices respecting seats in parliament; also the entry dated Feb. 15, 1700, specifying, that corruption had been practised on the electors of Newport, in the Isle of Wight, Malmsbury, Wootton Basset, and other places; also the entry of March 18th, 1700, stating, that Messrs. Shepherds had been heard in their places, and by their counsel at the bar; finding the charges proved, and ordering that Samuel Shepherd, senior, be committed to the Tower, and his agent to Newgate.] He wished to call the attention of the house to the form of the proceeding on that occasion. It appeared first, that information of the corrupt practices was laid before the house; next, that the two Shepherds were heard in their places; and thirdly, that they were headed by their counsel at the bar. The Charges he had to bring forward were against two of his majesty's ministers; one against the right hon. Spencer Perceval, for having, through the agency of the hon. Henry Wellesley, late Secretary to the Treasury, and late a member of this house, and also by other agents, been guilty of corrupt and criminal practices, in order to procure members to be elected into this parliament: The other was against the right hon. lord viscount Castlereagh, a member of this house, for similar practices. He would take up the time of the house no longer, but move that these Charges be heard at the bar of the house, on Tuesday next.

(rising under evident agitation) said, that he knew not what course was pursued in 1700, the æra of the hon. member's precedents; but through the whole of his acquaintance with the proceedings of that house, he never knew any instance when an accusation was brought forward against a member, that the substance of such accusation was not previously communicated to him; and that, through the common courtesy of the house, he was not allowed to be heard in his defence. The hon. member, however, was the best judge of the course he meant to pursue. Under these circumstances, nothing remained for him but to make his bow, and leave the question to the decision of the house. [The right hon. member immediately left the house].

said, that the form of proceeding proposed by the hon. member was one of the strangest he ever heard. The house would pause before it came to so extraordinary a resolution. Whether the persons accused stood there as his majesty's ministers, or whether they were the lowest members of society, they were entitled, before they were called on for their defence, to be acquainted with the nature, at least, of the crime with which they were charged. What information, he would ask, had the hon. member given, to call upon the house to adopt so solemn a proceeding, as a hearing at their bar? What charges had he specified against Mr. Spencer Perceval or lord Castlereagh? Would any court, which deserved to be called a court, conduct itself upon such principles? Was it ever heard, that a person was to be set down as one under accusation, without the slightest information having been laid before the house? The hon. member told them, that he was informed a member of that house had stated in a former debate some instances of corrupt practices within his knowledge; and upon these grounds he preferred a charge, which had the effect of obliging the right hon. member to quit the house. If every member, against whom vague and indefinite charges of this kind might be brought forward must withdraw, as a matter of course, the hon. member might soon have the whole house to himself. He deprecated the scattering of loose and unfounded accusations. The hon. member was totally mistaken in his precedent. As far as his recollection served him, it did not sanction the form of proceeding he recommended. The charges against the Shepherds were the subject of long and frequent examinations before committees of that house. There was no precedent for putting a man on his trial on such slight grounds?

observed, that his hon. friend had no objection to state the particulars of that information, which he meant to lay before the house. He always understood that a member informing the house that a report had reached him of corrupt practices, was held sufficient grounds to proceed upon. The house had often proceeded to hear evidence at the bar, upon even slighter grounds than the mere knowledge of members.

thought it was the duty of the right hon. members against whom the charges were brought, to stand up and second the motion, if it were only for the purpose of clearing their characters. After what had been said in that house, respecting these corrupt practices, it was impossible not to take notice of the subject. The house could not, maintaining any regard for its character, pass over so extraordinary a circumstance. Some of his majesty's ministers were charged with being active agents in corruption. The tone and dignity of that house must be gradually falling, the feelings of ministers themselves must be wofully blunted, indeed, if they could sit in their places, and hear such accusations. The hon. member was entitled to the attention of the house, if it were only on account of the grave and important nature of the Charges he brought forward. It was, in substance, no less than this, that two of his majesty's ministers were accused of corrupt practices, to procure the return of members to parliament.

conceived there was something extremely irregular in the form of proceeding proposed by the hon. member. It was a form of proceeding better adapted to the genius and spirit of one of the meetings that were so frequent, and so industriously promoted, than befitting the temper and dignity of that house. It would well become that meeting in which the extraordinary proposition was made and approved, that a man holding a place under government was not fit to sit in that house. Such propositions were not intended for the sober consideration of parliament. No; their object was to increase the popular ferment, to add fuel to fire; and to encourage and propagate that dangerous spirit that was circulated with a diligence the most suspicious.

"Spargere voces in vulgum amhiguas"—

seemed to be the grand principle of action of the leaders of these meetings. Their aim was to cry down all public men; to render them objects of distrust and suspicion. He could perceive no good, no substance in a motion grounded on undefined Charges of this kind. For his part, he must require something tangible, some statement that would enable him to determine whether the charge was fit to be entertained, and what were the grounds of suspicion. With respect to the precedent read, it did not stand upon the loose grounds that the motion of the honourable member did. It was not because one member should say that another did so and so, that that other member should be called upon to negative it. Where the charge was direct, the course of proceeding was plain. Instead of seconding the motion, the right hon. member could only do as he had done; and they were bound to support him against a most unfair mode of endeavouring to implicate the house.

thought it extraordinary that the right hon. member, with whom he had not the least acquaintance, and who knew but little of him, should charge him with participating in factious meetings, and—

rose to order. It appeared to him that the hon. member totally misunderstood the last speaker.

explained, that he certainly had no knowledge of the hon. member. What he said relating to factious meetings was meant to apply to the honourable member; but he now understood that he never attended any of those meetings, and he therefore begged pardon for having so alluded to him.

said, that when he gave notice of the motion which he brought forward that evening, he stated the substance of it as fully and explicitly as he could. He conceived that he would best do his duty by resting his proceeding upon precedent. If, in pursuing this course, he could be supposed to have acted uncandidly towards the members against whom his charges were directed, he begged to apologize to them. It arose from ignorance; for he could assure those hon. members, and he trusted the assertion would be believed, that he was anxious to bring the subject forward as fairly as possible. He was ready to adopt any mode of proceeding the house should recommend. It never was his intention, indeed it would be unfair, to send out a story to the country, without being prepared to prove the fact. Here the Speaker interposed, and said, that after what had just fallen from the honourable member, he felt it imperative upon him to submit to the house his sentiments on the course of proceeding. If it was fit that a member should be heard in his place, it was also fit that he should hear the charges against which he was to defend himself. No charges could be stated against any absent member. In respect to the notice, the hon. member would allow him to tell him, that any notice against ministers applied to the whole of the administration, and that it was not the practice of ministers to withdraw, except the charges were personal. The notice the hon. member gave was against ministers generally. With respect to charges, the house always received them with great strictness and deliberation. They ought to be brought forward in the most solemn manner. There were two modes of proceeding; either by impeachment, in which case they were decided by another tribunal; of sometimes oral charges were heard, against which the parties accused defended themselves in their places, and frequently by their counsel at the bar; and upon the whole matter the house came to such conclusion as it thought proper. With respect to the precedent that had been read, there was, to be sure, no speech on the Journals; but there was enough to imply that the substance of the motion had been previously given to the house. Without premises, no opinion was to be expected. A charge implied that the person accused was to be heard; that there was something on which he must be heard. After hearing the person accused, it would be for the house to say aye or no, whether they should proceed further. Reverting, therefore, to the subject, it was his opinion that no particulars of charge could now be stated. This opinion, however, if adopted by the house, shut out no further inquiry; shut out no hon. member from proceeding at any other time. The motion of the hon. member came as much by surprize upon him as upon the house; so much so, indeed, that he was not able to afford him that assistance he wished. If it should be the sense of the house not to proceed, as he thought it ought, it would be his duty to take its sense, aye or no, on the motion.

said, that he would be the last person to staff any thing to the house which he conceived to be improper.

thought there could be but one sentiment in the house on the subject of the present motion. Considering the mode in which it was brought forward, and the mistake in the case of the precedent referred to, he was convinced that the house ought to mark its opinion in so decided a manner, as not to render itself liable to a recurrence of such a proceeding. He rose, therefore, to advise the house not to agree to the withdrawing of the motion, but without intending any personal disrespect to the hon. mover. He should consequently oppose any motion of that nature, and call for the marked opinion of the house.

rose to offer a few words. He commenced by noticing the curious reason assigned by the right hon. the Secretary of State for refusing to permit the motion to be withdrawn, and then negativ- ing it; namely, that the house would thereby prevent the recurrence of similar errors. But it was for all that right hon. gent's ingenuity to find out how such a result as that was to be produced by the naked entry on the Journals of a proposition made and negatived. How could the negativing of the motion prevent any future misunderstanding of Shepherd's case. But the hon. member had not shewn any desire to withdraw his motion. As to the motion itself, notwithstanding the able exposition from the Chair, given with all the knowledge which characterized the right hon. gent. who was at all times so ready to give his assistance to every member of parliament, yet it appeared to him that any person might be misled by the Entry. There was no record of any, or what information was given in the instance of Shepherd's case, and therefore we were quite in the dark on that point. Shepherd protested his innocence, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer might have protested his innocence in this case. The Secretary of State himself had not been backward in proposing a resolution without a previous notice. The hon. member behind him had made a general charge, and had declared his readiness to tell his story to the house. He had, in his opinion, a perfect right to do so. The house had been warned against the effects of what had been termed "wide-wasting motions," which were inconsistent with the duty of members to each other, and to the state. To avoid such objections as were made against the activity of Committees, the hon. member had preferred a general charge of corruption, in the first instance, and had selected and specified two individual ministers of state, as parties against whom he declared himself ready to enter into the case, taking upon himself the responsibility and peril of the task. A right hon. gentleman had stated, that this charge might appear to be a trifling matter, when examined, and therefore, that it was necessary to know its nature beforehand: in short, to have it brought before the house in a 'tangible shape.' A tangible shape, he (Mr. W.) thought rather an aukward expression at present. The house had recently had pretty strong calls upon them, for tangible shapes, and these tangible shapes had not turned out exactly as they were wished and expected to turn out. For his part, he thought the moment for putting the present charge into a tangible shape would be precisely that, when the witnesses were called to the bar of the house to be examined upon the subject. This motion, it appeared, was treated by honourable gentlemen opposite as one part of a general system organized for the attack of all public men. This he must deny. Where was such a systematical plan to be discovered? What was to be expected from the feeling of the public, when they saw lately such an instance of the judgment of that house in a case where the accusation was brought home to the accused person, who confessed the commission of the offence, and whose confession was upon record; and yet that house, (always so watchful of its privileges and its dignity,) took no notice of what was proved, and saw no necessity of coming to any criminating Resolution? A right hon. gent. had thought proper to make some remarks upon gentlemen's attending certain clubs and societies existing for the purpose as he supposed, of exciting the public mind and inflaming popular passion. What had, in fact, excited the public mind? What, but the results of recent investigations into transactions of public importance! What, but the refusal of the house of commons to do justice on a member and a minister who did not deny his offences! What, without imputing such a design to ministers, would be the consequence of an attempt to stifle the expression of the public voice? He readily avowed, that during the whole of his political life he had been in the habit of attending meetings of the people. Every word he had said on these occasions he considered himself responsible for. He would not retract one word that he had used on such occasions. He was not one of those who would say they were sorry for having been at public meetings. He thought it fair to speak out, whatever marks of displeasure or censure he might observe on the countenances of gentlemen opposite, for he was neither afraid nor ashamed to avow that his not having been present at one meeting in particular, recently held, which gave great offence, did not arise from any thing he disliked or thought improper in the object of that meeting. He thought, indeed, that advantage might be taken to excite and inflame the public against the persons and principles of the friends of Reform. He professed himself to be strenuously for a Reform in the way in which it was defined last night, as an alteration in the constitution of that house. In noticing the remarks of the right hon. gent., he applied to the tendency of part of his speech the quotation he (Mr. Bathurst) had used—

'Spargere voces in vulgum ambiguas."

That right hon. gent. supposed that the results of such a Reform as was proposed, would be to exclude all public men from sitting in that house. He did not think so. He was not himself of that opinion, for he did not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or the First Lord of the Treasury, or the Secretary of State, or any of the great and efficient officers of the crown, should be excluded from seats in that house. He would not go to the same extent as the Act of Settlement; but he must say, that he did see many before him holding places, who, without meaning any thing personal to them, he did think ought to be excluded. When a cry was raised against public meetings, because two ministers were charged with corruption, he felt desirous to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer a few questions with respect to the means of inflaming the public mind. Was it meant to say that the few persons who were at the recent meeting could be so extremely dangerous? Was it true or not that gross corruptions existed? He would admit not so gross as in former times, but yet gross enough. Were we so purified? Had we really done enough in the progress of Reform? No, we could never do enough; if the work of Reform ceased, while human nature was human nature, corruption would succeed and triumph. We know that members were formerly paid by the crown so many pounds a year for their votes and support in the house of commons. Corruption was nut now so gross; but in those times they had the benefit of arguments against Reforms similar to those used at present. Could any man arraign the conduct of his hon. friend who made the motion, and venture to say, that there was no corruption in the election of members to parliament? He had never been in office, and therefore had not the means of such particular knowledge of these things as some others; but he could speak from that sort of general knowledge that he had acquired on the subject, and was desirous that it should pass under close examination. He thought his hon. friend might fairly stand on the question of form, and take the sense of the house.—It was improper now to enter into particular observations while the parties accused were absent; but he contended that cases might occur, in which a member might not have a quarter of an hour's notice, to bring general charges. The Secretary of State wished a negative to be put upon this motion, to serve as a sort of land-mark to prevent future attempts at encroachment. He, too, wished the sense of the house taken, to serve as a land-mark of the privileges and duties of members of that house. Corrupt conduct was imputed to Mr. Spencer Perceval and lord Castlereagh. The responsibility was on the mover, and let the house decide fairly; the withdrawing of the motion might carry the appearance of mistake in the mover. It might have been more prudent to consult the opinion of the Chair; but the motion being made, he thought the principle of the right ought not to be yielded. This was an attack, not upon all public men, but on their corrupt practices; and if defeated in the question now, he hoped it would be brought on again almost immediately. They all knew of these practices, and they had recognized them. The house of commons had passed over a case proved before them, and the man remained a minister of state. Did not that transaction shew that abuse was not corrected or checked? and those men who did not wish for a Parliamentary Reform, should look well to the remedy of what was practically wrong, and for which members might be sent to Newgate. A member offers to prove the existence of ministerial corruption, and up jumps some lion, gent., and charges him with attacking all public characters, and endeavouring to destroy the constitution from the foundation, and to build up some new edifice. He denied again the truth of such charges. He saw no proof or just suspicion of such a system as was alluded to. If the house would not give the people the right of public investigation into abuses, the people might be quiet; but they would see, that they who refused inquiry, refused to them the British constitution.

explained, that he did not state that the attack on lord Castlereagh was part of an attack on all public men, whatever opinion he might entertain on that subject.

spoke with great animation in reprobation of the motion. He considered it as unjust and ridiculous. Were honourable gentlemen so ignorant of the history of their country, of the forms and privileges of that house, in which they had the honour to sit, as to encourage a motion so unjust and unprecedented? Every man who was conversant in the pro- ceedings of the house, who had the smallest ideas of justice, of liberty, of the laws under which he lives, must give to it his decided negative, and not allow a refuge to this unjust, this ridiculous motion.

, noticing the observation, that attempts were made to throw a slur on the conduct of persons attending public meetings, said, that if the speeches attributed to particular persons were literally so, they went near to destroy what was the most desirable of all things in the present state of the country; he meant the unanimity of the public mind; and tended to more mischief than all their authors could retrieve, if they lived to sit in the house for a hundred years to come. He would give his feeble assistance to the prevention of real abuses, but not to those general attacks of abuses, never known as such till these pure days. These public meetings could only do mischief. He did not impute improper motives to individuals, but as to voting public thanks to a gentleman for his patriotism, he would as soon vote them to Mrs. Clarke for her virtue. (A laugh. Hear! hear!) He would not be deterred from his opinions by the sentiments of any set of people. The expressions he had heard imputed to an hon. gent. did him no credit as an Englishman. He hoped always to see respectable persons opposing government. They were the guardians of the public interest; but there was a power behind those benches (the opposition benches) greater than those benches themselves. That power looked not to parliament, but to a faction who would get rid of all parties, and represent themselves to the country as the concentrated essence of political purity. (Hear!) The hon. baronet opposite (sir Francis Burdett) with whom he was once in friendship, acted, he believed, honestly and conscientiously in public life, or else his nature must have changed since he knew him; but his political proceedings had his total dissent, and he trembled at the consequence of his enthusiastic conduct.

had never heard of such charges, unsupported by proofs, as were made from the opposite side of the house. The benches below him were, it seemed, the guards of the public purse. What then, became of ministers, and of all the rest of the house? The most severe remarks had been introduced upon public meetings. He had happened to attend at one of them for the specific purpose of celebrating, in common with all the na- tion, the conduct of that minority of 125, of which one gentleman in particular was the leader. The nation had expressed its sentiment of that minority in a strong and audible voice, and he thought that gentlemen ought not to hesitate to treat that voice with respect, though an honourable member might charge such celebrations as attempts to create contusion. The object of the meeting he attended was definite and honourable. He did not go to the Crown and Anchor, for reasons similar to those already stated (by Mr. Whitbread). If the house adopted a moderate and just Reform, he believed that the public meetings would be fewer, and less alarming to government. They were the natural consequences of the misconduct of the house, and there was no prevention of them by absolute force, but by timely Reform. As for misrepresentations of the press, which were complained of by gentlemen opposite, had not others, and particularly an hon. baronet, been treated to the full with as little ceremony. He could not believe that the nation would impute to the advocates of Reform what the press imputed to them. Indeed, such reports of public meetings would be trampled upon, if the grievances themselves did not actually exist. He thought, after what the Speaker had said, it would be more regular to withdraw the motion; but not to withdraw it so as to yield a privilege. He concluded by declaring his opinion, that the ministers of the crown possessed an undue influence in that house.

expressed his astonishment to hear accusations and censures on gentlemen for an ancient, acknowledged constitutional practice of Englishmen, in attending public meetings. This, he had been always taught, ignorant as perhaps he was of the history of the country. Meetings of the people for the attainment of a moderate Reform, conducted with regularity and order, did not lead to public mischief, but to open the eyes of the country and of the house. He avowed that be was a steward at one of those meetings, and joined in recommending to the counties to petition parliament for the desired Reform, temperately, vet urgently. That embraced the entire object of the meeting. He was ready at any time, to defend his conduct on the principles of our forefathers, and should continue to be guided by those principles. He rose chiefly at present to repel unfounded aspersions.

said, that no distinct charge had been proposed against either of the two parties accused. He never knew any motion more contrary to justice in that house, or elsewhere. He was even surprized to hear it defended by an honourable member opposite (Mr. Whitbread) versed, as he was, in his favourite character of a public accuser in the British house of commons. Was a charge of personal corruption to be treated like a general charge against an administration? He was proud that he was no party to such resolutions as those lately published, stating a clause in the Act of Settlement as the existing law of the land, which never was law. [Here it was observed that it was four years before it was repealed.] Never till lately had it been seen in this country that bodies of people, not present during a judicial examination, had met to arraign the conduct of those who found it their duty to acquit one who was accused. He never till now heard of condemning the house of commons in this manner, for the exercise of their duty in an acquittal. He could not conceive how those who called themselves the great friends of the country could reconcile it to their feelings to degrade the character of the house of commons.

had not attended any of the public meetings, and from his habits of life it was not likely he should attend them; but he joined in expressions of surprize at the language he had heard. If such language was correct, be should suppose that the house of commons had nothing to do with the people, but were of their own creation. If the tendency of the doctrines he had lately heard were encouraged and acted upon, he should bid adieu to the liberties of the country, and should account his being sent to parliament not an honour but a degradation. If it were thought just and expedient to attack the meetings of the public, it would be better at once to vote the constitution at an end. He conceived it to be a public duty to obtain reform in every constitutional way.

thought the motion irregular, as it contained no specific charge, nor had been introduced with any detail of circumstances or statement of facts. The question being put, the motion was negatived without a division.

began by saying he anticipated some opposition to the motion of which he had given notice. The idea of building the infirmary in an airy situation was suggested first by Dr. Moseley; and the lands in question, of which lord Yarborough was then tenant, were, purchased for this purpose. Very shortly indeed after the purchase had been made by government, and before the surveyors had made their report, application was made by col. Gordon to become tenant to part of the lands. The report of the surveyors was, that the annual value of the part taken by col. Gordon was much diminished by having an infirmary built so near it. If this nuisance, however, was so great, he would ask, why col. Gordon was so early in his application, or why he chose that spot? He must object to the whole transaction upon two grounds. The first was, that he thought, these lands ought not to have been leased at all to any individual: and his second objection was, that they were let on terms very inadequate to the real value. As to his first objection, he believed that it would now be confessed universally that a saving of 55l. per annum was no object to be put in comparison with the health and comfort of our veterans. The situation that had been fixed upon for col. Gordon's house, would certainly never have been altered, if it had not been for the notice which had been first taken of the subject in that house by the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett.) It had been stated, somewhat inaccurately, that the whole of this ground had been purchased from lord Yarborough, whereas, in fact, part of it had belonged to the hospital, and had been much dilapidated by what was called the improvements of col. Gordon. When the surveyors calculated in their report that col. Gordon was entitled to get at least six pounds per cent. on the 4,500l. he was found to expend, it did not, however, appear to him, that the surveyors had taken into their calculation what it was that the public were to gain upon this transaction. By some papers that were circulated by the friends of col. Gordon, it was stated, that he was at a most immense expence in keeping up a wall, which he was bound by his contract to keep in repair, and that this wall was to him like a pit that swallowed up the whole produce of the land. He was however informed, that as to the vast expence of keeping up this wall, there were many builders in this town that would be very ready to keep it in repair for ten pounds per annum. If col. Gordon was really to be annoyed at the sight of old soldiers taking the air, he could not conceive why he chose to take those premises. He had made inquiries at Chelsea about the value of ground, and he was informed that many gardeners would have given 20l. an acre for such ground, even if it had not the advantage of being on the river. It appeared therefore that any common gardener would have given 80l. a year for what col. Gordon gave but 55l. Col. Gordon might, as soon as he got the lease, have lot it out at a profit. If the value of the land was said to be so depreciated from the contiguity of the infirmary, was not that a reason for not separating the land from the building? At present the building gave more the idea of the damp vaults of a secluded prison than of an airy and comfortable dwelling for invalids. He should much rather see the old soldier walking about these grounds and smoking his pipe there, than see all the improvements which col. Gordon could make. As to col. Gordon personally, he did not mean to say, that he, from his long services, was not as much entitled to any favour as another officer; but he would say that these grounds ought not to have been taken away from the infirmary to be given to any individual. He was ready to prove at the bar, that most of the officers at Chelsea remonstrated against this transaction, but that the governor persisted. He should only wish to call a few witnesses to the bar. The honourable baronet here mentioned the names of sir David Dundas, Dr. Moseley, Mr. Fordyce, and nine or ten other gentlemen, being medical men, surveyors, or architects. He concluded by moving "That a Committee be appointed to investigate certain transactions respecting the building of the new Infirmary at Chelsea."

said, that whatever wish gentlemen might have to proceed further in this inquiry, he could hardly suppose them serious in proposing to call witnesses to the bar, and to consume much of the time of the house on a business of this nature. If it were necessary to leave the further consideration of such a business to a committee, the inquiry should be left to a select committee, and the time of the house should not be wasted by a long examination of witnesses. He hoped, however, that they would not think any further proceeding necessary when they should hear the statement he had to make. The case had since been inquired into, both by the governors of Chelsea Hospital and the Treasury; and on a communication with colonel Gordon, he expressed himself very ready to extend the space towards the infirmary. The governors of Chelsea Hospital had afterwards thought that it would be advisable to make other additions to the infirmary, and that perhaps they might want the whole of the ground, and they therefore wrote to the Treasury to know whether the contract with col. Gordon was so concluded as to prevent this. The Treasury wrote back to them in answer, that the contract was in such a situation, that they conceived col. Gordon had an equitable title to a lease from them. He was convinced that if such a contract had existed between individuals, a court of equity would have decreed the performance of it, and that a lease should be executed. It was, however, now settled that other purveyors and other physicians should be called upon to give their report; and if their report should be, that those grounds were necessary for the infirmary, government would certainly endeavour to prevail on col. Gordon to give them up. There could certainly in this case be no sort of blame attached to ministers for judging, not with their own eyes, but with the eyes of men who knew the value of lands, and were sworn surveyors. The inquiry was certainly one that would be beneath the dignity of the house to maintain at their bar. The hon. baronet had said, that the examination would be very short, and yet he had given in a list of ten or eleven witnesses. It would be evidently wasting the time of the house to have all those witnesses examined at the bar.

was astonished at the report of the surveyors, who estimated the value of this ground, as he knew many members of that house who would give 2,000l. more for it than it was let for to col. Gordon. For himself he would say, that he was ready to give more for it, and he was certain that he could make a profit by the purchase.

agreed with the right lion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it would be beneath the dignity of the house to resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, and hear witnesses at their bar on such a subject as this. The principal object of his rising was, that a noble friend of his (lord Yarborough) had felt himself excessively hurt at the representations that had been made of his conduct. It would be thought by some people that his lordship had made a sort of Jewish bargain with the government. The fact was, that being in possession of those lands as tenant of the crown, lord Yarborough applied to government, in the year 1805, for a renewal of the lease, but was told that the ground would probably be wanted for an infirmary. Lord Yarborough felt the force of this objection, and never applied again for the renewal, but offered it to government immediately, there being seventeen years of the lease unexpired. It was then left to surveyors to estimate the value, and those surveyors differed very much, one valuing it at 2,000l. and the other at 8,000l. At length a surveyor valued it at 4,700l. which, although it appeared too small a valuation, both to lord Yarborough and to his friend sir Joseph Banks, who advised him not to take it, yet his lordship resolved to give it to government on those terms. Now it appeared hard, and something like a job, that the lease of those grounds, which could not be renewed to lord Yarborough, for the reason then assigned, should be, so soon after the surrender by him, given to col. Gordon.

said, that in whatever observation he had made with respect to lord Yarborough, it certainly was never his intention to throw any sort of reflection on the conduct of that noble lord, but merely to vindicate the government from the imputation of having obtained those grounds from lord Yarborough under false pretences. The fact was, that the bargain was fair on both sides. If the surveyors differed so widely in their report, the one valuing it at 8,000l. and the other at only 2,000l. the reason was, the surveyor who set the larger value on it, conceived that lord Yarborough had a right to let it out on building leases. From all the information he had upon the subject, he must deny that government had made any conditions about what they were to do with the ground when they bought its and the only condition that he knew of was paying a fair price for it. As for the application of lord Yarborough to government to get a renewal of the lease, there was not in the Treasury any evidence or trace of such an application ever having been made.

spoke at some length on the propriety of granting every comfort and indulgence to old worn-out sol- diers, who only got admittance into Chelsea Hospital from their long services, their wounds, and their constitutions being worn out in the service of their country. If the nation chose to build palaces for these discharged veterans, ornamented gardens should go along with the palaces; and the old soldier should not be prevented from walking in them. It would be a pleasing sight to the young as well as to the old to see the worn-out soldier enjoying all the comforts which the liberality of this country designed for them. He thought the lion, baronet (sir F. Burdett) had therefore great merit in bringing this subject before the consideration of the house.

bore testimony to the long services and professional merits of col. Cordon, who was, he was confident, one of the last men in the empire, who would appropriate to himself any thing whatever that could interfere with the comfort of a British soldier. Whatever some gentlemen might think of the value of the situation of this meritorious officer, he begged it to be understood that it engrossed the whole of his time and his mind, and left him scarcely leisure to enjoy the ordinary comforts of life.

observed, that col. Gordon bid for this ground as any other man might have done; and if any blame belonged to the transaction, that blame did not appear to attach to that officer.

> said, that with respect to the bargain, so far as it affected the public, it was an absolute job. The pensioners were to be immured to give advantage to colonel Gordon's pleasure-grounds; and though, according to the speech of the hon. gent. who had just sat down, that officer would not take advantage of the soldier, he seemed to have no objection to take advantage of the ground. This was, in his opinion, the only spot in England fit for the purpose of an infirmary for the hospital, and he would be happy to give double the sum col. Gordon was to pay for it, and secure it on any of his estates, for the sole purpose of giving it up to the hospital, rather than this monument of national munificence should be disfigured. He thought this the greatest job he had ever heard of; it was a job of all jobs, and ought to be distinguished by the name of the Job. We heard every day of baremeters, thermometers, and chronometers, and this should be called the Jobometer. As to the papers, he would not go into them. Dr. Moseley desired the whole of the premises. Mr. Aust, in his letter, says, part may be granted; and in that division col. Gordon got about sixteen parts out of nineteen. Some gentlemen had talked of the expense of a wall; but they did not mention, that if it was not for col. Gordon, that wall would not be wanting. He thought the pensioners were very ill used in many respects. There was a very fine large public terrace, but the old soldiers were never suffered to set a foot on it; they were totally excluded from it: and as to the garden, not a single leek were the poor pensioners permitted to take to make their porridge with. He could not see such transactions going forward without taking notice of them. He felt it to be an imperious duty which compelled him to aim at their correction. He had no doubt, but, in these demure times, the cry would be raised against him. He did not know by what name lie should be assailed; jacobin, he supposed, was grown too state and worn out, and gentlemen began to be ashamed of it; but it signified not to him what it was; he would wear any name that went along with the reformation of abuses. With respect to the motion, he had no doubt but his hon. friend who brought it forward, would agree to take a select committee, instead of an open committee of the whole house; and as there were further papers to be produced, they might be referred to the said committee.

contended, that the hon. baronet had misrepresented the fact; though, he had no doubt he had done so from misconception. No idea had been formed of making the Infirmary for the poor invalids to resemble a prison.

said, that in looking over the papers, he thought government must have been imposed on. He would not suppose they were capable of making such a disposition, as to give it the colour of a job, and yet from the whole of the valuation of the surveyors, it certainly bore something of that appearance. The house of Mrs. Aufrere, which was to be converted into an infirmary, was valued, with the small piece of land adjoining it, at 6,380l.; and the remaining land, which was four acres, was let for 55l. a year. It was with considerable astonishment he had read the Report, and he never could have supposed it to be one drawn up on the part of the public but on the part of a lessee, who was stating every thing he could for his own interest. Respecting what fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to prevailing with col. Gordon to give up the grant, if any fraud or delusion had been practised on the Treasury, he thought it would be like the case of a minor's estate, in which, where fraud or delusion was used, a court of equity would set-aside the agreement made by trustees; so, in this instance, if fraud or delusion by any one appeared, the house might interfere, and prevent the completion of the grant.

explained, and said he never supposed there was any fraud or delusion; but that if on inquiry it should be found a desirable thing, and that, on the new plan of Mr. Soame, the hospital would be benefited by it, the Treasury would endeavour to get the grant relinquished.

said, the board never heard a word of complaint on this subject till the 13th of April, till the morning of the very day on which the hon. baronet first brought the matter before the house; and they immediately began an investigation of the subject, and had continued their inquiries ever since. It had been said no individual ought to have this ground, but that it should be converted to the general use of the hospital. He thought so as much as any one, and no man would be more ready to put it to that use, if proved to be advantageous to the hospital. He wished the Minutes of Evidence taken before the board since the 13th of April should be laid before the house. They would then see what had been done. As soon as this motion was negatived, be should move that those Minutes of Evidence be laid before the house, and if, after they had seen those and the other papers which his right hon. friend meant to bring forward, the house should not be satisfied, they might then have recourse to a select committee.

said, the hon. baronet opposite (sir F. Burdett), who was always loud against abuses, had characterised this as being of all jobs the worst; that indeed it should be called the Job. In that case he thought we might take credit to ourselves for more than an ordinary share of virtue. The veteran soldier was here said to have been robbed of his convenience, but he maintained that the case had not been made out.

in reply, agreed that the case was not made out, because the house had not all the necessary evidence before it: But, he pledged himself to make it out by the viva voce evidence he had offered to produce, and which he should bring before a select committee, if that mode was thought the most preferable way of proceeding. He understood col. Gordon had already been offered 4,000l. profit on his purchase, and was of opinion the Treasury had better give him that sum than complete the transaction. He agreed that since the question was first before the house, the site of col. Gordon's house had been changed, but to what part it had been transplanted he did not know, access to the premises having since been denied him.

presented to the house, the following