rose to bring forward his promised motion, for an instruction to the Finance Committee, to inquire and report respecting Sinecure Offices which they should think necessary to be abolished. He began by stating, that he found in the third report of the Committee on public expenditures two paragraphs, stating, that amongst other items which called loudly for economy and retrenchment, were a great number of nominal offices under the crown, to which a very large sum was annually paid in salaries, but which partook of the nature of pensions, because no duty was done in lieu of the pay annexed. Of such places it was stated, that there were no less in England than 196, for which an aggregate sum of 142,655l. was annually paid in salaries and 38 in Ireland. There was besides a large salary annexed to the office of chief collector of customs in the port of London, which was also a sinecure. The second of those paragraphs stated, that it was impossible for the Committee to ascertain minutely the whole particulars of such cases, with out going into the examination of a long and complicated series of evidence; but the Committee had thrown the whole together, recommending their abolition. Next followed a long list, covering several pages, containing the names of places which he supposed to be those at which the paragraphs hinted; but he could wish the Committee had spoken out plainly and directly, what the places were at which they meant to point. A new Committee was appointed by the House a few nights since; and the motion he intended now to propose was, that it be an instruction to them to inquire forthwith respecting all such sinecure places, and report candidly to the House those which they should think ought to be abolished. He sincerely hoped they would do so, and thus lay the ground of some specific measure, for terminating such a misuse of the public money. He had no wish himself to be forward in introducing bills: he had no vain desire for seeking popularity in such cases. If the hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes), would undertake to bring forward a bill for that purpose, he would cheerfully resign to him all the credit of the measure, and wash his own hands from all concern in it. He concluded by moving his proposed instruction to the Committee.

hoped the House would not adopt the motion. The House had heretofore appointed a Committee of inquiry, who had done their duty by proceeding on the investigation referred to them, and reporting the result to the House, leaving it for the House itself to adopt any measures thereon that might appear eligible to its wisdom; but without giving any opinion of their own, as to what places ought or ought not to be abolished. He trusted that the House would not now send back the subject to the present Committee, or delegate any power of giving any opinion on it; but that the House would act by its own discretion. The hon. member (Mr. Bankes) had signified his purpose of proposing some resolutions on the subject. He himself had others to propose; but he was decidedly against delegating any such duty to a Committee as that now proposed. The former Committee had done its duty. Its report was before the House, and it was for the House to adopt any procedure thereupon it should deem most filing.

expressed his hope, that if the House had confidence in the Committee it would not fetter them by any such instruction as that proposed; because such an inquiry must occupy their whole time during the session, and postpone every other object of their pursuit. Each office would make of itself a separate case for inquiry, and the Committee could not be called on to recommend the abolition of any particular case, without accompanying such recommendation with the documents upon which it was founded. In fact, it was quite impossible for the committee to proceed with any effect in such a purpose, without coming, in the first instance, to some declaratory principle as a foundation for their subsequent proceedings such, for instance as a resolution, that all sinecure places ought to be abolished. After this, all that would remain for the Committee would be, to ascertain what offices could be ranged under that class. Without this, discussions on the subject would be endless; for every member would be of a different opinion as to what places ought or ought not to be abolished. This was the principle laid down by Mr. Burke in his system of reform; and the want of such a principle gave rise to all the difference and delay in the proceedings of the Committee last session.

said, it was an opinion very generally maintained by the former Committee, that if sinecure places were to be abolished, some other means must be devised for remunerating public services; as in numerous cases which would occur, the mere salary annexed to a place would be inadequate, and therefore it was suggested, that although some might be abolished, others ought to be retained.

replied, that since he could not carry this instruction to the Committee, who had an hundred times better means than he had to ascertain the truth, he should bring forward a bill, in which he would name all the sinecure places enumerated in the report to which he had alluded, leaving it for the House to retain or abolish those they thought fit. He would not allow so important an object to be defeated by a side wind; and, shame upon England, if the bill should be rejected.

rose pursuant to notice, and after a few preliminary observations, moved, "That there be laid before the House copies of dispatches from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Secretary Canning dated the 3d and 4th of December, 1808; and also copies of dispatches from Mr. Erskine to Mr. Smith, dated in August 1808."

declared, that as no inconvenience was now likely to arise to his Majesty's government from the production of those papers, he had not the slightest objection to their being laid upon the table. He was not in the House on a former night when mention was made of a dispatch, relative to which some difference of opinion had originated. A question had arisen between Great Britain and America with respect to the propriety of ratifying the agreement into which Mr. Erskine had entered with the United States. It was the opinion of the British cabinet, that such agreement ought to be abolished, and of the American, that it ought to be kept. Of the former opinion he decidedly was; and although he did not wish to impute blame to Mr. Erskine, still he was of opinion, that good faith was to be kept up between the nations only by a disavowal in toto of Mr. Erskine's power to come to any such conclusions as he did. It was totally a different question whether Mr. Erskine's original instructions were wise, and whether he was warranted in infringing them. On a former occasion, when he thought the production of these papers might do mischief, he was averse to their publication; but now since there could be no longer any danger, he was anxious for that publication. He hoped the House would examine them with care; and in the course of the examination, if he saw any necessity for other documents, he should himself move for them As to the compact with America, all he should say was, that Mr. Erskine, in entering into that compact, had totally disobeyed his instructions, and of course his Majesty was by no means bound to observe it.

hoped, as the right horn gent, had declared Mr. Erskine guilty of disobeying his instructions, he, on the production of these papers, would be competent to verify his assertion. For his part, he held a very different opinion, and pledged himself to shew, that the substance of the instructions were strictly observed; and then the question would be reversed, and the right hon. gent. would have to shew why he ran counter to the instructions which he had himself dictated. He did not mean to speak from authority on the subject; but he had heard, that if the dispatch marked No. 1, had been produced, it would have set matters in a totally different point of view. He was happy, however, that the affair was about to be candidly examined, and had little doubt it would appear, that Mr. Erskine had wisely observed his instructions.

thought it his duty to declare, that the instructions were observed neither in substance nor in spirit.

moved for the appointment of a Secret Committee, "to whom should be referred the inspection and selection of certain secret information and confidential communication laid before his Majesty's ministers, with respect to the Expedition to the Scheldt, and of a nature improper to be made public." It was his intention that this Committee should be composed of nine members; the number might be increased or diminished as might be judged expedient. He then named Mr. secretary Ryder, Mr. Wilberforce, Mr. Whitbread, sir A. Pigott, admiral Markham, Mr. F. Robinson, Mr. Bathurst, general Ferguson, lord Porchester.

as a noble friend of his (lord Castlereagh) was so intimately connected with the subject under inquiry, proposed that he should have leave to attend the Committee.

could by no means see the necessity of this; he had indeed himself obviated any such necessity, by nominating the noble lord's own secretary, Mr. F. Robinson.

said, the Committee might certainly take what steps they thought proper; but he considered the proposition in its present shape as perfectly novel.

could not see what occasion those who were deeply interested in the event of the inquiry had to interfere with any future proceedings of the Committee. All they had to do was to see, in the commencement, that this Committee was so constituted as to do perfect justice between man and man. Of all propositions, then, which he had ever heard started, that of admitting the noble lord to attend the Committee was, in his opinion, least deserving of consideration. With respect to the number of which the Committee was proposed to be constituted, he could find no objection; but he had, indeed, much objection to make to the members who had been put in nomination to compose it. In this list he observed five out of the nine were gentlemen who had been in the constant habit of voting against the measures of government on every occasion. One gentleman who had been nominated was unable to attend on any Committee. To the three next, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Bathurst, and Mr. Wilberforce, he could have no objection: they were neither in the habit of directly voting with or opposing government; but he would ask, for that very reason, were they proper to be confronted with, the other five, who were in steady opposition? Was that a fair mode of proceeding? Were the members of the Committee properly matched? Was it right that he, for instance, one of the persons accused, should not have a representative in the Committee; or rather a Committee so mixed and mingled in itself, with such balanced weight and opinions as to form a representative body of the House? To the name of lord Porchester he had no objection; nor to that of Mr. Bathurst. Mr. Robinson, he thought as the friend of the noble lord, ought also to remain on it; and, as he thought, his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning) should have an equal advantage, he should propose the addition of the name of Mr. S. Bourne. He should also propose the name of Mr. Yorke. If general Ferguson, as a general officer, was requisite, he should add also, to make all fair, general Craufurd. As to admiral Markham, he was content to retain him, provided he was allowed to nominate captain Beresford. If a lawyer also was deemed necessary, he had no objection of course to sir A. Pigott; but in case he was retained, he should pair him off with Mr. Leycester, another of the same profession. This, in his opinion, would be much the most fair way of nominating the Committee, by which both the accused and the prosecutor would have equal justice.

allowed, of course, that to any member of the Committee who was deemed objectionable, an objection might be taken; but he believed it was perfectly novel to see one of the accused, over whom an impeachment hung, venturing to step forward and make choice of those whom he thought fit to select to inquire into his conduct. It was a much more extraordinary proceeding than any of those at which the right hon. gent. affected to be so much astonished. He had never, known an occasion before, on which the nominator of the Committee had not the unlimited appointment of his own Committee, and on which he might not, if he close, nominate his own friends. (A laugh.) Gentlemen might laugh; but he would ask those opposite, when was there ever a Committee appointed by government, on which ministers did not select their own adherents? at least, on which they did not take good care to secure the majority? On the present Committees all were not chosen of the same way of thinking. In that case, indeed these might be some show of objection; but here there was barely sufficient to turn he scale. It was remarkable that there was one gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) on the Committee, whom the right hon. secretary had passed over even in silence. Why was he so passed over? Was it because he had shewn himself so well qualified to conduct an impeachment, and to discover delinquency? Was it because the thanks of that House had been given him on a late trying occasion? He had no objection in the world that justice should be done to all sides, and he thought the noble lord had full justice done him in the nomination of his friend and secretary, Mr. Robinson. The right hon. gent. had objected to one gentleman as unable to attend (sir R. Bickerton); but he seemed to forget that he was withdrawn, and Mr. secretary Ryder, to whom ministers could certainly have no objection, substituted in his place. In one choice, indeed, the right hon. gent. had seemed judicious; and if he saw any necessity for a change in the members, he of course could have no objection to him; he meant Mr. Yorke. No man could deny that Mr. Yorke was in every respect qualified to constitute a member of a secret Committee. (A laugh.) Indeed he should, of such a Committee, be elected chairman. He was not disposed to object to Mr. S. Bourne, if the number could admit him; but why should Mr. Leycester be put in nomination? He supposed the right hon. gent. considered himself bound to have him on some Committee soon, in consideration of his having been ousted from the last for which he had proposed him. If the list, as amended, was adopted, he feared the public would be very little satisfied with it. The public would naturally enough, be very suspicious of every proceeding of a Committee, from whose discussions they were excluded. If, then, substantial and evident justice was aimed at, the original Committee would be elected; but if otherwise, the choice of the right hon. gent. coming in the way it did, from the accused, would be adopted.

was not a little surprized to hear that the nomination of the jury was to be at the disposal of the prosecutor. It was, indeed, not only a singular, but a preposterous assertion. If, as had been said, an impeachment was hanging over ministers from the result of this inquiry, why should it be conducted by men who had declared, that their object in the inquiry itself was to turn ministers out of power? To "get rid of them," was the noble lord's expression. Why should men who had made this their avowed object, be allowed to nominate the Committee? It was said, indeed, that ministers had no right to nominate the Committee, but they had a right to object; if so, the only way in which they could object was, as they had done, collectively; for if they objected singly to each individual member, and divided on it, then one half of the House might be gone through, and much time uselessly lost. Would any one say that there were many men on the Committee who were not biassed—who were not in opposition—who were not party men? And surely nothing was so apt to bias men as party prejudice; it totally discoloured everything which was seen through its medium. Like the magic leaf from the wizard Michael, in the Lay of the Last Minstrel, it effected a total metamorphosis, changing every thing which it touched, and making reality appear delusion. There were some men proposed for the jury whom he considered perfectly just, if they could be divested of their party prejudices. Sir A. Pigott, for instance, was as honourable a man as lived, party aside. He could not consider him as adequate to remain on the jury; not because he was not pure, but because he had an interest in the decision—he was to come into power, in case the present ministers were turned out—he was not to consider the justice of the prosecution, but to receive the penalty of the conviction! He was, of course, not an adequate, because not an unbiassed juror. When asked, if he thought his near friend and connection (Mr. Wilberforce) was a proper juror, he had only to say, that perhaps the relative delicacy of his situation with respect to him might invalidate his judgment; but if it was considered that only party men were to be on the Committee, and that those should be fairly opposed to each other he could not think that his hon. friend, who was not connected with either party, ought to be a member. He said this, loving his person as he did, and ardently admiring his public character. He gave his assent to the list as amended by the chancellor of the exchequer.

was disposed fully to allow that the learned gent. who had just sat down, had, indeed, argued well and quoted aptly: there was only one trifling objection to both his arguments and his quotations, and that was, they were not to the purpose. He had commenced by considering the Committee as a jury, and on that supposition he built all his argument. The supposition was wrong in limine, and then what became of all the fine reasoning he deduced from it? The fact was, the Committee was not a jury; they were only to select evidence to be laid before the jury; a mere Committee of inquiry on the part of the prosecution. Now that position was down, what was the next? To the full as fallacious: he objected to the Committee on the part of the prosecution as partial. Why, who ever heard of an impartial prosecution? It was not in the nature of a prosecution to be impartial. If a man prosecuted a murderer who killed his relation, was he impartial? If a man pursued with legal vengeance a robber who assails his purse, could he be said to be impartial? Was he not necessarily and naturally biassed against the robber, or the murderer? In a prosecutor, impartiality would be a failing; for impartiality was very near a-kin to indifference; and what stimulative could indifference be to inquiry? or what promoter of justice did there ever appear, whose prominent feature was apathy to offence? The next assault was made upon party. He could not allow the justice of the accusation. No; he had been a party man all his life; and of course following that which he conceived right, he was ready to defend it: but how was it proved, that those who styled themselves "No party men." were more adequate and less impartial? They voted neither for one side or other; but now on this, and then on that; and thus with the steadiness of no side, they were yet partial to both sides! It had been said also, the prosecutor had no right to name the jury; and why not? Who ever named the jury but the prosecutor, giving of course to the accused the privilege of challenge, though net of nomination? But here the accused were doubly indulged; they not only had their own selection of documents to present on trial, but even some of their own friends were liberally named on the committee. So far from ministers having any just ground of complaint, they had rather an incentive to gratitude.

supported the committee as amended.

thought the question before the House a very narrow one; it was simply, in the first instance, whether there should be any committee appointed at all. The question of names was a subsequent one. In the appointment even of the committee itself, he was of opinion it would have been wisest to have waited until it was certain whether any necessity for its institution would arise. He thought the term of jury had been improperly applied to the committee, as they were more properly intended to select materials for information than to adjudicate or decide. He thought it equally wrong to call them a committee for the prosecution, since strict impartiality should be their distinguishing feature. He did not know what was meant by gentlemen on one side and the other calling in question the impartiality of the members. He felt himself row in his own estimation as a member of parliament at such language, and was sure that an indiscriminate committee was selected from both sides of the House, every member of it would do his duty. "What, Sir, are we not all impartial?"—(A laugh.) Notwithstanding the laugh, he was sure they all were; and for his part, when the question of names was put, he would vote for each member, not viewing his impartiality, but his talents. Lord Porchester then nominated for the committee, himself,—agreed to. Mr. Bathurst, Mr. F. Robinson, admiral Markham, general Ferguson. Agreed to. Mr. Wilberforce. On the proposal of this last name, the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed that of Mr. Sturges Bourne as an amendment.

declared it his intention, in case Mr. Wilberforce was suffered to remain on the committee, to nominate Mr. S. Bourne next; but Mr. Perceval persisting in his intention to divide the House, strangers were ordered to withdraw. The only division that took place was, on the names of sir John Sebright and Mr. Yorke. For Mr. Yorke, 196, sir J. Sebright, 128. All the rest were agreed to without any division.