presented a Petition from Thomas Hughes, William Weale Darke, Thomas Holbrow, John Holbrow, and others, freeholders of the county of Gloucester, setting forth, "That, by an act of parliament, made and passed in the 33d year of king George 2, it was, amongst other things, enacted, that every person who should be elected a member of the House of Commons should, before he presumed to vote in the House of Commons, or sit there during any debate in the said House of Commons, after their Speaker is chosen, produce and deliver in to the clerk of the said House, at the table, in the middle of the said House, and whilst the House of Commons is then duly sitting, with their Speaker in the Chair of the said House, a paper or account signed by every such member, containing the name or names of the parish, township, or precinct, or of the several parishes, townships, or precincts, and also of the county or of the several counties in which the lands, tenements, or hereditaments do lie, whereby he makes out his qualification, declaring the same to be of the annual value of 600l, above reprizes if a knight of the shire; and also, at the same time, take and subscribe the oath therein particularly mentioned, which oath the House of Commons is thereby empowered and required to administer; and that the said oath and subscription therein directed to be taken should be entered in a parchment roll to be provided for that purpose by the clerk of the House of Commons: and such papers and accounts, so signed and delivered in to the clerk as aforesaid, should be filed and carefully kept by him; and it was further enacted, that if any person who should be elected to serve in any future parliament as a knight of the shire, or as a citizen, burgess, or baron of the Cinque Ports, should presume to sit or vote as aforesaid as a member of the House of Commons before he has delivered in such paper and account, and taken and subscribed such oath as aforesaid, or should not be qualified according to the intent and meaning of a recited act and of that act, his election should be, and is thereby declared to be void, and a new writ should be issued to elect a new member in the said person's room; but it was thereby provided that nothing in that act contained should extend to the eldest son or heir apparent of any peer or lord of parliament, or of any person qualified as a knight of the shire; and that, at the late election for the county of Gloucester, a person, calling himself William Fitzhardinge Berkeley, commonly called viscount Dursley, was elected and returned, and has, as the petitioners have been informed and believe, taken his seat in the House; and that it appears from the roll kept by the elerk of the House, for the purpose of entering the oaths and subscription required by the said act of parliament, that the said William Fitzhardinge Berkeley, commonly called viscount Dursley, hath not delivered in such paper or account, or taken and subscribed such oath, as by the said act of parliament is required; but it appears from the minute book, that the said William Fitzhardinge Berkeley commonly called viscount Dursley, stated himself to be heir apparent of a peer; and that it appears by the register book of baptisms kept for the parish of Saint George Hanover square, in the county of Middlesex, that the said William Fitzhardinge Berkeley was baptized on the 25th day of January, 1787, by the name and stile of William Fitzhardinge, son of the earl of Berkeley, by Mary Cole; and that it also appears, by the register book of marriages kept for the parish of St. Mary Lambeth, in the County of Surrey, that the said earl of Berkeley was married on the 16th day of May 1796 to Mary Cole of that parish spinster; and it also appears, by an entry in the register book kept fey the commissary of Surrey, that the said earl of Berkeley appeared on the 6th day of May 1796, before Thomas Champion Crespigny surrogate, and made oath, amongst other things, that he was a bachelor, and intended to marry with Mary Cole spinster; and that it appears, by the register book of baptisms kept for the parish of St. Martin in the fields, in the county of Middlesex, that subsequent to the said marriage (viz. on the 19th day of November 1796) there was baptized in the said parish the right honourable Thomas Fitzhardinge lord Dursley, son of the right honourable Frederick Augustus earl of Berkeley and Mary countess of Berkeley; and the petitioners therefore humbly conceive that the said William Fitzhardinge Berkeley is not the eldest son and heir apparent of a peer or lord of parliament, and therefore has no right to the benefit of the proviso in the aforesaid act of parliament in favour of eldest sons and heirs apparent of peers or lords of parliament; and that, as he the said William Fitzhardinge Berkeley has presumed to sit in the House, without having delivered in his qualification, or taken the oath as required by the said act, his election is void, and that a new writ ought to issue to elect a new member in his room; and therefore praying, that the House will take the premises into consideration, and grant them such relief as the justice of the case requires, and as to the House shall seem meet."

On the question for bringing up the petition,

said, he did not understand that the petition called the return in question; it did not therefore follow, that it should be brought up as a matter of course. The Petition only prayed the House to take the case into consideration, and to grant such relief as they should see cause.

said, unless the House were informed as to the form of the petition, it was impossible they could say, whether it ought or ought not to be brought up.

said, it would be necessary for the hon. member to state more distinctly the nature of the petition to the House.

then stated, from the Petition, the complaint of the Petitioners.

could not consider this petition as explained by the hon. member who tendered it to the House, as one regularly founded upon the Grenville act; for it complained of no undue election or return, nor of any insufficient return. And although it might be competent for any member of that House to rise in his place, and state the circumstance alledged by this petition; namely, that an hon. member at the time of his being sworn member, omitted to produce his qualification, and on the proof of that fact, to move for a new writ; yet the House did not want any set of men in the county of Gloucester or elsewhere, to lay before them, the life, parentage, and education of any of their members; he therefore objected to receiving the petition, as not coming forward in the shape it ought to have assumed in order to be entitled to reception from that House.

thought if this petition was to be received at all, it could only be as a matter of course, and, if it did not come within the Grenville act, that it could not be so received.

saw great doubt as to the receiving of the petition. He was by no means satisfied that it could be considered as coming within the purview of the Grenville act, but at the same time he was not prepared to say, that any petition which did not come under this act must therefore be rejected, and could on no account be entertained by the House. The question was of great importance, and he thought that the House ought not to be called on to decide incidentally upon a motion of this nature; but that if the petition should be received, the discussion upon it ought to be adjourned to a future day, in order to give the House time to consider the subject, and to be more prepared for its discussion.

said, this petition was obviously not founded upon the Grenville act, as it professed to be. There were but four points to which that act properly applied, namely, undue election, undue return, insufficient return, and no return at all. Of no one of these did this petition complain. No objection whatever appeared to have been made to the insufficiency of lord Dursley's qualification, as ought to have been done at the time of the election, if the alledged ground of objection existed. No person complained of any irregularity in the return at the time, nor of any practical injury sustained by any person in consequence of that return. The petition was therefore nothing more than a mere paper of information to the House, that a person was sitting as one of its members who had not produced his qualification at the time of his being sworn, as by law required. The omission here complained of as a ground of disqualification, might and could only be taken up by the House itself, but the present petition could never be sent to a Committee under the Grenville act. If then the question could only be taken up by the House, was it fit that it should be done in consequence of a petition like the present? He knew nothing of the parties but from the description of persons coming before them in this petition, stating themselves to be freeholders of the county of Gloucester, who could have come forward in a very different way, he could not view them in any very favourable aspect. They had a right to have called on the candidate for his qualification during the election; they might have voted against him, or they might have petitioned against his return; they had, as freeholders, chosen to forego those modes of obtaining satisfaction. They had not even stated that he was not the fittest person to represent the county; they had not condescended to fix on any grievance under which they laboured; and he could view this petition therefore in no other light than as an attempt to draw the House into a decision of a question which could serve no practical purpose whatever. In that view of the case, was it fit for the House to proceed on this petition? That it was not an election petition was clear. The petitioners had no more interest in the matter than any other man in England. The petition was no more nor no less than a mere paper of information to the House, complaining of what was only an irregularity in a member of that House; and the question was, if the matter ought to come before them in that shape. He admitted that it was perfectly competent for any member of that House to shew that this was a case in which a new writ should issue. Yet in the event of his making such motion, he must also be bound to make out the facts. The House, however, had no right to call on the present petitioners to make out the facts they averred; to punish them if they failed; nor even to visit them with costs in the event of their allegations proving groundless and vexations. Neither would the noble lord, who was the subject of the petition, with whose figure even he (sir J. A.) was unacquainted, have it in his power to insist on defending himself. He again warned the House therefore, against entering into a question which was brought before them with no practical object whatever. They ought to be delicate of receiving such questions, and should not entertain them without necessity. The rights of lord Dursley, or of his younger brother, could never be touched by that House, and therefore it was impossible they could ever properly interfere.

thought the question involved the House in considerable difficulty. It was true, it did not complain under any of the four points in the Grenville act, stated by the hon. and learned member who had just sat down. But, nevertheless, it did complain of a disqualification in the person now sitting as the representative of the petitioners, of which they might not have been aware at the time of the election; and, therefore, the complaint rested upon another point, namely, the non-production of qualification at the time of being sworn in, which, under the Grenville act, rendered the election ipso facto null and void. He did not see how the House could properly refuse to entertain and consider such a complaint arising from any number of electors. But he was nevertheless for adjourning the consideration to a subsequent day.

conceived it to be impossible to object to the petition being brought up. It would then, however, become a matter of serious consideration, whether it should lie on the table. He was satisfied that it could not be received as coming under the Grenville act, and he was also convinced it would be agreeable to the feelings of every gentleman in the House to find that they could not entertain it at all, as by it they were called to the consideration of a point which they could never be competent to determine. What were they called on here to decide? That a person who assumed to himself the title of lord Dursley, eldest lawful son and heir apparent to the earl of Berkeley; whom the earl of Berkeley, too, himself declared to be so; who under that character, had stood candidate for the county of Gloucester, and had been elected; was not the person he and his father so represented him to be! Would the House wish to take upon itself such a power? would they wish, without having any right of jurisdiction or any constitutional call on them to do so, not only to determine so, but also to declare that earl Berkeley had been guilty of a conspiracy against the county of Gloucester? Before they ventured to take such a task upon themselves, be presumed they would at least wish to learn from the petitioners whether they were at the time of the return, acquainted with the matters stated in the petition. If the consequence of allowing the present petition to lie on the table was to have the effect of depriving a person of his rights, or of causing the House to interfere in a matter over which they had no legitimate jurisdiction, he must oppose it. He could not think the House called on to plunge itself into such a dilemma as this. He had no objection to the petition being brought up, but could not consent to its lying on the table.

thought there could be no doubt as to receiving the petition. The question would then certainly be, having received it, if they could refuse to pay attention to the contents of it. He agreed that the House could not interfere in the rights of parties, but still they were entitled to entertain the question so far as they themselves were concerned. If he felt as clear on this point as some other hon. gentlemen seemed to do, he should doubt as to the propriety of at all receiving the petition. He was therefore in favour of adjournment, that the question might be maturely considered.

concurred in the opinion that the petition ought to be brought up. The House ought to have accurate information upon the subject, and it was also desirable to know whether the petition contained any allegation that the petitioners were not aware of the facts they now brought forward at the time of the election. Because if they had known of them then, and had neglected to demand the qualification on that occasion, it would be for the House to consider how far it ought to entertain the petition and remedy their neglect. But the same objection would not apply to a motion made by the hon. gent. who presented a petition for a new writ.

wished to know whether the petition complained of an undue election and claimed for the petitioners the benefit of the 10th of Geo. 3d, called the Grenville act?

replied that it did not, as if it had so complained, he should have felt it his duty to give it in at the table without motion. The petition was then brought up, and on its being read,

, previously to his moving that the petition do lie on the table, felt it necessary to state, that he should not take upon himself the responsibility of proving the allegations it contained, nor think it his duty to submit any motion founded upon it to the House.—He concluded by moving that the petition do lie on the table.—On this question being put,

, thought every attention was due to this grave and serious subject. He did not mean on any account to point out what course ought to be pursued, but, without presuming to dictate to the House (as he perceived by what had been read of the petition, that some few of the circumstances of the case, but not all, had been stated,) he begged leave to mention some facts which came to his knowledge. The petitioners stated that in 1796 the earl of Berkeley was married to Mary Cole; having suppressed the fact, with which they must have been acquainted, of a registry in the parish of Berkeley in Gloucestershire, of the marriage of earl Berkeley with Mary Cole in the year 1785. This fact must have been well known to the petitioners, for it had been some years since the subject of much discussion in the House of Lords, and a common topic of conversation at that time in the county of Gloucester. So that the petitioners who came to that House for justice, suppressed, not only that registry of the marriage, but also an entry opposite to the entry of the birth of lord Dursley, that he was the legitimate son of earl Berkeley, who for reasons best known to the parties thought proper to conceal the previous marriage. If the petitioners had any doubt upon the subject, they ought to have demanded his qualification from lord Dursley at the election. As to what had been staled relative to the marriage in 1796, that measure had been resorted to by the advice of the most eminent counsel, because it was supposed at that time that all the documents concerning the original marriage had been lost. He had thought it his duty to state all he happened to know upon this subject, and however reluctant he might be to reject the petition, he felt the less difficulty on the subject, because by not receiving this, the parties would not be deprived by the House of their remedy, as he understood they would still have till Monday to present another petition conformably to the provisions of the Grenville act. There was much in what had been said by his hon. friend that, if this petition in its present shape should be decided to be frivolous and vexatious, the petitioners would not be liable to costs. Besides as the hon. gent. who presented the petition had declared it not to be his intention to found any motion upon it, this scandal would go forth to the world, whilst the petition, if received, might remain for ever a dead letter on the table. He thought the present quite a new question. He therefore wished it postponed till another day. If the House should then think the application malicious and groundless, they would be able to say what mode they should adopt, for vindicating the character of the injured individual, and punishing the calumniators. He concluded by moving, that the debate be adjourned till Tuesday next.

asked whether the hon. gent. who had just sat down, had any reason to know whether the petitioners had still, time remaining to present a petition founded on the Grenville Act, because if they had, that would unquestionably make an alteration in the question?

stated that to have been his apprehension at first, but admitted that he had mistaken the case.

thought the real point to consider was, whether the petition complained of an improper election, and came within the Grenville Act, because if so, there could be no doubt that it ought to be entertained. The question therefore was not, whether in its form, but whether in its subject matter, the petition was comprehended within the Grenville Act. That was a nice point, because the election had been allowed to be good and the return good; the difficulty therefore was to ascertain, whether the subsequent act charged as having been omitted, was such as to invalidate the election, ab initio, and thus in substance bring the matter of the petition within the Grenville Act. It appeared to him that the House ought to follow the course pointed out by adjourning the debate to another day. The House would thus have a sufficient opportunity to make up its mind whether this petition came within the Grenville Act, whether they ought to reject it, or refer it to a committee of privileges, as well with a view to the justice of the case, as to vindicate the character of one of their own members, if it should happen to have been falsely reflected upon. From the little consideration which he had been able to bestow on the subject, he should be disposed to think that the case did not come within the Grenville Act. The reason why he thought so was, that that act related to things done during the election, and substituted the tribunal of the Committee for the returning officer, giving it power to amend the return in case of any undue election or return. Any doubt he had, arose from the act of the 23d of Geo. II. stating that the omission to give in the qualification rendered not the seat but the election void. If the seat only were declared void, he should not have any doubt that the petition was not within the Grenville Act. When it stated, however, that the election was void, thereby a doubt naturally was excited, though he was disposed to construe the act to mean not actually void, but avoidable. He therefore should vote for the motion that the debate be adjourned to Tuesday next.

In putting the question, the Speaker intimated the propriety of his apprising the noble person concerned, the day on which the debate was to be renewed.

thought, if the application should be found to be calumnious, it would be the duty of the House to search for precedents for punishing the petitioners.

could not agree with the Solicitor General, that the case was altogether new. It was fully discussed in the case of the Westminster election, argued by his learned friend near him (Mr. Adam) and the master of the rolls.

The question for adjourning the debate till Tuesday was then put and carried.

moved the order of the day for the House to resolve into a Committtee of the whole House upon the affairs of the East India company. On the question being put,

rose to oppose going into the Committee, on the ground that there was not sufficient information before the House to enable gentlemen to form any correct opinion upon this important question. There was one paper in particular, which he had moved for on a former day, and had been ordered to be printed, that would be necessary for the elucidation of the subject, but was not yet in the hands of gentlemen; and as this paper would in a very few days be in the hands of gentlemen, he could not, therefore, see any reason for pressing the business at that moment. The question to be gone into in the Committee, was, whether the parliament should give 1,500,000l. of the public money to the India Company. It was necessary for him here in order to shew how little claim the company had upon the public, to state briefly, the several applications which had been made by the East India company to that House within the last thirty years. The hon. gent. then stated in detail, the various applications of this description from the 21st of the King in 1781, when the charter was renewed, when the bond debt of the company was only 150,000l. when its capital was 3,200,000l. when the company stipulated to pay 400,000l. annually to the public, to make a dividend of 8 per cent., and to pay over 3–4ths of the surplus profits to the use of the public, down to the present application, when the bond debt of the company was 5,000,000l. the capital 8,000,000l. and when it was proposed to obtain a sum of 1,500,000l. more from the public. The hon. member then stated, the views he had in wishing the papers he had called for to be put into the hands of gentlemen before they should be called upon to grant so large a sum of the public money. The exposition of their affairs by the court of directors themselves, and the supplement to it, would shew the declining trade of this flourishing company. These documents stated the profits of the trade of the company to have been in 1802–3, 317,159l. in 1803–4, 115,319l,; in 1804–5, 92,186l.; in 1806, 11,472l.; in 1807 the loss was 274,571l. The hon. gent. then complained of the very improper and unintelligible manner in which the annual accounts of the company were generally presented. As the company therefore had failed in all its promises to the public—as its debt, and its capital, had so enormously increased during the last 30 years, and as no necessity existed for going into the Committee till the House should be in full possession of the requisite information, he meant to oppose the motion of the hon. gent. and would take the sense of the House upon it.

observed that the hon. gent. seemed to him to have taken a course very injurious to his own object of obtaining that information, which the hon. member certainly appeared to want. At a time when it was his intention, in the committee, to put the House in possession of the grounds upon which his proposition was founded; grounds, most of which the hon. gent. seemed not to be aware of; that hon. gent. wished to provoke a debate on the general question before the House would be able to go into it with effect. But the hon. gent. should in this instance be disappointed in his expectation.—It was not his intention to state the grounds on which his proposition rested till the House should have resolved into the committee, where both the hon. gent. and himself would have the fullest opportunity of explanation. Neither should he follow the hon. gent. into his details for the last 30 or 40 years. On this point he should only observe, that from the hon. gent. for the first time, he had heard it asserted, that it was a proof of decline for a commercial company to increase its capital for the purposes of trade. All the papers the hon. gentleman had alluded to had been many weeks before the committee up stairs; several copies had been even made of the document he most particularly wished for; and if the hon. member had thought proper, he might have had any one of them for his use at any time he pleased. But towards the close of the hon. gent.'s speech, he had admitted that there was a complete exposition of the affairs of the company, down to the latest period, already before the House. The papers laid before the committee in 1808, were not necessary to shew the House what the state of the trade was at present. He should not touch upon the other matters referred to by the hon. gent. till the House should be in the committee, and consequently it was unnecessary for him to add any thing at present to what he had just stated.

observed, that if it were proposed that the House was to go into the committee, only to consider of the question respecting the loan to the India company, and he were to understand, that it was not intended to go into the consideration of the general state of the affairs of India, he should not feel any objection to the motion for going into the committee. The house divided, for the motion 43; against it 7; majority 36.

Whilst strangers were excluded, the House resolved itself into the committee, and on their re-admission to the gallery,

was on his legs, stating the causes of the difficulties in which the company found itself involved; the chief of which arose from the number of bills presented in this country for payment upon their India debt. It had been the object of the company, however, to confine their loans in India to their surplus revenue there, and they had succeeded to a considerable extent in Madras and Bombay; but there were no accounts from Bengal to shew how the plan answered there. But a complete account of all their debts and of their general situation, would be laid before the House next session. It had never been expected that these Indian debts could be discharged out of their commercial profits here. The India debt contracted in the acquisition of territory, in the prosecution of wars, ought to be charged on the territorial revenue. The House had been in the habit of extending relief to merchants under temporary embarrassments, but the company would have been able to meet all their late immense losses in trade had it not been for these India bills. He proposed to move an issue of 1½ million in Exchequer bills for the relief of the company, which would be made payable within a limited time, to bring the company's affairs, under discussion some time next session. It appeared strange to some gentlemen that the House should advance a sum of money to the directors, and limit the payment to a certain time; but he wished that such should be the conduct of the House, as it was most desirable that the accounts should be produced with regularity and punctuality. With respect to the means which the company had of repaying the sum, it was absurd to entertain a doubt of their capability of discharging a sum of vastly greater magnitude than that which he would propose to the committee. It was evident to every body, if goods to the amount of 6 or 8,000,000l. the property of the company, were under the immediate eye of the crown, that such property would fully defray the loan of 1,500,000l. and that it could instantly be appropriated to that purpose. Besides, this debt might be liquidated by the company defraying certain naval expences in the East Indies, hitherto defrayed by the crown. Mr. D. then adverted to the wars in which the company had been engaged, which had occasioned the deficit in their revenue compared with their expenditure. But there was now a prospect of their being able considerably to reduce their military establishment. He further stated that the government had called upon the company to give licences for individual trade to Africa, the Red Sea and Southern continent of America. The House, however, would have a future opportunity of regulating the India trade in whatever manner should appear most proper. When he stated this, however, he had no hesitation in confessing, that if the renewal of the East India charter was now to be proposed, he would not be one of those to consent to its renewal on the conditions on which it now stood.—He concluded by moving that the sum of l,500,000l. should be granted to the East India company.

stated, that he had but little confidence in the security proffered for this sum. It was remarkable that, as to India, the hon. gent. had only been able to shew a decrease of deficit—he had said nothing of surplus. He contended, in opposition to the last speaker, that increase of investment was not necessarily a source of profit. Where the trade was a losing one, it was a means of increased loss; and he referred to lord Minto's letter, to shew how the matter stood in the present instance. The company had he contended completely failed in all their engagements to the public; and instead of nine millions, which they ought to have paid by this time, they had only paid 500,000l.

observed, that the affairs of the Company could not be considered as a mere mercantile concern. They were not to be considered as bankrupt, because their commercial profits here could not answer all the demands, for the India bills. It might as well be said that this country was bankrupt, because it could not at once discharge a debt of 600,000,000l.

stated that he had received a letter from India, stating an instance of bad faith in the Company, in regard to a loan contracted there. It was of the last importance to preserve the confidence of the natives; and he confessed that the letter in question had almost destroyed the remains of confidence which he had had in the stability of the Company.

stated, that the transaction in question was now under investigation.

supported the motion, although he considered it perfectly delusive to argue that the affairs of the East India Company were in a flourishing state. With respect to the alledged reduction of the military force in India, it was impossible, inasmuch as it was now scarcely sufficient for the protection of the territories subject to the Company.

denied that the allegations relative to the insolvency of the Company were in any degree borne out by the facts, although it was manifest that the general circulation of such rumours, both within and without those walls, was, above all other circumstances, calculated to produce much of the evil which it was only affected to predict. It was no proof that because the coffers of the Company at home, in consequence of their commercial and political exertions in India were not full, that therefore the application to the country for an advance of a certain sum, was a proof of insolvency. Had not at various times great chartered bodies made such applications to the House of Commons? Did not the Bank of England do so, and would it be contended that such an act fully illustrated the insolvency of that corporation?

complained of the want of uniformity of system between the government at home and in India. At one time there were preparations making in India for sending 25,000 men from Bombay to attack Persia, and even change the dynasty of that country, while in this country the government were anxious to conciliate Persia. The enterprise also which took place at Macao, was directly contrary to the system that government would wish to pursue towards China, and had been followed by serious disadvantages. Notwithstanding he felt himself obliged to disapprove of those things, yet he must concur in the vote for giving the Company the assistance proposed.

replied, that though no detailed view of the situation of India had yet been presented to the House, but nevertheless he conceived that the Company had a claim on their liberality and indulgence.

A division then took place, For the motion 75; Against it 10; Majority 65.

rose to ask the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of government to take any immediate step in consequence of the Report of the Select Committee respecting the abuses detected in the office for funding exchequer bills? He would certainly wish to leave the business in the hands of ministers if they were prepared to act upon it.

answered, that it was a subject which would require very serious consideration, and could not be disposed of in a day. The hon. gent. and the House would feel that the question concerned the arrangement of an entire office, and that therefore it was a question of such detail, and which required such minute attention, that possibly he might not have leisure sufficient for the purpose, to bestow during the present session. He assured him, however, that he would give the subject his most serious consideration.

acknowledged that the revision of the whole department was an affair that would necessarily require time and attention; he thought, however, that the punishment of those offenders, he meant the three officers named in the report, ought immediately to take place. If that were done, he thought that the revision of the arrangement of the office might be left to take place at leisure.

said, that even the immediate dismissal of these three officers, would be attended with some inconvenience, as it would be necessary to select others, to fill their places.—The conversation then ended.

reported from the Committee of the whole House, to whom it was referred to consider further of the third Report from the Committee on Public Expenditure, the Resolutions, which they had directed him to report to the House; which he read in his place, and delivered in at the table.

The first Resolution, viz. "That it is the opinion of this Committee, That the utmost attention to economy, in all the branches of public expenditure, which is consistent with the interests of the public service, is at all times a great and important duty," was carried unanimously. Upon the second Resolution being read, viz. "That for this purpose, in addition to the useful and effective measures already taken by parliament for the abolition and regulation of various sinecure offices, and offices executed by deputy, it is expedient to extend the like principles of abolition or regulation to such other cases as may appear to require and admit of the same:"

rose to move an amendment. If he did not feel this a subject of a considerable moment; if he were not actuated by a sense of imperious duty, even under the present pressure of other important public business, he should have been very unwilling to bring it again into discussion. There were circumstances, however, connected with the present times, which made him conceive the subject now to be of peculiar importance. The House had, a very few days ago, refused, and as he thought rightly, to go into a committee to enquire into the state of the representation. If he were asked what was the motive which principally induced him to vote with the majority upon that question, he would say, that it was because he was convinced that it was a question, which was not desired to be entered into by the greater part of the respectable class of society, whose opinions were undoubtedly deserving of grave and serious attention from the House. He had, on former occasions, voted for some alterations in the mode of returning members to parliament, but it was at a time that he supposed the respectable part of society wished for those changes, and he had not now any fixed or rooted objections to reform in the representation, if he thought it really the wish of that class of society, to whom he had alluded.

It was his opinion, however, that there were many other preliminary steps which ought to be taken before such reform would be advisable. There should be acts passed to prevent the enormous expence of contested elections, and to prevent improper influence and interference. He was friendly to the measure, which he had often proposed, for the same reason that he opposed the motion for reform. He believed that there did exist a real, a sincere desire among that part of society of which he had spoken, for every moderate and substantial reform which would not attack the frame and foundation of the constitution. There never had been, he thought, a time in which it was more necessary to draw a line of separation between that body who wished only for moderate reforms, and the other body who wished for no reforms at all, but for the subversion of the constitution. By opposing the reasonable wishes and expectations of the moderate, they might be driven into an alliance with the desperate and the violent, whose wish was not so much to reform as to destroy. It would be a dangerous opinion indeed to go abroad, that no sort of reform was to be expected from that House, constituted as it was at present; moderate men knew and felt that they had grievances which ought to be redressed. As to the others, he believed nothing would be so disagreeable to them, as the House adopting any reforms. What had been their conduct for some months past? an unceasing endeavour to degrade and vilify the House. This system would be defeated, if the House were really to adopt wholesome and rational but temperate measures of reform.

Having made those observations by way of preface, it would be necessary for him to state in some detail, the ideas he entertained with respect to the resolution which was proposed. He never did consider the abolition of sinecures as a thing desirable principally on the ground of economy and the absolute saving which would result from it. It was not in this light, that he had ever represented it, for he knew full well that it was only in the great establishments of the country that great retrenchments and material must be looked for. He hoped that by the beginning of the next session, great savings would be made in those points. The House was aware that his plan was to give pensions to those, who had filled for a length of time high and efficient offices of the state, and he would make the fund to be appropriated for rewarding merit of this kind, equal to the produce of sinecures at any year in his Majesty's reign. He conceived that the influence of the crown had very much increased of late years, and that the increase of private wealth by no means balanced that increase. Besides our great naval, and military establishments, the perpetual increase of taxes required a perpetual increase of revenue officers and of places. He did not mention this circumstance from any wish to diminish the proper influence of the crown, but merely as an answer to those who defended sinecures as necessary to support the influence of the crown. The fund that he would wish to provide for the reward of services instead of the sinecure places, he would wish to be left at the disposal of his Majesty. The King should be the fountain not only of honour but of reward; and he should not wish that power to be trusted to the House of Commons, as he thought it would be subversive of the first principles of the constitution. He would be also afraid to trust the remuneration of such services to the House of Commons, as he should be much afraid of that excessive liberality which they are apt to display to individuals. He thought it was most evident, that the services of the nature he had alluded to, must be rewarded in some way or other. If there was no reward to be given, men of the first talents in the country might be driven from the pursuit of places, and the country might lose much for the want of the benefit of their abilities in its service. It was perfectly notorious, that there were men eminently qualified to serve their country in high offices, who yet had not inherited great possessions, and could not devote their time to the public service without a recompence. He could not avoid applauding the honourable feeling and disinterested spirit which induced some gentlemen on the other side of the House (the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Yorke) to relinquish emoluments to which they were justly entitled from the offices they held, and he should be glad to find a similar liberality of feeling on their part, with respect to the general question now in discussion. With respect to sinecure places, it could never be in the view of any rational government, that persons should receive salaries for offices, in which they had no duty to perform; and the abolition of such offices, would rather strengthen the bands of the crown, than weaken them. He believed it was the opinion of the sound part of the country, that they ought to be abolished. They were now drawing towards the close of the session, and he entreated the House to endeavour, by acquiescing in this resolution, to preserve their character. It was true, they had been able to abstain from burdening the people with any additional taxes, which he allowed was a comfortable reflection, but still he feared they could not go on with that vigour in retrenchment which could effect any particular or essential service, a retrenchment which was at once so necessary and so anxiously looked for by the sober and thinking part of the public. He would have the House do something like an act of grace by acceding to what was so ardently expected. Let us, (said he), see whether sinecures ought to exist, whether they have a foot to stand on, and, if they have not, let us immediately abolish them; and let us not, by refusing so to do, aid the cause of those, who under the name of reform, seek for revolution.—The hon. gent. concluded by moving his amended resolution; viz. "That for this purpose, in addition to the useful and effective measures already taken by parliament for the abolition and regulation of various sinecure offices, and offices executed by deputy, it is expedient, after providing other and sufficient means for enabling his Majesty duly to recompence the faithful discharge of high and effective civil offices, to abolish all offices which have revenue without employment, and to regulate all offices which have revenue extremely disproportionate to employment, excepting only such as are connected with the personal service of his Majesty, or of his royal family, regard being had to the existing interests in any offices so to be abolished or regulated."

was always willing, if he could not get what he desired, to take what he could get, and therefore he would support the amendment, although he should rather wish to have he two questions separated as to the abolition of sinecures and the proposed indemnity. Sinecures he had long considered as the disgrace of our system, and as materially injurious, not only to the interest of our ancient constitution, but peculiarly so to the character of that House. It was absurd to maintain, notwithstanding all that had been written and said with that view, that the influence of the crown had not most materially increased of late years, or that this influence, which it was so desirable to reduce, was not greatly augmented by the existence of sinecures.—After warmly vindicating the conduct and character of Mr. Burke, the noble lord adverted to the alledged economy of the proposed substitute for sinecures. That, he observed, must depend upon the proportion which the substitute bore to the present amount of the sinecures. He was, however, free to own, that he was not sanguine in expecting much in point of economy; but he was anxious, upon other public grounds and considerations, that sinecures should be done away.

conceived that gentlemen seemed anxious to get rid of sinecures without any object of practical utility in view. From the nature of the proposed substitute for those sinecures no saving was looked for, and when gentlemen talked of their eagerness to do away a mere name, because it might be somewhat obnoxious, were they sure, or had they any reason to calculate that their favourite substitute would not very soon become equally unpopular? It appeared to him, indeed, that the substitute was likely to become more unpopular, because it held out to the public the semblance of a desire to remove a burden while it only got rid of a name; because, in fact, it involved an attempt at delusion.

spoke in favour of the amendment. He denied that the passage cited from Mr. Burke in favour of some sinecures, was an authority in favour of all sinecures. He commented on the various causes concurring in producing the jealousies of the people. A nation of manufacturers could never be as contented as a nation of agriculturists; besides, there was so great an increase of population, and such a course of politics had taken place, as brought home that subject to every man's feelings, and of course extended knowledge, facilitated the communication of that species of knowledge was by the periodical press.

said he looked on this measure as the first fruits of that committee from which so much had been and was still expected. The hon. gent. (Mr. Bankes) had greatly exerted himself to obtain the abolition of sinecures, and when the House considered how he had been thwarted by his Majesty's ministers at every point and turn, his perseverance had been such as to deserve the thanks of that House and of the country. He hoped this extraordinary session would not be suffered to close without shewing the people that the House had some inclination to pay attention to retrenchment and economy.

spoke in favour of the amendment.

said be did not rise to go at all into the argument, and should content himself with simply stating it as his opinion, that at all times, and especially at present, it would be true wisdom, and was a part of their public duty, to remove as far as could be done all grounds for distrust of that House on the part of the people. It was true patriotism to shew to the people of England that that House was most anxious at all times to stand well in their good opinion. He would not now argue the question, but it was not easy to suppose those persons serious who spoke of pensions proving as unpopular as the abolished sinecures. Sinecures were most unpopular—pensions were in many instances popular and justifiable. He could never, therefore, agree, that when money was to be demanded at all events from the nation, it made no difference to their unfeelings, whether it was paid for real services or given to lazy and luxurious sinecurists.

shortly replied. He said that there was no proof that sinecures were unpopular, but the opinions of those honourable gentlemen who stated that they were so, and asked if they were prepared to say, that substituted pensions would not be as unpopular as sinecures were alleged to be? The gallery was cleared for a division, when the numbers were

On our re-admission, Mr. Bankes was moving the third Resolution. The gallery was then cleared, and the motion carried Ayes, 111; Noes, 100; Majority 11.

The rest of the Resolutions were then carried.