" 66 "nected.(Loud cries of hear! hear!)— "ceive, that the case he alluded to was, "when a charge was brought against a " Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Free"mantle), for interference in the election of Hampshire, where he was undoubtedly a "freeholder. The hon. gent. did not then "tell the House a word of that practice "which was within his own knowledge, of "Secretaries of the Treasury corruptly interfering in the election of Members "of Parliament. When he had that "knowledge, how did it happen that his patriotism was asleep on that remarkable occasion ?” Thus, you see, Mr. Gooch, here is no denial of the fact, but merely a charge against the late ministers of having done the same thing.Well, then, Sir, can you complain of the people, that they entertain suspicions of, and that they attack, both parties? How, after this, can they possibly have any confidence in either? It is not in nature that they should! and, abuse them who will, they never will have confidence in either again. "perfectly correct in stating, that seats in " - as -Mr. Gooch has, it seems, no objection "to see respectable persons opposing the government; they are the guardians of the public interest;" but, he bitterly complains of a power behind the opposi tion benches, greater than those benches themselves. Yes, yes; to be sure, an opposition; a regular opposition; this is quite necessary, absolutely necessary, to the support of the system; and, indeed it is notorious, that the parties like one another very well. Respectable persons, such for, instance, as Mr. Sheridan, General Fitzpatrick, and Mr. Tierney; these, it seems, may oppose as long and loudly as they please; they are the "guardians of the public interest," though, when in power, their party did pension off Mrs. Fox and her Daughters; but, persons like Mr. Whitbread, Sir Francis Burdett, Lord Folkestone, Mr. Wardle, Mr. Lyttleton, Mr. Coke, Mr. Brand, Mr. Madocks, &c. &c. these " persons" must not attempt to oppose government, no, nor to express their opinions. It is odd enough, at first sight, that the ministerial party should be so very angry with these gentlemen, and particularly with Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Wardle, who have distinctly declared that they do not wish "voice? 66 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 for"mer 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." 66 for a change of Ministry; but, the reason is In 66 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 "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 on 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 66 before them, and the man remained a Mi"nister of State. Does not that transaction "shew that abuse is not corrected or checked? and those men who do not wish for a Parliamentary Reform should look wel to the remedy of what is 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 honour"able Gentleman, and charges him with at 66 cluded by declaring his opinion, that the "Ministers of the Crown possessed an un"due influence in that House."---I could wish to insert the whole of Mr. Whitbread's Speech, but want of room prevents me. Those parts, however, which relate to Public Meetings and to Reform, I cannot refrain from inserting.He said that "a right hon. gent. had thought pro"per to make some remarks upon gentle"mens' attending certain clubs and socie- tacking all public characters, and endea"ties existing for the purpose, as he sup- "vouring to destroy the Constitution from the posed, of exciting the public mind and "foundation, and to build up some new edi"inflaming popular passion. What had,fice. He denied again the truth of such "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 Mi"nisters, would be the consequence of an 66 attempt to stifle the expression of the public " charges. He saw no proof or just sus"picion 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 may be contented and quiet; but they would see, that they who "refused enquiry, refused to them the Bri"tish Constitution."--The case is so clear, that no man can err in deciding upon it. The a cause of the Meetings is to be found solely in the existence, the known and acknowledged existence, of abuses, which are so injurious to the people, and the pecuniary pressure and constant difficulties and embarrassments arising from which, are so severely felt. This is the sole cause of the Public Meetings. Nor were the people hasty about it. They waited with great patience to see what the House of Commons would do. But, when they saw a committee of the House sending down proof, that a minister of state and a member of the House had been guilty of offering a place of profit to be given for seat in that House, was it not time for the people to speak their sentiments touching the necessity of a Reform of parliament? And, when they afterwards saw a motion for censuring this member negatived, and the member still keeping his seat and holding his office as a great minister of state, were they still to be silent? Or, if they complained of this, were they to be represented as anarchists; as men bent upon the overthrow of the Constitution ? The House of Commons, by chearfully voting to Mr. Wardle those thanks which he so well deserved, would have prevented any Public Meetings for that purpose; and by now making such a Reform as the necessity of the case so clearly points out, they would prevent future Meetings for that purpose. But, until the people have this Reform, or see the House disposed to make it, they will meet, unless they be prevented, as Mr. Whitbread said, by force; and, in the end, that mode of prevention must be unavailing. MR. CURWEN'S MOTION.- -There will, hereafter, be opportunities enough for diseussing this question; but, I cannot, even now, refrain from observing, that, if the motion be adopted, I do not see how it can produce any real good. To impose oaths upon men disposed to act corruptly appears to me to be doing nothing at all. There is no such thing as a minister of state's selling or buying a scat in parliament, even now, without a breach of oath. There would need no oaths at all, if the system of representation was such as to give the voice of election to a sufficient portion of the property of the country, and if care was taken to see that the pecuniary qualifications of members were real and were to a sufficient amount. There have been instances of men obtaining seats in parliament, in former times, at least, in order to screen their bodies from the seizure of a bailiff, and, in fact, in order to cheat their creditors. Is not this notorious? Well, then, does Mr. Curwen believe; can he possibly believe, that such men would be at all checked by any oath that he could devise? Nay, if there were a member, who would give his vote for the sake of getting, or of keeping, a place or a pension, can Mr. Curwen hope, that such a wretch would regard an oath? Oh, no! Oaths are made to bind honest men; and an oath of the sort proposed might keep some such out of the House, but not a single rogue, not a single hunter after place or pension; not a single man who would be liable to make use of his seat to the public injury.- -What is wanted is precisely that which would render oaths unnecessary.I do not see any great objection to five or six of the principal servants of the King, who have, every day, statements to make to the House, having seats in it, though I cannot see the necessity of it; but, is it not contrary to all principles of sound reason, that there should be amongst those, whom the constitution considers as a check upon the Crown, so large a portion who actually receive the people's money from that Crown, which money they themselves first vote? We, who wish for a Reform, are charged with desiring to degrade the House of Commons, when the fact is, that we desire to elevate the character as well of the electors as of the elected. We wish for nothing new; we wish to recur to the old principles of the constitution, which, indeed, are the dictates of common sense, that property should again, as it formerly was, be the basis of representation; or, in other words, that those who have interests to manage, should have the choice of the managers. The great alteration, which time has produced, may call for some regulation by which trade and profession shall be admitted to share with property in land; but still the principle is the same; and, my opinion is, that, unless that principle be acted upon, there will be no Reform worth the paper upon which the act shall be printed.-Universal suffrage, though very fair in theory, is good for nothing in practice. They have tried this in America, and the consequence is, that the representatives are pretty much like the worst and most numerous part of the electors, except in the cities, where the whole of the people have an opportunity of being well-informed. The truth is, that there is the same sort of likeness between our present system and that of universal suffrage that exists between Popery and Me for the 17th instant, the requisition to the Sheriff being signed by ninety-two Freeholders and other Landholders.This is the manner in which such things ought to be done. It shows, that the people take an interest in public matters. There is nothing of party in it. The voice of a set of men aiming at the possession of power and emolument does not go forth to the world as the voice of a county. My intention of inserting, at full length, all the Resolutions, &c. passed at the several Meetings, will, I am afraid, be frus thodism; and our electors, those who have the nominal choosing of the far greater part of the members, are of exactly the same description as the most numerous part of the electors in America. There is nothing to alarm; nothing to disturb; nothing to confuse; nothing to obstruct the government, in any one of its functions; there is nothing of this to be apprehended from such a Reform as I have been speaking of; but, on the contrary, every thing to tranquillize the minds of the people; to inspire respect for, and confidence in, the parliament; and to in-trated by the numerousness of them. At sure, against the attempts of all their enemies, durability to all the establishments of the kingdom. But, as to an oath! what is an oath? An oath tendered to those, who are disposed to be dishonest? I really cannot, in spite of all my respect for Mr. Curwen, help expressing my sur prize that any friend of his country should have thought of it. any rate, I will insert a List of them; and, if any County or Place should be omitted, I shall be obliged to any gentleman, who will take the trouble to inform me of such omission. I have great satisfaction, that the editors of the Portsmouth Telegraph, of the Oxford University and City Herald, and of Bell's Weekly Messenger, have intimated to me their readiness to insert the letters, which I purpose to address to the People of Hampshire, and which letters will be principally upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. -Letter I. which appeared in the last Register, will be published in the Portsmouth Telegraph.If any other County, or Weekly Paper, shall choose to publish these letters, I will take care to have copics forwarded to them in time. The editors have only to signify their wish by letter, addressed to Mr. Wright, No. 5, Panton Square, London.— -If any of these gentlemen shall differ from me in opinion, they will, of course, state it to their readers. All that I am anxious about is the triumph of truth; and, in order to secure that triumph, we need nothing but open and free discussion.I look upon it as a very great compliment from those who have thus expressed their readiness to insert my observations; and I shall esteem it not the less so, if it should appear that these gentlemen do not agree with me in opinion. MR. H. MARTYN's motion about places and pensions I have not time to notice at any length. Another opportunity will offer. But, it is quite good to see, that Mr. Perceval seems to agree, that there is much of waste and abuse in this way; a thing that he does not appear to have seen before. Oh! this Mr. Wardle is a wonder-working man! And, are we still to be told, that he does not merit our thanks. -My labours, too, in this way, have, it seems, been right, notwithstanding all the abuse, which has been heaped upon them? ———I, for years, complained of the sale of places under the government. An act is now passing for the avowed purpose of preventing such practices; and yet the hirelings continue to assault me as a jacobin, who wishes to overturn the government. ——One must not mind this. One must keep on; never caring what they write or what they say. The country itself is so good, and there are so many good people in it, that one must not be disgusted into supineness by the abuse of the corrupt, the venal, and the ignorant.--When I N. B. Owing to a mistake in the printer am accused of democratical principles, I or the copyist, the Resolution, passed at console myself by reflecting, that Dr. the Hampshire Meeting, thanking those O'Meara obtained, through the means of who signed the requisition, the Sixty-nine Mrs. Clarke, the occasion of preaching were omitted, leaving nobody to be thankbefore the king a sermon against democrati-ed but Mr. Powlett and myself. I am cal principles; and that his worthy fellowlabourer, John Bowles, was the first man that moulded Anti-Jacobinism into a trade. Botley, 11th May, 1809. It is with great pleasure, that I see a Meeting of the County of Wilts advertised sure, that no one will suppose that this omission was intentional, and, therefore, I merely state the omission. PROCEEDINGS In COUNTIES, CITIES, BOROUGHS, &c. relative to the recent INQUIRY in the Houss of Commons, respecting the Conduct of the | sentative of this County, has by his conDUKE OF YORK. (Continued from p.704.) duct on the late Inquiry, proved himself COUNTY OF BERKS. unworthy of the confidence of his Consti At a Meeting of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the County of Berks, held, at the Town Hall in Reading, in the same County, on Monday, the 17th day of April, 1809, convened by the High Sheriff, in pursuance of a Requisition addressed to him for that purpose. Resolved, 1. That the recent Investigation into the Conduct of the Commander in Chief, and the result of other late Inquiries, fully satisfy this Meeting of the existence of the most scandalous Abuses in the several Departments of the Executive Government of the Country. 2. That Gwyllim Lloyd Wardle, esq. by his unexampled courage, ability and perseverance in the Inquiry into the Conduct of the Duke of York, has faithfully discharged his duty as a Member of Parliament, and has in a high degree merited the Thanks and Approbation of his Country. 3. That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to sir Fras. Burdett, who seconded Mr. Wardle's Motion; to lord viscount Folkestone, for the active, uniform and able support which he afforded to Mr. Wardle during the whole of the above Inquiry; to Charles Shaw Lefevre, William Lewis Hughes, and George Knapp, esqrs. (Members representing Boroughs within this County); and to the remainder of the 125 Members who divided with Mr. Wardle on his Motion for an Address to his Majesty-in full confidence that they will persevere in the investigation and reform of abuses, till corruption be fully rooted out, and the people have the satisfaction of knowing that the sacrifices they make for the public good are not perverted to base and improper purposes. 4. That this Meeting is convinced, that the abuses which we lament would not so long have existed, without that culpable negligence and dereliction of duty which the late Majorities in the House of Commons have evinced. 5. That in order to secure in future a due vigilance and attention to the rights and interests of the people, so essential to the welfare of a free Government, it is requisite that the duration of Parliaments should be shortened, and that no Parliament should have any continuance longer than for three years, as enacted by a law passed in the reign of king William the Third, 6. That George Vansittart, esq. Repre tuents. 7. That the conduct of Charles Dundas, esq. Representative of this County, on the late Inquiry, has not in this instance met with the approbation of his Constituents. 8. That from the part which Ministers have taken on the late Inquiry, no hope can be reasonably entertained of any effectual reformation of evils so generally and loudly complained of, until the Executive Department of the State shall be entrusted to men, who will honestly endeavour to detect, not shield abuses, and to whom the people may look up as the avengers, not the abettors of corruption. 9. That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to sir John Throckmorton, bart. William Hallet, esq. and the other Gentlemen who have brought forward these Resolutions, and for their able support of the sanie. TOWN OF NORTHAMPTON. The Mayor having declined to accede to a Requisition, signed by seventeen respectable Householders, to call a Meeting of the Inhabitants of this Town, to take into consideration the propriety of Thanking Gwyliim Lloyd Wardle, esq., M. P. for his recent patriotic exertions in Parliament respecting the conduct of the late Commander in Chief, a numerous and respectable Meeting of the Inhabitants was held April 17th, pursuant to public advertisement, at the Angel Inn, when, for want of room, the company adjourned to the Yard, and the following Resolutions were then proposed and agreed to, viz. 1. Resolved unanimously,-That the sincere and cordial Thanks of this Meeting be given to G. L. Wardle, esq., M. P. for Oakhampton, in the county of Devon, for his manly, independent and patriotic exertions, in instituting and conducting the Charges against the late Commander in Chief. 2. Resolved unanimously, That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to sir Francis Burdett, bart., for having seconded the Motion of Mr. Wardle. 3. Resolved unanimously,-That the Thanks of this Meeting be given to lord visc. Althorp, one of the Representatives of this County, for his public-spirited conduct during the late Investigation, and particularly for his Constitutional Speech with which he prefaced the Amendment to Mr. Bragge Bathurst's Motion. |