LORD COCHRANE said, his principal, action. The practice of trafficking in reason for supporting Parliamentary Re- Seats had, he admitted, BECAME AS GLARING form upon old constitutional principles AS THE NOON-DAY SUN, and the excess had was, as he had stated at a late popular so much scandalized the country, that it meeting, in order to set ministers free from became necessary to interfere. That inthose discussions, which occupied too much terference had taken place in the Bill to of their time, and rendered them unable be brought in by his hon. friend (Mr. to attend to the important business of their Curwen), and this measure would, he several departments, the neglect of which trusted, be rendered by the wisdom of the he had too often witnessed on foreign sta- House a complete remedy for the evil comtions. If the people were fairly represent-plained of. It might be said, that he was ed in that House, his opinion was, that there would be less of captious opposition or tedious controversy; corruption would be set aside; opposition would have no abuses to point out; and ministers, being disengaged from the task of defending such things, would be able to devote their minds more profitably for the state, to the objects he had before alluded to. delicate upon this subject, lest some of his own friends might be detected in such proceedings. Perhaps some of his friends were so guilty, he could not say, but for himself he could declare, that he had never paid a shilling to any man for his vote. But the practice complained of was so long, and so universally known to have prevail. ed, that he could not reconcile it to his notions of liberality and justice to select these two individuals as the victims. MR. PONSONBY said that the allusions to Popular Meetings and to Parliamentary Reform were quite irrelevant to the quesLORD FOLKESTONE thought it must tion before the House. As to Reform, appear rather inconsistent that gentlemen he would not, as he had before said, deliver should support the Bill of the hon. gent. any opinion on that subject incidently, nor (Mr. Curwen), if the practice it proposed until it was brought before the House for to correct were not deemed blameable, and discussion. The question before the House if that practice were so blanwuble, how involved a charge against two of the Mi- could the acquittal of the two ministers nisters relative to the Sale of a Seat in that referred to in the motion be justified. . But House. But he would appeal to all who the approbation of both parties in the heard him, whether many Seats were not sold, House, with regard to the bill alluded to, and that being notorious, he never could was somewhat new and surprising. He persuade himself to take advantage of such a never heard of that approbation until this circumstance in a political adversary for the night, and he hoped it was not effected to purpose of running him down. There was, answer that occasion, to create a diversion perhaps, no public man in the world, with in favour of the accused. But supposing this regard to whom he felt such deep resent- bill passed that House, it might be thrown ment as against one of the persons impli- out in the lords, and then what a dilemma cated by this accusation (Castlereagh). He would the House be placed in, if it overlooked disliked him for his conduct in Ireland, in the subject of the accusation. When he first that country whose prosperity he had mentioned such shameful practices as this marred--whose population he had perse-charge referred t», he remembered that he cuted-whose consequence he had de- was met by a cheer of disapprobation from graded-whose independence he had ex- the other side, and was challenged to proof. tinguished by practices, into the detail of Yet now gentlemen were not ashamed to which he would not then enter. But the avow that these disgraceful transactions more he felt those sentiments with respect were as notorious as the noon-day sun, to that noble lord, the more he strove to and that was admitted without proof. controul his feelings in order to correct his When he brought forward his motion for judgment. He had voted against the inquiry, it was objected to upon the ground noble lord (Castlereagh) the other night, that his charges were too general. And because the noble lord himself confessed now this motion was resisted because it his guilt. But in that case he could not was too specific. So that no forin of proconsider the application to him by Mr. ceeding could suit those gentlemen, beDick to be any thing more than the appli- cause, in plain English, it was not their incation of one friend to another to facili- terest to investigate any charge.—If not, he tate his attainment of a seat in Parliament. would be glad to know who were the Such things were known to be done by hundreds, greater enemies to public character-they and why, therefore, inquire into this trans-who would mark out and exclude improper persons from public station, or they who would unblushingly resist all inquiry, upon the avowed ground that corruption was so extensive, that no individual charge could be admitted? Could gentlemen be surprised if, after such an avowal from both sides, the public should be distrustful of the honour and character of that House? Such distrust did exist, and it was notorious. He deprecated the idea of supposing that it was to be removed by any other means than by inquiry, and proving it to be unfounded. Resisting inquiry only served to strengthen the influence and to extend the limits of suspicion, by comprehending all those who connected themselves with such resistance. The noble lord concluded with declaring his resolution to oppose the Amendment, and to vote for the original motion. MR. WINDHAM entered into a variety of ingenious arguments in support of his opinion upon the subject of Reform. There were many things of the nature referred to in this motion, which were, in fact, coeval and coexistent with the constitution itself, and they had "grown with "its growth and strengthened with its strength." These things were, in fact, so interwoven with the constitution, and that constitution itself was such a complicated system, that no wise statesman would venture to tear them out, lest he should take out something very valuable along with them. The constitution was like the elements of the air we breathe, some of which were poisonous, and yet if those elements were extracted the earth would not be habitable. When gentlemen talked of the theory of the Constitution, they seemed to forget that those corruptions, as they were called, formed part of that theory, for they were to be found coexisting with the Constitution in all times, even in the best of times-even in the days of the Great Chatham, as he was termed. That noble lord, no doubt, mude use of this species of traffic, and upon the principles stated, namely, as a part of the defence of govern ment. He must have made use of corruption. For, in fact, there was corruption in the country from top to bottom, and from bottom to top, differing only in this respect, that it was more dense at bottom, and became purer as you advanced to the top. That when you came to the top you found no corruption, it would be preposterous to Men were, as his hon. friend observed, influenced by mixed motives, and he did not know himself a human creature who denied it. Ambition had his full assert. SUPPLEMENT to No. 20, operation on public men, and a sort of corruption was sometimes necessary to gratify it. But he could never believe that any thing low, such as the embezzlement of money, was among the higher order of public men. Indeed the commotion created by any such charge, was, in itself, proof that the thing was unlikely. To guard against embezzlement on the part of agents, was impossible in the extensive expenditure of our revenues, and therefore any charge against any minister upon that ground would be totally unjust. If a man, in his own private family, could not guard against prodigality and mismanagement, surely such a guard could not be looked for, or entirely relied upon, in disposing of the resources of a great nation. The hon. gent. expressed his intention to vote against the motion. LORD ARCHIBALD HAMILTON spoke strongly on the opposite side. MR.WILBERFORCE believing that the proposed investigation would terminate in the exculpation of the two hon. members, still was of opinion, that the House should entertain the proposition of the hon. mover. The public confidence and support were at all times desirable, but at a moment of danger from without and dissatisfaction from within, that House was bound to pursue a strictly just and honourable course. To refuse the motion of that night was to afford a strong illustration of the necessity of that Reform, which it was idly supposed could be best checked by a determination not to enter upon inquiry.Viewing the case in a moral view-[The cries of Question! question! Withdraw! withdraw were so frequent and continued, that it was impossible to hear the remaining observations of the rt. hon. gent.]— only that he concluded with his determination of supporting the motion of the hon. gent. (Mr. Madocks). MR. CANNING, in a very eloquent ha rangue, called upon the House that night TO MAKE A STAND AGAINST THE ENCROACHMENTS OF THE FACTIOUS, and to reflect upon the system of which this motion formed a part, dexterously introduced as it was. To-night it was called upon to make an immolation of two upon his side of the House, and, perhaps, if successful now, it would on the morrow be summoned to sacrifice two stately victims from the other. (Hear, hear!) He argued VOL. XV.-Price 1s. the right of canvassing the motives and appreciating the conduct of public meetings, when such meetings were protruded upon the judgment of that House, as speaking the popular will, although never legitimately convened, either according to the spirit or the forms of the constitution. The rt. hon. gent., although persuaded that exculpation would be the consequence of inquiry into the conduct of his two rt. hon. colleagues, of one of whom (Mr. Perceval) he would say that his private virtue and public integrity were acknowledged by his | friends, and admitted even by his political opponents to be without a stain) still he thought the House bound to negative the motion, as well for its avowed object as for the consequences to which it would lead. He then concluded with a florid panegyric upon the House of Commons, to whatever causes, whether arrangement or chance, it owed its present constitution. MR. HUTCHINSON protested against the doctrine of that night, which posterity would reprobate. When it should hear that a House of Commons was found so debased as to acknowledge the existence of corruption in its formation, and justify the existence of it. (Cries of withdraw, withdraw, and violent uproar). It was at least consistent for those, said the hon. member, to drown, if possible, the discussion of men who opposed them. Convinced, as they must be, that such conduct as they pursued that night, could neither bear inquiry, argument, or the touchstone of common integrity. MR. WM. SMITH thought the House bound to reflect upon the alledged interference of lord Castlereagh, with the vote of Mr. Dick upon a judicial question of high importance. [No, No, from the Ministerial benches]. If the fact be not so, why not inquire? [No, No, from the same quarter]. Frepeat the words-if the fact be not so, why not inquire? and if with the question thus put to you, you refuse to inquire, the country will not fail to form its own decision. MR. PETER MOORE stated, that on a former occasion, when he opposed himself to the general motion of a noble lord (Folkestone), because it did not state some definite grounds, he had then the honour of being cheered by his Majesty's Ministers and their adherents. Their objection then was,--your motion is too wide-wasting, too indefinite, and therefore we ofpose it; but give us something in a tangi ble shape and we will withdraw our resistance? Here then was something in a tangible shape; here was specific corruption offered to be proved against two members of their body, in confidential situations under the Crown. How has it been received? Shame to say, its existence has not only been admitted from time immemorial, but even justified from both sides of the House. Let the House cautiously reflect how it sends abroad such principles, sanctioned by their decision. In such an attempt to vindicate the character of the two rt. hon. gentlemen, they will fail to retrieve them, whilst they sacrifice to eternity the honour, the credit, and the character of the House of Com mons. MR. MADOCKS made a brief reply, defended the consistency of his public life and the purity of his motives. He felt impelled to the course by the sense of public duty, from which, not even the conduct of that night should succeed in warping him. A right hon. gent. (Mr. Windham) had confessed, that corruption existed from the top to the bottom of the state. He was sorry to agree with the right hon. gent. on this point. It did, indeed exist most generally. Its universality and ubiquity were frightful, and reminded him of Virgil's figure of Fame: Johues, Thomas Mosley, Sir Oswald Porchester, Lord Romilly, Sir Samuel channel in which my Letters will circulate, circulation to the opinions of those,. who may differ from me. This has been the invariable practice of my political life. But, in order to confine the discussion within reasonable bounds, I must notify, that those who may be disposed to answer me must confine themselves to the subject; must state in the head of their performances, which of my letters they are an King, Sir John Dashwood Scudamore, Rich. Philip swering, and must take the paragraphs re Knapp, George Lambe, Bon. William Lambton, Ralph John ΤΟ Sharp, Richard Shepley, William St. Aubyn, Sir John gularly, one after another, as I shall arrange and number them; and must confine themselves, as to space, so as not to exceed, in any instance, double the length of that which they profess to answer. Those who may chose to enter this field of controversy, will, of course, keep copies of what they send to me; and, if I find any thing not connected with the subject, I will state it, whereupon they may make the Wardle, Gwyllyn Lloyd necessary curtailments. I take these pre TELIERS. Madocks, Wm. Alex. THE INDEPENDENT PEOPLE OF HAMPSHIRE. LETTER II. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Introductory Address. GENTLEMEN, cautions, because I would not involve this interesting subject in confusion, which, to truth, is not much less an enemy than is falshood itself. We should enter upon this discussion with minds unheated by any thing that has recently transpired; and, above all things, we should subdue in us any thing like a spirit of revenge. I am ready, and I have conversed with no man who, is not ready, to say: "What is done cannot be "undone: let there be no thought of "vengeance for the past: let all that has "been done be forgotten for ever, and let "no one meet with any punishment or "reproach on account of it, provided we "now have that which shall effectually AT our last Coanty-Meeting, we resolved, with only eight or ten dissenting voices out of abou two thousand of the most respectab emn in this county, tha it woul i be expedient for us to meet on a prevent the recurrence of such things future day to cans der of the propriety of "for the future." And, indeed, if you a Pe inon to the King, praying flis Ma- consult history, you will find, that, amongst jesty to be gracias y pleased to afford us nations as well as amongst individuals, it his royal conten mice and support in ob- is not the original and naked offence so tining a reformation in the Commons' much as a pertinacity in defending, or House of Poriament; and, as I look for- persevering in, it, that inspires the offendward with confident hope, that that Meet-ed with that thirst for vengeance, which, ing wit take the ma der s. riously in hand, I think it may be useful, in the meanwhile, for me to subui to ym my opinots upon that interesting and important subject. Tas I propose to do in the present and fut re Letters; and, here, at the outset, I think it due to you and to this great cause of the country to declare, that I shari, at alumes, be ready to insert whatever may be sent to me, in the way of unstver to what I shall address to you; this securing to truth the fairest possible chance of success, by giving, through the same though it may bring calamity upon the offended as well as the offender, does very seldom fail to prove destructive to the former. All Nor, if our deliberations should conclude with an unanimous decision in fayour of Reform, should we, in my opinion, be too hasty in our expectations. changes of great national importance require time. That which is done in great haste, is seldom well done. Improvement in all things generally proceeds by degrees; and, though we have here the book of the constitution for our guide, complete restoration, any more than creation, cannot be expected to be the work of a single effort. When we confront the practice with the theory of our government, which we have, at all times, a right to do, we must, of course, make a lumping appeal from the one to the other; but, when we set about the work of restoration, we must, if we mean to succeed, first remove that which we find to be most injurious and most hostile to the principles of the constitution; and thus pursue our course, till all the essential evils be removed. think, it will he very difficult for the friends of corruption to cause their return; but, still they harp upon the dangers of change, though they cannot deny, that the change would be for the better; and still, though we ask only for the restoration of a part of the well-known and longtried constitution of England, as relating to the House of Commons; still they ac cuse us of a wish to introduce confusion, uproar and bloodshed. But, who are these accusers? Those who accused Mr. Wardle; those who denounced him to the nation as the tool of a Jacobin Conspiracy; those who have been detected in the misapplication of the public money, and in the worst sorts of corruption; these are the persons, who attribute to us a wish to destroy all property, and to introduce uproar and bloodshed. In short, if we would form a correct opinion of these efforts to excite new alarm; if we would form a correct opinion of the views of those, who raise these impudent calumnies against our cause, we have only to bear in mind, that JOHN BOWLES was the first who accused Englishmen of Jacobinism; that the REV. DR. O'MEARA, from under the wing of Mrs. Clarke, preached before the king against Democracy; and that the REV. MR. BEAZLEY, who tendered a bribe to the Duke of Portland to make him Dean of Salisbury, wrote a pamphlet upon the approaching dangers of Popery.Such are the alarmists; and, if you bear this fact in mind, you will have very little difficulty in deciding as to what are now the real grounds of alarm. A remark or two seems necessary here, in answer to the insinuation, and, indeed the open accusation, against all those, who stand prominently forward in the cause of Reform it is this, that they wish for confusion; for the annihilation of property; and for uproar and bloodshed. This, Gentlemen, has always been the charge against all those, who have had the courage to take the lead in endeavouring to root out corruption. From the nature of things, it is a charge that must be preferred against such men; because the corrupt will naturally seek to disarm those who attack them, and, it being impossible (or, at least, it has always appeared so till now) to say that corruption is right, there is no mode of attacking its assailants, other than that of representing them as wishing for confusion and uproar, by which representations, the uninformed are misled and the timid are frighted. By this mode, this nation has long been deceived, and alarmed. Posterity will, I hope, hardly believe; I hope, that our children will hardly credit the true history of the delusions and alarms of the last fifteen years, during several of which the Act of Habeas Corpus, or Personal Safety Act, stood repealed, and any man was liable to be sent to prison, and there to be kept for years, without a trial and without a hearing; nay, many men were so imprisoned. And what was all this for? Why was this suspension of that great law, without which, in fact, the English government is no better than the old government of France? Why, because the nation was alarmed; because it was persuaded that certain Clubs and Societies would destroy all property, when what those Clubs demanded, though they might do it indiscreetly, was, in truth, no more than what Mr. Put and the Duke of Richmond, had themselves demanded, and had represented as necessary to the safety of the nation, many Saceful days of Do passed; and, I years alary rན HALE Besides, who and what are the persons, who stand most prominently exposed to this accusation? SIR FRANCIS BUrdett, Mr. MADOCKS, MR. WARDLE, and LORD COCHRANE. These are the only members of the House of Commons, who, as yet, have taken a decided and active part in the cause. And, are you to be made to believe, that these four gentlemen, or either of them, can wish ill to their country? That they, who have, all of them, such large portions of property, wish to see all property destroyed? Or, are you to be made to believe, that they, who have so much talent; so much knowledge and so much of mind in every other respect, are, upon this subject, fools? The thing is not to be believed by any man in his senses. With respect to myself, I should certainly not trouble you, were it not my opinion that it may be useful, in this Introductory Address, to give you an instance of the behaviour of my opponent writers. |