clause, permitting an alteration or repeal of the bill in the present session. The Secretary at War acknowledged that considerable pressure had been felt in various parts of the country, during last year, from the unusually frequent marching of the troops; but as this presure was only in a few places, he thought it would be very improper to increase the rates generally, as this would be attended with a heavy additional expence. The introduction of the proposed clause would only tend to excite an expectation of the increase of rates, which was not likely to be gratified, and therefore he could not consent to it. The chief complants came from the great innkeepers, who often let out their taps to others, and thus deprived themselves of the opportunity of gaining any thing by the beer the soldiers drank on their march. Mr Barham said, that in several parts of the country many innkeepers had been almost ruined by the frequent billeting of troops. He thought the pro posed clause extremely moderate; as did also Sir G. Vansitturt. Colonel Wood contended that the small inkeepers were rather benefited by the billeting of soldiers, who on their march were allowed 2s. a day, mostly spent for beer, A division then took place, when there appeared against the clause 49For it 23-majority 26. The bill was then read a third time and passed. The Solicitor General presented a bill fo more effectually preventing the buying and selling of public offices, which was read a first time, and ordered for the second reading on Thursday. -Adjourned to Monday. Monday, April 17. Lord Folkstone, on the order of the day being read for taking into further consideration the minutes of the evidence respecting the Duke of York, rose, and said, he should trouble the house only with a few words. The house would recollect, that in the course of the inquiry which they had lately been engaged in other matters had come out not immediately affecting the commander in chief. It was obvious from the evidence which the house had heard that great abuses prevailed in va rious departments of the state. He did not allude to the fact, that it had come out that improper uses had been made of the patronage of the East India company, which had given rise to an inquiry which bad again produced a voluminous report, crowded with instances of the abuse of the patronage of that company. The evidence adduced before the East India committee, he thought it impossible to read and not to see that there were other abuses in the various departments of the state, and that these abuses were proceeding to a great extent. On these grounds he was of opinion, that the house was called on to institute an inquiry into these points, and to see that the abuses should be remedied whenever they should be found to exist. He therefore moved, "That a com. "mittee be appointed to inquire "into the corrupt disposal of offices "in the state; of the disposal of "commissions in army contrary to "the regulations: and also into the "practice of levies; and to report "the minutes of their evidence from "time to time to the house." Mr. Perceval said, he could not allow the present motion to be put without declaring his opinion, that it was by no means advisable for the house to agree to it. The noble lord grounded his motion on the evidence brought before the committee appointed to inquire into the conduct of the Duke of York, on these two grounds, that by farther inquiry other individuals might be found out who might be brought to censure or punishment; and that such inquiry would prevent similar abuses in time coming. The noble lord seemed to think a general inquiry necessary without any specific grounds of charge being assigned. It might happen, that the person who had the power of disposing of an office might as in the case of Mr. Thellusson give it to a near relation or friend in whom he had confidence, but which might be abused. If the committee were to institute inquiries of this kind, they would be investigating what they had no right to punish. Any farther inquiry, therefore, he submitted was not desirable. He asked, was it convenient or politic to set on foot an inquiry into all the abuses that might or might not have happened, for the sake of keeping the public mind in a ferment? He was, therefore, on the whole of opinion, that the inquiry proposed would neither be beneficial nor politic. Lord A. Hamilton.-1 can by no means think that the discoveries already made are of a nature to justify the house in declining to adopt the motion of my noble friend; and although he has not submitted any specific ground of charge on which the committee he proposes to appoint can act, the report on the subject of the East-India patronage, would, in my mind, be of itself a sufficient ground for the appointment of such a committee. Mr. Perceval has opposed the motion, on the ground that if the proposition of my noble friend shall be carried, it would have the effect of keeping alive that spirit of ferment, which he conceives to be so disadvantageous to the country. But with respect to that committee, if you can detect any further abuses, the power will be in safe hands; and that ferment will certainly be increased, and not diminished, if you attempt to stifle further inquiry. That ferment will, by such attempt, most certainly be still further inflamed. If corruption does exist, can Mr. Perceval think that no danger is to be apprehended to this country? Does he think that if such ferment really exists, it would not be more wise to detect, expose, and punish those abuses which are so strongly suspected to exist? As to the alarming extent of the powers of this committeethey are, it is true, extensive and general, but they may be revoked at the pleasure of this house.-With respect to the dangers to be apprehended from the jermentation in the minds of the people—those dangers, I will venture to assert, are infinitely less to be dreaded than what must ensue from the people discovering our unwillingness to prosecute inquiry into corruption and abuses. -The only way to satisfy the people, and reconcile them to the endurance of the enormous burdens they sustain, is to shew them that we are sincere in our prosecution of those inquiries that will lead to a general reformation of abuses. I Lord Folkstone.-I put it to the house, whether, after what we have already heard, it can be said to be impossible, or even improbable, that some persons may be found guilty of pratices on which you may institute proceedings.-But, says the right hon. gentleman, if you discover the corrupt practices-if you discover the culprits, the state of the law is such that you can found no procetings on your discoveries. contend, that this house has other means than the institution of criminal process to which it can resort for the punishment of offendersthat argument is therefore good for nothing at all. Another ground of opposition is, that the committee has no specification of the objects of the commission; and the right hon. gentleman added, at which I am greatly surprised, a doubt, whether it is politic to enter upon the examination of abuses in the present obvious state of ferment of the public mind. Now, if any one thing be more proper than another at this awful crisis, it is inquiry into those abuses which are supposed to exist; and, if it cannot be proved that they do exist, the ferment of the public mind would necessarily subside; for the cause by which it has been created, once ceasing, the effect would no longer exist. He, therefore, if he does not believe in the existence of these supposed abuses, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ought to be amongst the very foremost to support my motion-and thereby prove to the people that such abuses do not exist. For the people, if suffered to remain in doubt ful, yet suspicious ignorance, may push their ideas of the nature of such abuses to a much greater extent than we can calculate. I would put it to the candour and good sense of any gentleman, whether the refusal, or even hesitation of this house, to go into a general inquiry into the nature and extent of public abuses, is not more likely to increase the ferment of the public mind, than to diminish it? Will not such refusal greatly tend to weaken the confidence of the public at large? The general impression throughout the kingdom is, that abuses of a flagrant nature, and to a most enormous extent, actually exist; and I do assert, that the voice of public opinion calls most imperiously on this house to go, without delay, into a general inquiry on that important subject. If, on investigation, such abuses shall be found to exist, and shall meet with condign punishment; if measures shall he taken to prevent a recurrence of such abuses, government, by these manifestations of attention to the interests of the people, will be set right in their eyes, and the public mind will revert to that confidence in their rulers, which, at present, I do believe, does not exist. In either case, whether abuses do or do not exist, the motion is proper, I shall persist in it; and I hope the house will agree to it. I shall make but one more observation at present, and that is, that if any thing could tend to heighten that ferment in the minds of the people, which the right hon. gentlemen has so greatly deprecated, it would be, that any opposition should be made to such a motion as that which I have brought before the house; and that such opposition should be made the friend and associate of those who are alleged to be amongst the number of the culprits, that I am certain is more likely to confirm in the public mind those suspicions which certainly do exist, and to increase the ferment which he depre cates, more powerfully, than any other measure that could have been devised. Lord Henry Petty said, agreeing as he did with some of the observations of the right hon. gentleman opposite, he must differ from him in thinking that a prospective measure was all which the house or country could require on a perusal of the evidence before them. He thought it better that the house should determine itself to discharge this meritorious duty, more particularly at a moment like the present, instead of referring it to any committee. In doing so they would pursue a course more conformable to the practice of the house, and better calculated for the public good. If the noble lord would limit his motion to any one specific inquiry, he (Lord Henry Petty) should be happy to support it. Mr. Whitbread said, that after what had fallen from his noble friend (Lord H. Petty), he could not content himself with a silent vote, but must explain the grounds of that vote which he should feel himself called on to give. If the right hon. gentleman would not admit, he (Mr. Whitbread) should assume that abuses did exist; and then, he asked, if it was not proper that a committee should be appointed to inquire into them. They were not to look to past abuses alone, but to consider of the best means of preventing them in future. What the right hon. gentleman's bill went to, he (Mr. Whit bread) could not say; but, without knowing its provisions, he doubted much if the right hon. gentleman would make things better than they were. The right hon. gentleman had informed the house, that previous to his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle) bringing forward the inquiry, the right hon. gentleman was in possession of such information concerning the traffic carried on in an office in the city, kept by Pollman and Heylock, as had enabled him to detect those parties. Yet when the circumstance was stated by his hon. friend, in his opening speech, the idea was received on all sides of the house with the utmost levity, and even the right hon. gentleman himself, far from betraying any belief or knowledge of the truth of the charge, treated it also with the same levity it had experienced from his friends. When the right hon. gentleman saw the nature of the practices developed in the report of the committee on East India offices, was he surprised that the public mind was in a fer ment? Did he think that to smother inquiry was to prevent it spread mg? Or that his present conduct was calculated to allay and extinguish it? The public mind was justly in a ferment, if it was seen that those who were guilty were not to be punished, nor to have their conduct held out to odium. That the motion should be got over, be cause it was of too general a nature; be should think a most dangerous principle. Mr. Tierney remarked, that the house had certainly something to complain of, with respect to the proceeding of the noble lord, who had not given a notice of a specific nature which the magnitude of the case required. He did not think it altogether fair to come upon the house all of a sudden with one of the most important steps that could possibly be suggested, considering the ferment into which the public mind had been thrown. The object of the motion was no less than to arraign the whole system of the government of the country through all its departments. He did not think VOL. V. that a motion of this vague and general complexion ought to be entertained. He gave the noble lord credit for the most honest and upright intentions; and after what had come to light, he could blame none for being desirous of inquiry} but the house ought not to depart from the ordinary grounds of its proceedings. The motion assumed that the government was corrupt through all its departments, and this without pretending to state any evidence. His motion went to impute practices to the admiralty, and every other department of the government, with out a shadow of evidence; and all were to be put upon their trial with out any specific charge! Mr. Brand found himself com pelled to dissent from the motion of the noble lord. He differed from him merely as to the mode of in quiry. The motion was so worded, its generality was of such a nature, that nothing like it was to be found in the history of parliament. As no specific charges were stated, he thought the motion very objection able, and he felt it his duty, how ever reluctantly to oppose it. Mr. Lethbridge observed, that he Had come to the house prepared to vote for the noble lord's motion, under the impression that he meant to allege specific charges against particular individuals. But finding that the motion of the noble lord was not such as he imagined-finding that it was one of a general nature, and that its tendency was to put whole departments to trial without any specific charges of delin quency stated, he could not concur in that motion. Mr. Ponsonby. I hope that I shall not be accused of wishing to protect abuses, for there is no man in this house, not even the noble lord him self, more anxious to promote the punishment of corruption and abuses wherever they can be proved to have existed, than myself. But I ་ certainly will not agree to the adoption of the motion of the noble lord, because he takes for granted the existence of abuses in every branch and department of the government, without any proof whatever on the subject, I find it impossible, on the occasion of so extraordinary a proposition, to content myself with a silent vote, and more especially when I see a disposition in some persons, not in the house, to charge every public man in the kingdom with corruption. This is a charge of a most serious nature; and particuJarly when it is considered how readily, and with what avidity every thing that is charged against this house is received out of doors. The people are even industriously told in some places, that there is no distinction whatever in this house; that we are all knaves and rogues alike! that it does not signify in what hands the government is placed; for provided they are parliamentary, the country can expect nothing but corruption. These, Sir, are most foul, impudent, barefaced, and infamous calumnies; for, I will venture to maintain, that there are in this house, men as honest, as upright, as uncorrupt, and possessing as great integrity as those who make these gross and unfounded charges. And, be he ho he may, I do assert and maintain, that he is not an honester public mun than I am, nor do I see the smallest reason why I, or any other member of this house, should hesitate for one moment to repel this unmerited and general stigma. To the motion now before the house I cannot agree― it, proceeds on the assumption of facts from collateral points in the evidence on which it is founded; there is no specific charge stated as a ground for any such motion, and the house is, in fact, left quite in the dark as to its precise object, for which reasons I shall certainly give my vote against the motion. Mr. Hutchinson supported the mo tion of the noble lord, conceiving the present a most awful crisis. The system of government pursued in this country for years past, was not such as was likely to be beneficial to the public. He therefore was for general inquiry. He was convinced the noble lord venerated as much as any man old establishments; but they would be vitally endangered if abuses were suffered to exist with out correction. It was necessary to strike at the root of them, and this he thought was all the noble lord aimed at. Mr. Parnell. The right hon. gen. tleman below me, who made the charge against the noble lord, of not having stated in his notice the nature of his intended motion, can certainly not support that chargefor the noble lord did in his notice distinctly state, in substance, the nature of his motion; and that too in terms sufficiently explanatory to authorize him in bringing it forward in its present shape. I cannot agree with those gentlemen who object to the adoption of this motion, on the ground that it is of too general and indefinite a nature. The objects which are intended to be included in the inquiry are three; and they are certainly specifically stated. The first applies to the mode that was adopted of augmenting the army. at the time of Colonel French's levy being on foot; the next, to the illicit purchase and sale of commissions in the army; and the third, to the infamous traffic in the disposal of places in various departments of the state. The powers demanded for this committee are therefore by no means of that general nature which has been asserted. It has been said that the committee would have an object of inquiry to seek, as their labours would commence without having one before them. But this I deny; for here are three specific objects, every one of which is specifically named, to which the inqui |