when late decisions of that house were considered, he could not but think it justified. At all events, if discontents prevailed, refusal would multiply, and he must confess not without great reason.

Mr. Perceval stated, that he did not, by any means, in his communication with the noble lord, restrict himself to any thing more than his determination to apply his own mind to see whether the proposed motion was applicable, next if it was practicable, and, if so, whether it was beneficial. With respect to the present motion, he confessed, that from its indistinctness and want of precision, he was unable to afford it at present that calm and full consideration, to which alone he had pledged himself, and therefore did not mean to oppose its introduction, yet fairly confessed that he strongly suspected that he could not ultimately give his sanction to the measure. The hon. gentleman desired him to beware of giving the present public feeling the character of jacobinism. Upon looking at the speeches at the Crown and Anchor, the resolutions passed there, the delusions to which the people were subjected in being made to believe that reform would relieve them from their burthens, he could not help saying that all these things were strongly characteristic of jacobinism! The people were told that the house of Commons was the only place where their feelings were not regarded; they were taught to think that ministers sat in the house contrary to the fundamental principles of the constitution. All this passed with the vulgar and illiterate crowd, who were informed that placemen and pensioners were excluded the house by an act passed after the revolution. But no explanation was given. They had not been told that this law was passed in 1700, and that it was not to be in force till the accession of the house of Brunswick; that it was re

pealed in 1704, and, in fact, was never a practical law. This the people ought to have been told, if they had been reasonably dealt by.

Mr. Ponsonby did not consider this as a measure of reform, properly speaking, but of regulation, and therefore as to the question of reform he would say nothing. He was glad Mr. Perceval had assented to the measure so far as to allow its introduction. He fully agreed in the proposition that public men ought not to raise expectations in the people which could not be realized. He detested such base artshe never had made use of them, and never would,

Mr. H. Browne thought the measure wrong in itself, and impracti cable, and therefore wished that it should be rejected in the first instance. To give it the least countenance would only be deluding the people.

Mr. Bathurst said, that he understood the object of the hon. gent. to be this, to prevent the barter of influence for money. It sometimes happened that a man had property in a particular place, that gave him a preponderating influence in elections, a proper influence it might sometimes be, but at the same time this might be sold for money to a third person-the design was to prevent this.-Now this was a proper object: it was not a question of reform, but a mere matter of regulation. Here he certainly saw the evil, and it was proper to apply a remedy if it could be done effectually, and without producing a greater degree of mischief than the evil to be cured.

Mr. Wm. Smith supported the motion. If he were asked if he avowed himself a friend to parliamentary reform, he should propose the whole course of his life as an answer; nor could he conceive what right there existed to censure his opinion in its favour, when it was

-recollected that such characters as Mr. Pitt, Lord Chatham, and Mr. Fox, had at different periods avowed -themselves friends to the measure. -And would the puny mortals of the -present day set themselves against such names, except they were at the same time prepared to assert that such men were insincere in the opinions they had advanced? Either they had not duly weighed the grounds of the opinions they had promulgated, or else, if their opinions were honest, they should have the weight due to such authority. The present object was not intended as an attack on the house at large, it was rather aimed at classes, or even individuals; the latter was a task painful in its nature, and difficult in its performance, but at the -same time, when necessary, however painful, it must be entered into, and the duty discharged.

Lord Temple concurred entirely in the views of Mr. Bathurst, and did not think it necessary to add any thing to what he had said. He considered the proposed measure as resting on the principle of the Grenville bill, and calculated to give the people a salutary confidence in parliament. He approved of the principle of the measure also, because it would take away one of the induce ments to reform held out to the people! Mr. Curwen, in reply, expressed his astonishment at the conduct of Mr. Perceval, who agreed to the introduction of a bill, which he announced his resolution to oppose, and the necessity for which he directly denied. The description given of the bill was not to be mistaken, as it was so correctly given by the right hon. gentleman on the floor (Mr. B. Bathurst.) The hon. gent. repelled the charge of faction which had been made upon certain meetings of counties and towns in a constitutional way, in consequence of a recent enquiry. This charge he considered as unjust and improper;

VOL. V.

but he was as ready as any gentleman to disapprove of the late pro.ceedings at a meeting of another description [the Crown and Anchor]. He was sorry to see some gentlemen, whom he respected, lend their names to any system for the general depreciation of public character, or for any thing like opposition to tempe rate reform. He would be as ready to solicit the assistance of Mr. Perceval to draw up his bill, as that of any other person.

Leave was given to bring in the bill, with only two dissentient voices and the hon. mover proposed, that Mr. Ponsonby, Sir Arthur Pigott, Lord Temple, Lord Folkstone, Sir Oswald Moseley, and Mr. Windham, should be appointed to draw up and bring in the bill. Upon the mention of Mr. Windham's name, the house was convulsed with laughter.

Sir J. Newport moved the second reading of the bill to prevent the embezzlement of the public money.

Mr. Perceval thought this measure required some consideration. It was a doubtful point in his mind, whether it would not be more for the benefit of the public to leave those who were guilty of embezzlement subject to civil action, which enabled the public to recover the money, than to subject them to cri minal punishment, which would lead to no such result. He bad also a doubt, whether persons of character and circumstances would be willing to incur the responsibility of public offices, if liable to such serious consequences, where the shades of dis tinction upon the subject of embez zlement and loss might be in many cases so very slight.

Sir J. Newport wished the bill to meet the fullest consideration; byt expressed his surprise to hear it intimated, that any honest man would be likely to shrink from the accep tance of office from any fear of the punishment, which could attach only to dishonesty.

After a few words from Mr. C. Wynne, the bill was read a second time, and committed for Wednesday. Friday, May 5.

He

Mr. Maddocks rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice some days ago, relating to the corrupt practices of the treasury - with respect to the return of members of parliament. It would not be necessary for him to trespass long upon the indulgence of the house. The substance of the motion he meant to propose lay in a very narrow compass. It consisted in a charge of corrupt practices against two of its members. wished only to be permitted to make one prefatory observation, and it was this, that the facts that came to his knowledge were so dangerous, so prejudicial to the genuine spirit and principles of the constitution, that he would have justly merited to be stigmatized as a traitor to his country, if he had declined to lay them before the house. Before he proceeded further, he would move that the several entries on the journals relative to the proceedings against the two Shepherds, members of that house, be read. [The clerk here read the entry, dated the 13th February, 1700, in which it was stated that Samuel and Francis Shepherd, Esqrs. members of that house were ordered to attend in their places, on charges of corrupt practices respecting seats in parliament; also the entry, dated Feb. 15, 1700. specifying that corruption had been practiced on the electors of Newport, in the Isle of Wight, Malms.bury, Wootton Basset, and other places; also the entry of March 18th, 1700, stating that the Messrs. Shepherds had been heard in their places, and by their counsel at the bar; finding the charges proved, and ordering that Samuel Shepherd, sen. be committed to the Tower, and his agent to Newgate.] The charges he had to bring forward were

against two of his Majesty's ministers; the one against the Right Hon. Spencer Perceval, for having through the agency of the Hon. Henry Wellesley, been guilty of corrupt practices respecting the returns of members to that house. The other was against the Right Hon. Lord Viscount Castlereagh, for similar practices. He would take up the time of the house no longer, but move that these charges be heard at the bar on Tuesday next.

The motion having been read from the chair,

Mr. Perceval said, that he knew not what course was pursued in 1700, the era of the hon. member's precedents; but through the whole of his acquaintance with the proceedings of that house, he never knew any instance when an accusation was brought forward against a member, that the substance of such accusation was not previously communicated to him; and that, through the common courtesy of the house he was not allowed to be heard in his defence. The hon. member, however, was the best judge of the course he meant to pursue. Under these circumstances, nothing remained for him but to make his bow, and leave the question to the decision of the house. [The right hon. member immediately left the house.]

Sir J. Anstruther said, that the form of proceeding proposed by the hon. member was one of the strangest he ever heard. He deprecated the scattering of loose and unfounded accusations.

Sir F. Burdett observed, that his hon. friend had no objection to state the particulars of that information, which he meant to lay before the house.

Mr. Biddulph thought it was the duty of the right hon. members against whom the charge was brought, to stand up and second the motion, if it were only for the purpose of clearing their characters.

He denied again the truth of such charges. He saw no proof or just suspicion 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 quiet; but they would see, that they who refused inquiry refused to them the British constitution. Mr. Yorke spoke warmly in reprobation of the motion. le considered it as unjust and ridiculous. Mr. Lyttleton complained of the libels which were thrown upon the people by the members on the opposite side of the house.

Mr. Brand expressed his astomishment, to hear accusations and censures on gentlemen, for an ancient, acknowledged, constitutional practice of Englishmen, in attending public meetings. Meetings of the people for the attainment of a moderate reform, conducted with regularity and order, did not lead to public mischief, but to open the eyes of the country and of the house. He avowed that he was a steward at one of those meetings, and joined in recommending to the counties to petition parliament for the desired reform temperately, yet urgently. That embraced the entire object of the meeting.

Mr. C. Hutchinson had not at tended any public meetings, and from his habits of life it was not likely he should attend them: but he joined in expressions of surprise at the language he had heard. If it were thought just and expedient to attack the meetings of the public, it would be better at once to vote the constitution at an end, He conceived it to be a public duty to obtain reform in every constitutional

way.

The question being put, the motion was negatived without adivision. A conversation occurred respec⚫ ting the entering into the charge immediately. (Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh having returned

and taken their places.) The Speaker thought, that having been disposed of for the present, it could not come on as a matter of course that night.

Some observations fell from Mr. Maddocks, Mr. Canning, Sir John Anstruther, and Mr. Whitbread, about the day for preferring the charges. Mr. H. Martin declining to postpone his motion beyond Monday next, in which he was supported by Mr. G. Ponsonby, Thursday next was at length fixed on.

Sir O. Moseley said, he held in his hand certain papers, relative to the spot of ground occupied by Col. Gordon, and which properly belongs to Chelsea hospital; yet these papers were not satisfactory. The first was a letter from Dr. Moseley, the physician to the hospital, recommending the erection of a new infirmary to the hospital, and the removal of the sick from West-square infirmary When Col. Gordon made his application for the piece of ground in question, which was on the 14th of January last, it was remarkable, that that application was made before any report was received at the trea sury from the surveyor-general, who was appointed to inspect the scite of the new infirmary. The surveyors in their report, estimated the value of the ground according to the use that was designed to be made of that adjoining. Now, why did Colonel Gordon apply for part, when he knew an infirmary was to be erected on the other part. The hon. baronet wished the spot preserved as a plea sure-ground to the poor infirm sole diers who had fought and bled for their country. Yet Col. Gordon had four acres, which should have been theirs, for 551. a year; while several respectable gardeners, whom the hon. baronet had questioned, said they would have been glad to have given 201. per acre a year. The hon. baronet said he was ready to prove at the bar of the house, that most of the officers of Chelsea bos