SO accuse two of their own body. Be fore he entered directly into the statement of his charge, he trusted that the indulgence of the house would allow him to make a few preliminary observations, arising out of and bearing upon the subject. In his humble attempt at that time to discharge his duty, he hoped that he would discharge it in a manner that became his sense of it; and in the first place, he was most anxious to abstain from every thing personal, from any thing that could give pretence for an imputation of the kind for he could in truth say, that no such charge could be jusily imputed to him he was influenced by no personal motives, it was to measures he looked, not to individuals, nor much to one act, as to a system that went to inculcate as a constitutional principle, not to say the usefulness, but the necessity of corruption in carrying on the operations of government, and applying the resources of the country in maintaining its cha racter and establishing its safety.-It was a favourite opinion with some of the right hon. gentlemen, that no times were less corrupt than the present that this was, as it were, the age of purity. If such an opnion was well founded it would be rather inconsistent with such an opinion, and not very conformable to the spirit of such times, to resort to any party expedient, in order to resist or to evade any direct charge of corruption against any individual whatever. He did not wish to take any hon. gentleman by surprise, nor was the charge he had to bring for ward calculated to do so. It was a charge that the moment it was heard might be rebutted by an innocent man, unless it would be contended that there were degrees of corruption now so sanctioned by prescription, that that house must necessarily connive at them.-He was of an opposite opinion an opinion founded upon the history of better times. In the whole course of the history of England, he no where found that sinecure places and offices, and rotten boroughs, were to be considered and venerated as comprising the palladium of England. He read no where that the constitution was only to be preserved by the preservation of its abuses. He rather believed that it would be best sccured by rooting out such abuses; and that the spirit by which a memorable attack upon corruption had originated with an hon. gentleman below him (Mr. Whitbread), and in which another had been conducted so lately by his hon. friend (Mr. Wardle), was the best stay to which the constitution could look for safety and support. Serious as the charges were which had been brought in both the instances he alluded to,they were comparatively trifling, when he considered them in relation to that most flagitious of all abuses, by which the influence of the treasury was exerted in returning members to that house. In the good old times of this country, the crime was looked upon in its proper light:-it was considered as fraught with the most dreadful consequences. In 1734, Sir John St. Aubin declared in that house that such a system alone could give the last fatal blow to the liberties of the country, and that if the treasury governed that house, the popular part of the constitution was gone for ever-that the people might continue to exist, but that the doors of that house would be effi ctually closed against their wishes and their wants. The nature of that influence branched out into so many and various ways of misapplying the money taken out of the pockets of the people, that it was impossible to have an adequate idea of its magnitude and danger, or to be too vigilant in retrenching the one and guarding against the other. He had already signified his intention of taking an early opportunity of submitting to the consideration of the house the present state of certain boroughs in England. He trusted that the statement he should then submit to the house would induce them to a revision of the entire system of boroughs. He should take the liberty of adverting at present to one or two in stances of this borough influence. The first was the borough of Hastings, which consisted of only fourteen voters. The right of election being in the corporation: this borough was the property of Mr. Millwood and his Son, who were agents for government, and were the mayor of the town alternately. The younger Mr. Millwood was comptroller of the excise, with a salary of 14251. per annum, a place which was nearly, if not quite, a sinecure, though by the 5th of William and Mary, chap ter the 30th, collectors and officers in the excise were interdicted from any interference in elections. If the sum of 14251. be multiplied by seven, it would be found that it cost the people for every parliament 9,9751. With respect to the borough of Bye there were but six electors. Mr. T. Lamb was agent for the treasury, and this gentleman was in the enjoyment of the lucrative situation of Tally, another in the exchequer, and was also cursitor of Hampshire. This borough was under similar restrictions as the last mentioned borough of Hastings. Bowden, at a salary of 5001. a-year, though by the 9th Anne, chapter 10th, officers of the post office were prohibited from interfering in elections. The next borough he should mention was that of Queenborough. The influence of this borough was divided between the ordnance and the admiraity. The amount of the salaries of the places held by the freemen of the borough under the ordnance and the navy boards was annually 28681. So that the public money paid to the electors of Queenborough, during a parliament of seven years or sessions, independent of other sorts of influ ence, amounted to no less a sum than 14,5761. Not to mention that the boroughs of Westbury and New Romney, were openly sold for money. But of all the various corruptions and abuses-of all the fatal misapplications of the public money, none, he thought, so imperatively called for an immediate check as the corrupt interference to which he had already alluded, exercised by the treasury to procure the return of members to that house. This, continued Mr. Maddocks, is poisoning the fountain of health; the only quarter to which we can look for the prevention or redress of other corruption. What, Sir, can be more fatal than to suffer any thing to vitiate the legislature, inqui sitorial, and remedial branches of the constitution? It has been al ways held, in all periods of our history, that any corruptions practised by individuals to obtain seats in this house, is an offence against the constitution, and laws have from time to time been enacted conformably to that principle; but for the execu tive power to attempt to corrupt the legislative, has been considered as most fatal, and your journals and resolutions proclaim the enormity of such offence in the eye of the con year, but which he lately resigned in favour of his eldest son! stitution. Treasury influence, from the various shapes it assumes, may, in its nature, be divided into several classes; but that, the most alarming and obnoxious is, where public money is made instrumental to the return of members to this house, either by actually buying or selling seats with money, or by applying annually part of the taxes taken out of the pockets of the people, towards the keeping up a corrupt influence in the boroughs which return members at the nomination of the treasury, 'while those members again pay a 'certain sum of money to the treasury for their seats, which money is carried to a certain fund, and then doled out to carry elections in other places.. But, Sir, having enumerated these cases, which, in my opinion, ought to be submitted to a committee to examine, sift, and regulate, I now come to a case of what I consider as aggravated in the extreme, and one that calls for an immediate investigation at your bar. I mean Sir, the case of the borough of Cashel in Ireland, in all the transactions relating to which at the last general election, and since that time, it will be found that the treasury have conducted themselves, not only directly in the teeth of your resolutions, but have exercised an influence beyond all parallel, and have not only violated the constitution in the most unequivocal manner, but have inflicted signal injustice on a most honourable individual, because he had too strict a sense of propriety to vote against his conscience, and what he felt to be his right line of duty. The conduct of the hon. gent. to whom I allude, has in this instance been so strikingly correct, manly, and upright, that I am confident he will meet with, as he is entitled to, the esteem of every honest man in the counry. This is not an unfinished act. Sir, it is to this case that, for the present, I VOL, V. propose to call the particular attention of the house, and to conclude with a motion for hearing evidence at the bar, in support of the statement, the facts of which I am fully prepared to prove. I have so far departed from the proceeding of the other night, though I cannot, on a revision of the precedent, find that I am not fully justified in such a course! I affirm then, that Mr. Dick purchased a seat in this house for the borough of Cashel, through the agency of the Hon. H. Wellesley, who acted for and on behalf of the treasury; that upon a recent question of the last importance, when Mr. Dick had determined to vote according to his conscience, the noble lord (Castlereagh) did intimate to that gentleman, the necessity of either his voting with the government, or resigning his seat in that house; and that Mr. Dick, sooner than vote against principle, did make choice of the latter alternative, and did vacate his seat accordingly. To this transaction Icharge the right hon. gent. (Mr. Perceval), as being privy and having connived at it; this I will engage to prove by witnesses at your bar, if the house will give me leave to call them. If the house will permit me to do so, I am satisfied that they could not take a more direct method to remedy the abuses in the representative system, of such places as Hastings, Rye, Cambridge, Queenborough, and many other places that could be mentioned, where large annual sums were paid out of the taxes, in the maintenance of sinecure offices and places to uphold the influence of the treasury in such boroughs. 1shall, now Sir, detain you no longer, than by again asserting the purity of my motives. They originate in my aversion to such practices, which, (to use the concluding language of the ever-memorable Hampshire petition), with all due deference to the superior wisdom of the house, I ven 3 & bring into discredit the government of the country, and to shake the confidence of the people in the honour and independence of the house of commons. I have, therefore, like the petitioners, " felt it my bounden duty, not only to my constituents, and to my fellow subjects, but especially to the house, to bring under their notice these outrages, as I deem them, against the liberties of the country, and I have been encouraged the more to do so by the resolution which stands recorded in the Journals, which has been this day read at your table, and also by the language contained in the first paragraph of the resolution which was recorded on your Journals but sixteen days ago." fure to describe as calculated to the ordinary course of calling upon an individual to answer a charge instead of withdrawing, appears to be attended with some degree of embarrassment. The hon. member supposes the matter he alluded to, to have been negociated by the noble lord near me, not wholly without my knowledge; and, therefore, I think it would be more consistent with the dignity of the house that I should content myself with no other mode of denial than with the plea of NOT GUILTY; professing, as I do, my innocence. I hope my declining to enter into it will not be deemed disrespectful to the house; but I cannot conceive, that under these circumstances, and in these times especially, it is wise for public men, either upon this side of the house or upon the other, to enter into explanations upon mere statements made by an hon. member in his place; and, therefore, I make my bow to you and to the house, and shall thereby leave the question unembarrassed by any thing that may fall from me." The right hon. gentleman then withdrew, amidst the general cheers of the house! Here the hon. gentleman sat down, and immediately Mr. Perceval rose, when Lord Folkestone called the right hon. gentleman to order, and contended that he need not with draw, and ought not to be heard according to the precedent of Shepheard, until the motion of his hon. friend was before the house. Here a short discussion, as to the point of order arose between Lord Folkstone, Sir John Anstruther, and Mr. Horner, when, upon the Speaker's interposition, it was agreed, that Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh should be severally heard in their defence, and be permitted to withdraw before the motion was put from the chair. Mr. Perceval rose, and addressed the house." I purposely (said he) avoided giving any opinion upon this point, as I was desirous to follow the dictates of the house. I certainly did conceive, that according to the ordinary practice, when a charge was brought against an individual, that individual was to be heard, even before the motion was put; and I do not mean to quarrel with the established practice of the house; but I must say, that I think Lord Castlereagh next addressed the house in a short speech, in which he expressed his concurrence in the sentiments that had fallen from his right hon. friend. At present be should follow the example of his right hon. colleague. The noble lord then made a bow to the Speaker, and withdrew. Mr. Tierney observed, it appeared strange, that the house was left to discuss a charge of which many members were entirely ignorant, at least those who had come in subsequently to the speech of the honourable gentleman who had stated it.— It ought, therefore, he thought, to be put in somewhat of a more intel ligible shape, even according to the precedent. Upon Mr. Maddocks's stating, that he should be regulated by the prece dent in the case of Shepheard, it was then ordered to be read, as before, when the charge was at first brought before the house. The Speaker observed, that, from this precedent, it appeared that the charge was first made, then discussed, and afterwards ordered to be heard by evidence at the bar, the house having previously directed that it should be given in writing to the member accused. Mr. Whitbread said, that in the late case relative to the Duke of York, the charge was orally made, and yet the house appointed a committee to inquire into the charge. Mr. Canning." This is of the nature of a double question, the latter part presuming an affirmative of the former; and therefore when it is said that the charge shall be taken into consideration upon a certain day, the hon. gentleman takes it for granted that the charge shall be gone into. After a few words from Lord Folkstone on the point of order Mr. Maddocks begged leave to move, "That the matter of the charge be heard at the bar of the house." Mr. Whitbread and Sir F. Burdett both rose to second the motion. Upon the motion being put from the chair Mr. Cartwright said, that when he considered that the hon. mover of this charge had seconded the long string of resolutions at a late public meeting, there could be little doubt in his mind that this was a kind of preparatory step to parliamentary reform. He could not suppose that the hon. member was actuated by any other than honest motives, but be denied that the general sense of the country was in favour of reform. He thought that the unhappy question, as to the Duke of York, had been taken up too much in the spirit of triumph; and that although his royal highness ought not to have remained longer in office, yet he should not have thought of calling meetings to congratulate the hon. member who had brought such a question forward. Those who thought that there were points that ought to be reformed, ought also to reflect, that this was not the proper time to carry that reform into effect! Lord Milton said, he did not know whether the hon. member who had just spoken meant to apply his observations to all persons wishing for any kind of reform; but he could say for himself, THAT IF THIS MEASURE WERE FOR PARLIA MENTARY REFORM HE (Lord M.) WOULD BE THE FIRST TO OPPOSE IT; FOR HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT ANY PRACTICAL GOOD COULD ARISE FROM REFORM IN PARLIAMENTARY REPRESENTA TION! He thought, that the term reform had, in many instances, been applied improperly; but there were certain ciucumstances attending returns to parliament that ought to be rectified, and practices that ought to be put an end to; amongst others the evident interference of government in elections, which had a most dangerous tendency. Whether this charge were proved or not proved ugainst the present ministers, he should not have one jot the worse opinion of them than he at present had for what they had done, fir he could not conceive that their conduct could be called criminal for doing that which had been done by all governments that had existed before them, and will be done by all that may follow them! All reforms must begin by inflicting some hardships upon some individual or individuals, and upon this occasion the reform sought for might probably end in hardship upon those two individuals now accused. He should propose as an amendment to the motion,-" That instead of the words That the charge be heard at the bar of this house,' there be substituted the words, That the matter of |