the charge be referred to a commit tee above stairs."

Sir C. Morgan opposed both the motion and the amendment, as he conceived this to be the commencement of a system against which every man ought to make a stand who va lued either the dignity of the house or the safety of the country. Would the hon. gentleman who made this motion be satisfied with the victims he had selected? No, Sir, many more must be filtered through the purifying vessel of reform. It was a plan cloathed ostensibly with the garb of public virtue, but was stripped of much of that experience and motive which characterized reform. He could not help giving the motion his decided negative.

Sir J. Anstruther stated that the present motion was an attack equally against all executive governments, both past and to come! There was a great attack now-a-days against the influence and attachments of party; but still he strongly suspected that there was in contemplation another party to which the hon. mover may belong, but of which he was not solicitous to be fully informed, whose object was to level down all public men to their own very humble state. If there was, as he strongly suspected, a party having such views, sure he was that the present motion was well calculated to promote their object. The ball was to be opened with the borough of Cashel; but the hon. mover explicitly told us that it was but a part of his intended investigation,and, of course, the house had no means of ascertaining where he intended to stop. Why was it not informed of all that was meant to be done with that commmittee? Did the hon. mover propose the present motion as a new gratification of the public appetite for scandal, and thus obtain a greater Aumber of converts to his scheme of parliamentary reform? To excite that disgust and disregard, dissention,

and perhaps the detestation of that house, which would ultimately go rather to destroy, than to reform parliament. If abuses did exist, let the correction be prospective, but let it not be introduced upon a retrospective process, with a view of making that criminal which was not properly criminal before-and upon what inducement? The presumed information of a member in his place. To inform, in his apprehension, meant to convey information, and he would ask, was there in the statement of the hon. mover any ground upon which the most subordinate magistrates would proceed. If such undefined accusations were sanctioned in that house, then with equal propriety must it prepare itself to hear repeated the idle conversations of every club-room; and for what he knew, the very information upon which the house was now called to proceed might have originated from such a source. If such was the fact, he would say, that as the man who uttered such a statement did by such conduct violate every principle of honour and of confidence, he would not give to such a man credit at the bar. Good God! were all the ties of private confidence and private vir tue to be cleft in pieces by the rascality of a few individuals, exerting every effort to gratify that public scandal which was by themselves excited! To the legitimate and serious opinion of the public he trusted that house would ever fend a deep and prompt attention; but he admonished it how it yielded even for a moment to that appeal, which was nothing more than public clamour.

Mr. Curwen declared he felt no little hesitation as to the part which he ought to take on the present oc casion. If the house were consitu. ted as it ought, all would be well; if, on the contrary, reform was es sentially necessary, it would be well, perhaps, to pass by the evil that was past, and to look forward with hope

to the future; but on the whole he felt himself bound to support the motion. He however thought, although he had formerly been a friend to parliamentary reform, this was hot the proper moment for it!

Mr. Biddulph contended, that that house was the only proper tribunal before which offences of the nature stated and complained of could properly be brought forward and inves tigated.

Sir F. Burdett. I certainly was anxious, before I ventured to deliver my sentiments, to have heard the sentiments of those whom I consider as better informed upon the subject, than which, one more important or touching the vital interests of the country, I cannot well imagine. As a charge against ministers, I had hoped to have found it answered by something more reasonable and satisfactory than any thing I have hitherto beard advanced in their favour. I am free to own I am not surprised to find ministers shrinking from charges when brought forward in a tangible shape, especially when connected with that bug-bear, parliamentary reform. A noble lord has stated his belief that seats in this house have been subjects of purchase; is this common fame? Another hon. member has offered to prove the fact at your bar; is not this bringing the charge into a tangible shape? When it is said that the assertors of such grievances are to be considered as the calumniators of the state; your own committees, your commissioners appointed to inquire into public abuses, are the calumniators by their public reports. What I assert I find in your statute books; and all I ask is, to put its provisions into practice. Happy for the country if all that is asked be granted as a favour by the house; if you refuse it, guilty will be those who cause the refusal. There are some who argue against the motion, as not knowing where inquiry wiil

go to; I say if you agree to it, you save your character; if you deny it you cannot save the land. He would be glad to hear any gentleman on the other side get up, and lay his hand upon his heart, and say that he did not believe the existence of such practices as those which were now charged-practices which tends ed to give the most mortal stab to the character of that house. If it was possible for any gentleman there to defend such things, as to contend that these practices, which were pregnant with destruction to the constitution, formed part of the constitution itself, then he must say that BONAPARTE had a hetter ally within these walls than he had any where else! He was not surprised to meet with men professing the same principles which had brought other nations to des struction-other nations, the prin cipal object of whose governments had been to subdue their own subjects instead of their foreign enemies. He desired such gentlemen to shew him any government which had of late been subverted by its own sub jects, except through that apathy which the errors of such govern ments had created as to the careet of a foreign enemy.

The Honourable Baronet further observed, that what he and those who were actuated by the same principles demanded, was nothing more than the constitution-and they desired reform, not for the subversion but for the establishment of the constitution. The noble Lord (Milton) seemed to think that as this was an established practice-a sort of trade which had been regularly carried on by every government for a long pe riod, he should not think the less of the ministers now accused, even though the charge should be proved. He perhaps agreed with the noble lord in that sentimens. But at the same time what inference the country would draw from such opinion, the friends of corruption ought welt

to consider. They ought to beware of having a rooted conviction esta blished in the country, that corrup tion was become so common with respect to seats in that house, that it had ceased to be there regarded as an offence; or would they with sound of trumpet through the land proclaim, that not to be corrupt is the shame! But, if they meant to deny the existence of such corruption let them come to the proof. It was impossible, surely, consistently, to maintain that corruption was not mischievous, for the committees appointed by the house it self, bad constantly been exposing and reprobating such abuses.

The principles which he had always possessed, did not rest merely on any theoretical conclusions of his own, but were to be found in the statute books. His object was to restore the constitution to that purity which it ought to have, and which it was understood to possess in theory. All he now said was that if one of the organs by which the constitution was administered was corrupt it was impossible that the constitution could be sound in practice, whatever it might be in theory, A charge of corruption in procuring returns to that house was brought against two of its members. If the house refused to proceed to inquire into the truth of the allegations the manifest conclusion would be, what had already been hinted at, that the offence was too common to be considered as a ground of punishment. One gentleman had said that exclusive demerit rested with the accused, and they therefore ought not to be exposed. That, however, was not a sort of defence that ought to be satisfactory, or that would be satisfactory to the country. With regard to the bill to prevent the sale of seats in that house, proposed to be introduced by the hon. gentleman near him (Mr. Curwen) he doubted whether sts effect would not be to prevent the

carrying on of the trade by indivi duals, to throw it entirely into the bands of the treasury. The state of the question was this either we had a representation, or we had not. If we had not a real representation of the people we ought to procure it as soon as possible, for no succedaneum could answer the purpose, whatever means might be devised for propping a corrupt and rotten system. The hon. baronet on the floor (Sir J. Anstruther) had, in attempting to give a definition of the word " infor mation," expressed a doubt whether he understood the English language. But whether he understood the English language or not, the hon, baronet seemed to have been very well acquainted with the feelings of the house. He appeared to have had a notion that the feeling of the house was against inquiry; and the cheers with which his speech had been received was a strong proof of the accuracy of his opinon on that point. Much had been said with a view to shew that the charge was not pro perly preferred. He, however, (Sir F. B.) thought there could be no doubt that the charge was in itself founded upon the most constitutional principles, and brought forward in a way that was warranted by many parliamentary precedents.

Mr. D. Giddy said, that property and power should always be united

he had always considered it as one of the great merits of the constitu tion, that all interests were represented in that house. He wished to see the landed interest, and to that he would allow the predominancehe wished to see the monied interest —he wished to see the lawyers-the army, and the navy, represented :he was not afraid to say, that he had no objection to the introduction of certain members of the East India company into the house. After all that was said against the present system, the country was flourishing under it, and they should be cautious

in adopting any speculations which might endanger that prosperity. For this reason, he would vote against the motion.

Mr. Tierney said, he was desirous to trouble the house with a few words. He did not distinctly hear the nature of the charge which was brought forward by the hon. gentleman, and he thought that the journals would make a strange appear ance, unless the hon. gentleman were to favour the house with some paper which might be inserted to explain its nature. In the case of Shepherd, the house had resolved specifically, that he had proved himself corrupt in an attempt to influence by bribery, and it was upon the specific statement of that charge that it agreed to entertain it. He agreed` with the hon. gentleman, who said it was the essence of the constitution that the different interests should be represented the landed ought to have the predominance, but not the whole influence; nor could it, unless the representation was to be confined exclusively to counties, the monied interest would always prevail in the towns.-The hon. member, adverting to the subject of parliamentary reform, said he had been a friend to it, but thought this was not the time, because it was not desired by parliament or the people! He concluded with moving an amendment, "That that part of the charge, which went to affix to Lord Castlereagh the charge of unduly influencing a member of that house, to desert his duty, should be entertained, and sent to a committee."

The Speaker observed, that though it was perfectly regular to make an oral charge, it was unusual to assert it in the journals after it had been made. He hoped the hon. member would assist the clerk to enter it in the journals.

Mr. Whitbread expressed bis astonishment to hear the measure of *parliamentary reform objected to by

his right hon. friend in point of time

the more so as that objection was grounded upon the same arguments which his right hon. friend, he, and others, had on former occasions to encounter from the other side of the house. With regard to the public meetings, from which declarations of opinion had been published upon the subject of the decision of the house relative to the conduct of the Duke of York, he maintained the right of the people to express their opi nion upon any public question, asserting that there were numbers among the public who were as competent to form a correct opinion upon that, or any other question, as the members of that house. To think otherwise on the part of the house, he would consider as an indication of arrogance and folly. As to the attack which it was alledged was systematically made upon public men, he wished to know whether a serious disposition to very gross. attack did not prevail against those who were anxious to expose and punish abuses, even more than against those who were supposed to profit by the existence of such abuses. He remembered, not many nights ago, to have heard it stated in that house by an hon. gentleman, that he would rather be Mrs. Clarke with all her vices, than pursue the conduct of the hon. gentleman who brought her forward. This he offered as a specimen of what those were liable to who struggled upon the side of the people, and as some counterpose to the mur muring of those gentlemen who felt so very indignant at accusations, accompanied by an offer of proof, which still they would not suffer the house to receive. So that although their pride was hurt, and their character impeached, they would not allow their principles to be vindicated. Parliamentary reform he conceived to be the greatest good the country could experience, and therefore he sought for it. He thought it

necessary, in order to prevent con yulsion; but he never did think. nor did he ever say, that it would operate like enchantment, as a papacea for all evils. He never was deluded by theories, but looked for that reform only which was sought for by so many great men, by Judge Blackstone, by Dr. Paley, by Mr. Fox, by Mr. Pitt, and many others. If these great men could now be communicated with, if one of them at least were enabled to offer his advice, sure he was that that wise man, whose principles he contracted at his outset in political life, would strongly recommend the conduct he was now pursuing.

Several gentlemen, particularly about the ministerial bench, had, he recollected, professed their resolution to wage war with corruption; but if such a case as that then before the house did not rouse them to act, he could not conceive when they would give battle. Here were two ministers of state accused of receiving money for a seat in that house, calling upon the person purchasing such seat to vacate, because he would not vote against his conscience. How the money arising out of the purchase had been disposed of the house was yet to learn. Mr. Perceval had talked of the violations of social confidence in the disclosure of this transaction, But in fact there was no social confidence in the case on the part of his hon. friend. The information he received he laid, as was his duty, before the house, and it was for the house to decide how it would act for the preservation of its own honour and character. But it was pretended, that as there was such a disposition to abuse -public men, it was here proper to make a stand against inquiry. -What, in such a flagrant case? The -present ministers would not determine upon such a stand in the in-stance of the Hampshire election. They would then prosecute Mr.

Freemantle with the utmost rigour for writing a letter to a single voter; and yet now they would claim complete impunity for Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh, who had sold a seat to a member upon certain terms to obtain his vote, and afterwards turned him out of his seat because he would not vote against his judgment. If such a case as this were overlooked, the house might as well, in his opinion, expunge its jour nals, burn its statutes, and blot out the constitution! But, gentlemen asserted that there was no precedent for these retrospective inquiries.Did they forget that, in one of the most corrupt periods of our history, at the close of Sir Robert Walpole's administration, a committee was ap pointed to inquire into the abuses of that administration for no less than ten years back? In those gentlemen who voted against Lord Castlereagh upon a former night for an act of corruption, which was only imperfect, he thought it would be exceedingly inconsistent to vote a gainst this motion, where the act was alleged to be complete.

The opinion in favour of reform he believed to be much more general than it had been at any former pe riod, and it was very easily to be accounted for. The result of the investigation respecting the Duke of York, the rejection of the reversion bill, and the vote in favour of Lord Castlereagh, formed strong addi tional reasons for discrediting the composition of that house, and natu rally multiplied the advocates for reform. Still he thought the senti ment in support of reform, when it was last discussed, would have been much louder, more universal and effective, if it had not been for the extraordinary exercise of the influence of the crown. This exercise was most strongly exemplified in the case of the celebrated Robert Burns, the poet, as appeared from a letter of his published since his