was to impose taxes to the amount of a million a year in perpetuity upon the country! Here was an increase of expenditure, in the course of two years, to the amount of nine millions, and yet, notwithstanding this enormous increase, a general apathy seemed to prevail upon the subject.-The enormous increase of 9,000,0001. in our expenditure, and this in the short space of two years, was surely a subject of no ordinary importance, and demanded the most serious investigation. The people, wholly indifferent to this most important consideration, were occupied in discussing minute points, with respect to which it was impossible that any material alleviation of their burthens could arise, and those were only deluding them who endeavoured to persuade them that such would be the result! Some substantial reason ought to be given for so enormous an increase of expence, and this at a time when it was more than ever necessary that we should husband and economize our resources. By the plan of the late administration, the war, as stated by his noble friend (Lord Sidmouth), might have been carried on indefinitely. The enemy aiming at nothing short of our destruction, had adopted two modes of attempting that object, which he sometimes pursued united, sometimes separately; the one was direct attempts upon the country, the other endeavouring to wear us out and exhaust our resources. To repel the former, we must rely upon the valour and discipline of our navy and army, to the spirit and bravery of the people. To meet the latter, it became necessary to adopt some permanent plan, which should place our resources beyond the peril of being thus exhausted. It was with this view that the plan of the late administration was formed, under which each portion of the war taxes, after paying off in 14 years the sums charged upon it, would have been

again applicable to the public service for a similar purpose, and thus we might have been enabled to maintain the dreadful contest in which we were engaged, and convince the enemy that he could have no hope of continuing the war of being enabled to exhaust us. The maxim of the noble lord seemed to be, "sufficient for the day is the evil thereof;" and all that was looked for was to satisfy the exigency of the moment. The noble earl, when he had proposed this measure, was at the end of his finance, and looked no farther than next year, when a new supply must be raised. His lordship proceeded to ask what we had gained by our increased expenditure, and by the addition thus made to our debt? We had gained the convention of Cintra, the retreat of Salamanca, the loss of our brave officers, and the dispersion of our army as an army. What, on the other hand, had we lost? We had lost in having an increase to our debt of 9,000,0001. and an annual burden of 1,000,000l. additional imposed. on the people of this country. The burdens altogether, to which not the higher nor the lower, but the middling class of the community of this country had of late years submitted to were inconceivable. He was one of those who, far from countenancing or supporting, highly reprobated and disapproved of the practices resorted to in order to excite clamour and disaffection; but at the same time he must caution ministers not to refuse their attention to the voice of the well-affected. The present, be contended, was a measure which had been uniformly discountenanced by Mr. Pitt, by his noble friend (Lord Sidmouth), and by the administration of which himself formed a part.

Lord Harrowby supported the bill. He maintained that it must be attended both with immediate and future advantage. It was attended

Graham, and other members, and read a first time.

The Earl of Liverpool, in moving the order of the day for going into a committee on the bill to prevent the sale of seats in parliament, stated shortly the ground on which it was now proposed for their lordships' adoption. He thought it necessary to observe, that this bill had no connection with the question of parliamentary reform. Upon that question he had no hesitation to declare his sentiments, being fully convinced, after the must mature deliberation, that parliamentary reform would be unwise, and impolitic, and that it could not be effected without destroying the constitution. He could only figure to himself the most mischievous consequence from bringing all the elections to the standard of Westminster and Middlesex. The present mixed system, on the contrary, afforded the best chance for all classes of men to be adequately represented. With respect to the present bill, it was not intended, in the slightest degree, to take away from the fair legitimate influence of property, but to render illegal the abuse of that influence, and the traffic of it for money. The practice of selling seats in parliament had, there was reason to believe, been carried on for a considerable period in a covert way, but had only been openly admitted and avowed for the first time in the present session. Having, however, been so openly avowed, it became absolutely necessary for the legislature to interfere, and to render this abuse illegal. They must either legalize the traffic, or render it illegal. There was some doubt whether this practice was or not a misdemeanor at common law; but, at all events, the common law could not sufficiently reach it, and therefore it became necessary to prevent this abuse by special enactments. Under these circumstances be trusted there

would be no objection to go through with the bill.

Earl Grosvenor considered this measure in principle, as in some degree a measure of parliamentary reform, and with respect to that question in general, he hoped to live to see the day when the system of par liamentary reform proposed by Mr. Pitt, would be carried into effect. He wished to go no farther, and had no objection to making compensation to those who would by such a measure sustain considerable loss in the value of their property. With respect to the bill, however, as now framed, he thought it nugatory and delusive with reference to its professed object, whilst it tended in its practical effect to throw the weight of influence into the hands of ministers, as by inserting the word “express" the patronage of the crown might be used with impunity in procuring seats. He could not therefore support the bill in its present shape.

Lord Sidmouth approved highly of the principle of the bill, and thought it absolutely necessary that some measure of this kind should be recorded in the statute book. If that were not the case, would it not be incumbent upon the noble and learned lord (the lord chancellor), or the master of the rolls, or masters in chancery, the practice of selling seats having been avowed, to self the seats attached to property, or influenced by property under their management, for the most money that could be got for them. He should have wished, that the penalties in this bill had been rendered more severe, that the solemnity of an oath had been added with respect to transactions, where it was very difficult to have evidence, and that the word "express" had not been inserted. He would not, however, endanger the bill by proposing amendments at this late period of the

session, thinking it absolutely necessary that the principle of this bill should be without delay enacted.

The Earl of Carysfort thought the provisions of the bill fell far short of its title and preamble, and that they tended to increase the influence of the patronage of the crown. He could not give his support to a bill so deceptive and illusive.

Lord Boringdon defended the bill, and contended that if the words "express" had not been introduced, it would have been scarcely possible to make even the most inuocent use of the patronage of the crown, and it might even have happened under the bill, as it would then have stood, that persons might have been called upon to prove a negative.

The Earl of Rosslyn commented upon several parts of the bill, for the purpose of 'shewing the futility of its enactments as they now stood, particularly with respect to one of its professed objects, that of preventing the abuse of the patronage of the crown. There was not near the same moral guilt in trafficking seats for money, as in trafficking for them the patronage of the crown, and yet the difference in the enactments with respect to the two objects, was peculiarly marked. In the former case broad and general words were used, but in the latter, by inserting the word "express" it was scarcely possible that they could reach any case of abuse, unless where the parties were insane enough to make an express agreement.

The Earl of Selkirk also condemned the bill as now worded, and contended that it was a mere trick and deception on the country.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire thought, that by enacting the principle of this bill, and recording it on the statute book, that the best answer will be given to the violent reformers, as it would shew that an abuse was no sooner discovered than a remedy was applied; and it was

remarkable that those who were loudest in calling for reform, seemed to consider the measure in this point of view, as they opposed it the mo ment it was introduced. He could have wished that it had been rendered more efficient; but he thought it of g.eat importance to enact the principle, and from that other enactments might follow.

Lord Mulgrave contended, that there was a clear distinction between trafficking seats for money and using the patronage of the crownit being in the former case entirely gratuitous, whilst in the latter the patronage might be used with innocent and honourable motives, although in its effect it might have an influence in procuring a return. It was necessary, therefore, to guard against rendering criminal the innocent use of patronage; and were it not for the insertion of the word " express," it would scarcely be possible to use that pa tronage in any way without being liable to the charge of making an implied agreement with respect to some election.

The Marquis of Douglas objected to the principle of the bill. He conceived it to be a mere delusion. It recognised evils which not one of the provisions of the bill went to correct.

The house then went into a committee.

Earl Grosvenor objected to the word "express," as applied to contract, agreement, &c. for purchase of a seat in parliament.

The Lord Chancellor argued on the other side.

A division took place, when the pumbers were-For the clause as it stood, 23-Against it, 9:

The other clauses were then gone through, the report was received, and the bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

Friday, June 16.

The seats in parliament bill, and

the Strand bridge bill, were read a third time and passed.

Lord Sidmouth adverted to a former order of the house for an account of the number of licences granted to dissenting preachers and teachers, and having learnt that the secretary of state for the home department had no authority to require a return of that description, he, therefore, moved, That the clerk of the parliament should transmit a copy of the order to the clerks of the peace, in the respective counties of England and Wales. His lordship afterwards, in consequence of some doubt, privately suggested, withdrew his motion and gave notice of it for Monday.

On the question for the third reading of the Irish catholics' bill, Lord Redesdale observed, that the doubt which was supposed by this bill to exist, respecting the possession of freeholds by Roman catholics in Ireland, who had not taken certain oaths, did not in fact exist, and, therefore, there was no necessity for the bill.

The bill was ordered to be read a third time this day three months. Saturday, June 17. Several bills were read and the house adjourned to Monday.

Monday, June 19.

The Royal assent was given by commission to the Irish militia regulation, and the insolvent debtors bills.

Tuesday, June 20.

The Royal assent was given, by commission, to the consolidated fund, the judges' salaries, the sale of officès prevention, the bankrupt laws amendment, the friendly societies, and the Strand bridge bills.

Wednesday, June 21.

The house of Commons, with the Speaker at their head, appeared at the bar; and, after the royal assent, by commission, had been given to the bill for preventing the enlistment from the local militia into the general

militia, the Lord Chancellor delivered the following Speech.

"My Lords and Gentlemen, "We are commanded by his Majesty to acquaint you, that his Majesty has great satisfaction in being enabled, by the state of public business, to release you from your laborious attendance in parliament. His Majesty doubts not that on your return into your respective counties, you will carry with you a disposition to inculcate, both by instruction and example, a spirit of attachment to those established laws, and that happy constitution, which it has ever been his Majesty's anxious wish to support and to maintain, and upon which, under Providence, depend the welfare and prosperity of this kingdom.

"Gentlemen of the House of Commons.

"We have it in command from his Majesty to thank you for the lberal provision you have made for the service of the present year; and to express the satisfaction which his Majesty derives from your having been enabled to provide for those services without any great, or immediate addition to the burthens upon his people. His Majesty particularly commands us to acknowledge your prompt attention to his wishes, respecting the increased provision for the poorer clergy; an object in the highest degree interesting to his Majesty's feelings, and deserving the favourable consideration of parliament.

"My Lords and Gentlemen, "The atrocious and unparalleled act of violence and treachery by which the ruler of France attempted to surprise and to enslave the Spanish nation, while it has excited in Spain a determined and unconquerable resistance against the usurpation and tyranny of the French government, has, at the same time, awakened in other nations of Europe a determination to resist, by a new effort, the continued and increasing