remarking" that negligence of this description, and a profligate pro "fusion in the public expenditure, had been peculiarly characteristie "of the administration under which these commissioners had been "appointed," moved sundry resolutions, reprobating such neglect "as leading to the most prejudicial consequences," and declaring it to be " a violation of the obvious duty of the government." To these statements, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had the modes ty to reply, "that he was prepared without any notice from the "hon. gentleman who had made them, to communicate the measures "that were about to be taken by government," and then recom mended him to withdraw his motions. After a short discussion, including an excellent speech from Mr. WHITBREAD, in which he charged the commissioners with " gross prevarication in their evi "dence before the committee," and with "endeavouring to withhold " from the committee and the public by such means the real state "of their criminal conduct," the previous question was put and carried, and another motion passed of a more gentle nature, in which although the conduct of the commissioners was censured, the administration which had so long winked at that conduct, was simply charged wih having omitted to notice it. It remains to be seen what will be the course pursued respecting these public pilferers: but from the negligence discovered in the case of other defaulters, once the favourites of government, the people ought not to lose sight of these matters. In our Review for Feb. last, we noticed the charge brought by Mr. MOORE in the House of Commons against a late colleague of Mr. GEORGE ROSE,-The right hon. THOMAS STEELE, “who "stood convicted of having possessed himself of the public money "under false pretences, and yet no endeavour had been made by the "Attorney General to bring the man so charged (and as the head of a public office, one of the secretaries of the treasury, more egre"giously criminal) to public justice.” Another member, Mr. Creevey, expressed his surprise, "that a gentleman who had been so detected as Mr. Steele had been, should be left in the undisturbed posses"sion of his honour as a privy counsellor, and in the enjoyment of a sinecure yielding 1700l. a year! This statement was made to the house upwards of four months since; and yet we have heard nothing farther respecting the business. Mr. Steele was a favourite with Mr. Pitt, and his friends the present ministers: how far Mr. Bowles and his brother commissioners were in the same predicament, we must leave to time to discover.

"

"

In the debate on Mr. Ord's motions a circumstance turned up, somewhat of a ludicrous nature, and which may serve to shew that when statesmen employ certain loyal gentlemen as their tools, their respect for them is duly proportionate to their cha-` racters. Mr. ROSE, who had been suspected by Mr. Whitbread as

"having a leaning towards Mr. John Bowles," and a partiality for his writings, assured the hon. gentleman, that " he had never read "any of his [thirty] pamphlets, though he would allow that they

were regularly laid on his table." That author is rather unfortunate, whose only mode of publishing his writings, is by presenting them gratis to those who will not be at the trouble even to cut open the leaves. The public by this instance may learn how to appreciate the labours of those literary hirelings, who are both paid and despised by their employers, at the same moment.

Mr. Curwen's Bill to prevent the sale of seats in Parliament.— This bill although it has passed the two houses, and received the royal assent, has been so completely metamorphosed by ministers, that it does not retain half a dozen lines of the original bill, and is rendered wholly ineffectual for the purpose professed. The two debates, the first on moving for leave to bring in the bill, and the second, on the motion for its committal, inserted in our following pages, are well worthy the attention of our readers, as they tend further to develope the opinions of our leading statesmen on subjects of the last importance to the public welfare. It is with concern we remark, the inconsistency of Mr. CURWEN in his language on introducing the bill. He commenced his speech by "adverting "to the conduct of his Majesty's ministers in their remissness at an "earlier period with respect to the great question of parliamentary "reform:"he observed, "that if they had attended, and duly "marked the supineness, the apathy, the alarming indifference, the "degree of torpor, that spread among the people during the heat' "of mere party contests, they must have discovered in that apathy, "a proof that there was something unsound in the system." To illustrate his argument, the hon. member alluded to "the discove"ries, which had been recently made in that house during the late "unhappy inquiry, and the abuses which led to that result." He likewise made some just remarks on the venality and corruption of what is called the monied interest, and their love of war for the sake of profit. One might naturally have supposed that the hon. member would, after making these and similar observations, have renewed his professions on the subject of parliamentary reform'; but "alas! poor human nature!" Mr. Curwen, after acknowledging that he was once a friend to that measure, added, that this was not the time for its adoption, and with Mr. PERCEVAL, Mr. WINDHAM, and several other members, expressed his reprobation of the résolutions which had been recently entered info at the numerous and respectable meeting of the friends to parliamentary reform, at the Crown and Anchor. A copy of those resolutions appeared in our last Register; and most cordially approving of them at the meeting, we venture to challenge the enemies of reform, to point

out any one of them which is not equally temperate and constitutional. They contain a selection of truisms; and although they enforce the necessity of a parliamentary reform, as the only radical cure for long standing, and universally acknowledged abuses, they do not, in the most distant degree, dictate to the legislature any favourite plan, by which this grand national object may be accom plished; those who framed them, doubtless indulged the hope, that the hon. house of Commons, would institute an inquiry on a subject in which their own honour, dignity, and best interests are essentially united with those of the people at large. However the proceedings at that meeting may be misrepresented or reviled, no attempt has been made to answer the arguments of the speakers as summed up in the resolutions, which are alike distinguished by the forcible truths they contain, and the moderation and firmness of the language in which they are expressed.

Of the inefficiency of Mr. Curwen's bill, even in its best state, we have abundant evidence from some of its professed friends, who very consistently take every opportunity of proclaiming themselves the enemies of reform. Lord TEMPLE expressed his approbation of the measure," because it would take away one of the inducements "to reform held out to the people:" as the bill however, as we find in its progress, has been frittered down by ministers to a mere nullity, they have taken due care that " the inducements to reform," alluded to by the noble lord shall remain in full force.

Mr. Madocks's charges against Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Perceval. This very important motion was prefaced by reading two resolutions of the house of Commons: the first (Dec 10, 1779), declaring it" to be highly criminal for a minister or any other ser" vant of the crown, directly or indirectly, to make use of the power "of his office, to influence the election of members of parliament; "and that an attempt to exercise such influence was an attack on "the dignity, the honour, and the independence of parliament, "an infringement of the rights and liberties of the people, and an "attempt to sap the basis of our happy constitution." The second resolution was that moved by Mr. CANNING on the 25th. of April last, for the purpose of screening Lord Castlereagh from the consequences of his acknowledged guilt in prostituting his patronage for electioneering purposes; when, preserving the shadow, and letting go the substance, the right hon. secretary judged it necessary for the house to declare" That while it was the bounden duty of "the house, to maintain at all times a jealous guard upon its "purity, the attempt in the instance of Lord Castlereagh not "having been carried into effect, the house did not think it 'necessary to proceed to any criminatory resolutions respecting the

VON V.

"same." We have in a former number expressed our opinion of a resolution acquitting the criminal, provided his guilty projects are not attended with success: the debate on Mr. Madocks's motion, and the result, may enable the public to form a competent judgment of the sincerity of the house in reducing to practice their resolutions "to preserve their own purity and independence, and the liberties of the people!"

66

The hon. mover, alluding to some of our ministerial boroughs, and the terms on which they are held, proceeded to remark, that treasury influence from the variety of shapes it assumed, might be divided into several classes, but that the most alarming and "obnoxious is, where public money is made instrumental to the "return of members, 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 keeping up a corrupt in"fluence 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." Mr. Madocks then stated the following charge. "Į 26 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 upou 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 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 charge 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." To this serious charge, Mr. Perceval and Lord Castlereagh thought proper simply to plead “not guilty,” at the same time they suggested to the house," the impropriety of "public men entering into explanations upon the bare statements " of others." The two ministers then withdrew, as we are informed, amidst the general cheers of the house," which thus stamped approbation on the conduct of the accused, even before any examination, or even discussion had taken place; an early proof of their determination" to preserve their own purity, and inde pendence, and the liberties of the people!"

After the parties accused had, as usual on such occasions, withdrawn, Mr. Madocks moved, "That the matter of the charge be "heard at the bar of the house;" on which an animated debate fol

lowed. The motion was warmly opposed by the ministerial side, and by certain apostate patriots. Sir J. ANSTRUTHER passionately deprecated the motion, describing it "as an attack equally against "all executive governments, past, present, and to come.... A new "gratification of the public appetite for scandal, for the purpose of obtaining a greater number of converts to the scheme for parlia ❝mentary reform." Alluding to the honourable traffic in boroughs, and the equally honourable engagements entered into by certain gentlemen, Sir John exclaimed-" Good God! were all the ties of " private confidence, and private virtue 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!" This is the first time, we believe, the public have been informed by any hou. member of the British senate, that "all the ties of private confidence, and " private virtue," were so closely and admirably united in the system of borough jobbing, or that the individuals who endeavoured to expose such transactions were Rascals! Men of plain sense, and common honesty, will form their own opinion on the subject; and there are " individuals," perhaps, who notwithstanding the confident assertions of the hon. lawyer, may still be inclined to term the whole business of seat-trafficking, (to borrow the language of that famous statesman, of tried virtue and integrity, Lord MELVILLE, on another occasion)-A COVER FOR RASCALITY!

Mr. Madocks's motion was not only opposed by the ministerial side of the house, but by several opposition members. Mr. TIERNEY and Lord MILTON proposed to refer the matter to a "secret "committee." The former, after having for many years professed bimself the friend of parliamentary reform, threw off the mask, and declared himself its enemy, because truly "it was not desired "by the parliament, or the people!" Lord Milton, for the first time openly avowed himself the enemy to this most necessary mea❤ sure, declaring "he would be the first to oppose it." His lordship is a young man, but were he grown grey in the service of state corruption, he could not have offered a more complete apology for the two ministerial delinquents than that he urged on the occasion. "Whether this charge," said his lordship, "were proved or not "proved against the present ministers, he should not have one jot "the worse opinion of them than he at present, had, for what they "had done; for 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 follow after them!" An apology which would equally serve for various other honourable fraternities besides that of borough mongers, were it not unfortunately the case, that the penal laws attach to the former, whilst the latter are suffered to escape with im