HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY, JANUARY 23. At four o'clock, the Speaker counted the members present, and there being only 39 (one fewer than is necessary to constitute a house), an adjournment till to-morrow consequently took place, HOUSE OF LORDS, TUESDAY, JAN. 24. BATTLE OF CORUNNA. The Earl of Liverpool gave notice, that he would, tomorrow, move the thanks of the House the LieutenantGeneral, officers, and army, who defeated the French before Corunna, on the 16th inst.; and moved that the Lords be summoned.-Ordered, HOUSE OF COMMONS. TUESDAY JAN. 24. Lord Stafford communicated at the bar his majesty's mest gracious answer to the address of the House, in answer to the speech of his majesty's commissioners on opening the session last Thursday. COMMITTEE OF FINANCE. The Chancellor of the Exchequer now rose, to move for the revival of the committee for inquiring into the expenditure under the several heads of revenue, commonly stiled the committee of public Finance. On the propriety of reviving that committee, he conceived there could be no difference of opinion, and therefore he felt it unnecessary to detain the House long upon that point; but as he contemplated some change by reduction in the number of members, from what had been settled last year, he should in the first lace, state his proposition to the House, and wait to hear if any objections should be made to it. The honourable friend opposite to him (Mr. Bankes), who had so ably and efficiently for the public service, and so honourably for himself, filled the chair of the finance com mittee for many successive sessions past, would see, that the idea of reducing the number of the committee originated in a suggestion of his own, that by such an alteration, greater dispatch would be effected in the disposal of the business referred to them; and the profits of their labours could, by such means, be more speedily and more frequently laid before parliament; and dispatch must be allowed as a desirable object, so long as it was no impediment to the discovery of truth. In proposing to the House the names of the members to compose this list, it was by no means his wish, nor could it, he thought, be conducive to the objects of the inquiry, that they should all be men of the same political sentiments. It was likely that the inquiry would be more efficient if made by a committee of gentlemen, whose political attachments were on each side of the House. He should, therefore, propose, as a basis, the list of 25 members who composed the last committee, and reduced them by selection to 15, the number he proposed for the new committee; and so far was he from wishing to mark in the selection any thing like what might be supposed a leaning towards his majesty's ministers, he was anxious rather that the balance should tend the other way. In making this selection, conformably to the suggestion of his honourable friend, who had so ably filled the chair of the former committee, he thought it of the highest importance to retain his name; and expressed his hope that his honourable friend would have no objection to resume the duties of a situation in which his talents, his discernment, and his zeal, were so well calculated to give effect to the labours of the committee. The right honourable gentleman then read to the House the list of fifteen, viz. Henry Bankes, Esq. Richard Ellison, Esq. And he moved, that they be appointed a committee to inquire and examine, &c. as before. Mr. Bankes said, he had certainly mentioned to the right honourable gentleman,that a committee constituted as the last was, could not so effectually lay before the House the result of their labours, as if their number was more compact. He expressed his thanks to the right honourable gentleman for his civility in attending to his suggestion, as well as for the handsome manner in which he was pleased to speak of his humble exertions in the duty which devolved upon him. He was willing to suppose the right honourable gentleman, in placing him at the head of the list, wished him to accep. the situation he had before the honour to fill, and did not desire to impose upon him the painful and invidious task of objecting personally to any member named in the list just read. In any sentiment which he might express upon this subject, the House would, be was confident, excuse him, and not impute to any intention of private offence that which he felt as a public duty. As to the appearance of his name on the new list, he had not objected to it, as his right honourable friend had expressed a wish that he would allow it to stand there. He was at the same time convinced his right honourable friend might have chosen a much more proper person, and might have found many persons upon the list of the committee much more competent to fill the chair, although in the duty of regular attendance and zeal, to the best of his ability, he would yield to none. He begged leave, however, fairly to say, that as the list was now constituted it was quite impossible for him to admit of being called to the chair. No consideration on earth should induce him to take the chair of the committee as just named. Mr. Peter Moore was glad the honourable gentleman had so expressed himself; as if he had not, he must have done so himself. After the reports already laid before the House, session after session, by former committees, without producing one effectual step on the part of his majesty's ministers to remedy any of the abuses pointed out to them, or taking any effectual step towards a serious system of public economy, the public would conceive the nomination of such a committee as the present a mere farce to cajole and delude them. What had been done by the right honourable gentleman at the head of the finance, in consequence of the first great recommendation of the former committee, of which the honourable member who last spoke had filled the chair, in respect to the bargain with the bank of England? Why, that a sum of 60,000%. was taken as an equivalent for their advantages in the mas nagement of the public money, when 260,0007. ought to have been demanded. He considered this as nothing else than a bribe to the bank out of the public purse, while the right honourable gentleman was obliged to make good the deficit by laying new taxes upon the country. The next prominent point was, the recommendation in the report of the former committee, respecting the gross defalcation that had occurred in a department of great public expenditure at the head of which was the right honourable Thomas Steel, who had taken above 19,000l. under false pretences; and what had been done by his majesty's ministers in that case? Why nothing more than merely to demand of him the payment of the money, instead of directing the King's Attorney General to institute a prosecution against him. The third report recommended the abolition of sinecure places, with enormous salaries. But what had been done? Why to employ new clerks to correct the errors of inefficient clerks, but without any measure being adopted of public economy. If his majesty's ministers were really serious in their wishes to check abuses, to stem profusion, and to economize the public purse, they had ample grounds -to proceed on in the reports of the finance committees already laid upon the table of the House within the last three years. Judging, however, from their utter supineness and obvious contempt of those reports, and the measures therein recommended, he could not help considering the 'nomination of such a committee as a mere delusion; and that as little was meant to be done in three years to come, as in three years last past. There was every reason for the people to murmur at the delusive result of a system from which they were taught to expect economy and reform. Instead of which, the system of expenditure for several years past, was rather for a war upon the purses of the people than for a war against the common enemy. The finance committee in 1797, made 24 reports; that in 1798 made 12 more, all containing most important information on the state of the country, and what had ministers done. in consequence? Not one thing. The same was to be said of the reports of the last three years, and every thing they recommended. Where then was the use of appointing a new committee, if the same system was still to go on? There were other gross abuses in another department under an -honourable gentleman opposite, which he should notice at another opportunity; but he would repeat, that if any [COM. thing of reform or economy was sincerely intended, the mischief and the means of redress would be found stated in the reports already before the house. It would, however, be impossible to avoid the continuance of peculation, profusion, and abuse, unless the house should demand and insist upon having the accounts of the public receipt and expenditure for one year, before they voted a shilling of new supply of the next. The right honourable gentleman at the head of the finances had declared he had no objection to this principle, and ministers could find no difficulty in being ready with those accounts at the opening of the session, or in enforcing the payment of all monies in the hands of public men into the Treasury. If they did not do this, they could not know how the public money was appropriated. Mr. Pitt himself, that great professor of finance and economy, did not know it, as was shewn upon the trial of Lord Melville. It was indispensably necessary, that the House of Commons should let the public see they were determined to do their duty. Lord Henry Petty bore his testimony to the meritorious conduct of the honourable gentleman who spoke last but one; and who had so fully anticipated his own sentiments, that in consequence of what had fallen from him, he himself must abstain from any attendance upon a com mittee so nominated. Mr. Yorke was of opinion that the reduction of the committee, in the manner proposed, was an implied stigma on the members whose names were omitted; and he should rather prefer the smaller inconvenience that might arise from reviving the whole committee, than the greater and much more objectionable alternative of calling into discussion the merits of individual members. He regretted the opinion expressed by the honourable member who had spoken second on this question, because he knew that opinion would go forth and had weight with the public, whom it might disincline to attach confidence to the committee. The public would never be satisfied with a committte nominated by any particular set of men. He did not mean to say that abuses did not exist that might demand reform; and if the committee was to be revived, it would be better to re-appoint it just as it stood before, than force the house to the invidious task of discussing the merits of particular men. But for his part, he was not quite sure it was necessary to re-appoint the commit |