he be re-elected), the house had it in their power to reinstate him in the committee or not, as they thought proper? Indeed, there had been instances since the establishment of the Finance Com manner, warranted him in expecting any ment to office, a member vacated his seat support to the motion, he should once in the house, and consequently in a comcall the attention of the house to that sub-mittee? and that on his re-election (should ject. He could not suppose a man, holding such a place as this, could be a jealous guardian of the public expenditure. On the score of the duties he had to perform as chairman of the committee of the house, the hon. member was satisfied, Mr. Whar-mittee, of individuals who, having acton might well be excused from giving his cepted offices, had been sent back to attendance up stairs at the Committee of their constituents, and who had been Finance. He had never seen him there re-elected, but who had not been rebut once; but he must be allowed to say, appointed members of the committee. that, in consequence of his attendance that He was far from being ready to admit, day, a report would be submitted to the that because his majesty thought proper house from that committee, different from to confer an office on any member of the what it would otherwise have been. The house, he ought therefore to be considered hon. gent. concluded by moving, "That as disqualified for any duty to which any Richard Wharton, esq. having been called other member of the house was competent. to the chair of the committee of ways and He denied that because a person was in means, be excused from giving further office, he must necessarily be distrusted. attendance on the Committee of Finance." He did not know what were the hon. gent's The Chancellor of the Exchequer had sup- views of public life; but if he were desirposed that the hon. gent. would have ad- ous of having the opportunity of dischargduced some precedent, or would have ing any great public duty with fidelity, made out some strong case, ere he had he did not think that he ought to fall in submitted to the house a motion which the estimation of the world were he to emsemed to cast no slight imputation on brace such an opportunity if it were afthe hon. gent. against whom it was di- forded him. Of this he was sure, that the rected, more especially when it was con- hon. gentlemen who surrounded him were nected with one of his last observations. not of that opinion, and that they thought By that observation it appeared, that a a man pursued the noblest road to fame by majority in the Committee of Finance had seeking it in public utility. He trusted, been recently occasioned by the presence therefore, that the house would not feel, of the chairman of the committee of ways that the duties of any committee would be and means, and that had not that circumworse performed, because it included stance occurred, the hon. mover's atten- within it persons holding official situations. tion would not have been directed to the Still less could an objection apply to a subject. To him it appeared impossible, gentleman chosen by the house, in consewithout the establishment of some grave quence of his distinguished character and charge, to remove a member from a situa- talents, to fill the hon. situation of chairtion to which he had been chosen by the man of the committee of ways and means. house. The hon. gent. said he thought it Was he on that account to be distrusted.? necessary to do this, because he imagined As well might the speaker of the house be the chairman of the committee of ways distrusted. Neither situation was the apand means was an officer appointed by pointment of government. Both were in government. It was not so. He was ap- the election of the house; and to no genpointed by the house, who voted him tleman who filled either, could any disinto that situation. As to the recom-honourable imputation on that account mendation of his majesty's ministers, the with any thing like justice or plausibility hon. gent. might as well apply his rea- be attached. soning on that subject to any other act of the house. The hon. gent. fancied it possible, that in a committee composed, at the commencement of a session, of 25 members holding no official situations, the whole, at the close of the same session, might become possessed of offices. But, was not the honourable gentleman aware that by an appoint, Mr. Whitbread agreed with the right hon. gent. in deprecating the idea that every placeman must be a man of bad character. An office of trust, well and faithfully executed, was unquestionably a post of honour.. It was only because offices were not always faithfully executed that placemen grew into disrepute. As to the allusion to his noble friend not now in the house (lord H. Petty) it was not by his own request he had been nominated a member of the Committee of Finance; but that appointment had taken place specifically under the direction of the chair. He never did attend, however, and expressed his determination not to attend, conscious as he was, that he was disqualified by the office he held from being a member of such a committee. He (Mr. W.) had been a member of that committee; and he recollected a reason assigned for not naming him on the renewed list was, that he was at the time particularly occupied with other matters, on the fate of which he was sorry he could not congratulate himself. He agreed, however, in the justice of that observation, and thought that independent of every other consideration, it was of itself a sufficient reason why the chairman of ways and means should also cease to be a member of it. Mr. H. Browne opposed the motion. There was a narrow and vulgar prejudice against persons in place, which he did not wish to see encouraged. It was disparaging to office, it was disparaging to the country. If the hon. gent. who was the object of this motion, were to be removed from the committee of finance, that committee would lose one of its most valuable members. He was surprized that the hon. gent. should have mentioned what had occurred in the committee. With respect to the transaction to which he had alluded, it was a question of small importance, on which the committee happened to be equally divided, and on which the chairman of the committee of ways and means happened to be on one side rather than on the other. The Hon. J. W. Ward was anxious that it should be distinctly understood, that this proposition was the spontaneous act of his hon. friend. He stated this merely, lest he should be suspected of having stimulated him to make a motion, the ultimate object of which was, to appoint him to a situation, to the duties of which he felt himself incompetent. With respect to the subject immediately before the house, he could not be expected to offer any opinion. He would only add, that if he had any influence with his hon. friend, he would recommend to him to withdraw his motion, or at least not to press it to a division. Mr. Ponsonby could not help expressing his surprise that no motion could come from his side of the house without giving VOL. X. offence to individuals. The motion of his hon. friend appeared to him to have been framed with all possible delicacy. It was not to expunge the name of Mr. Wharton from the committee of finance, but that he should be at liberty to withdraw his name from it. The right hon. gent. seemed to place great reliance upon the argument drawn from the elective power of the house; but was there, he would ask, an instance of any person who was proposed to fill the office of chairman of the committee of ways and means, having been rejected by the house? He agreed that it was proper a portion of certain committees should be filled by persons in office; but this committee was of a very peculiar nature, of a constitution entirely differing from others. Its object was to promote public economy, and to effect reform. It was natural that a person in the right hon. gent.'s situation should feel interested in the reports of this committee. In one of these he believed he was very much so, for it was a report of that committee which had given rise to what was called in that house the Reversion bill. He would admit that a person in the chair of the committee of ways and means might fill it as uprightly and as ably as possible, and yet be a very improper person to be a member of the committee of finance. Every member of that committee should be so situated as to have no bias upon his mind; no wish, no inclination which could warp his judgment, or prevent him from an impartial and conscientious discharge of his duty. The right hon. gent. knew that a person coming forward to give evidence in a court of law, if interested in the event to the amount of half a crown, was precluded from giving testimony in the cause. Mr. Biddulph rose to correct a misconception which seemed to prevail on the other side of the house. He did not, as it was said, bring forward this motion, because the hon. member who was the subject of it had outvoted him in the committee of finance, but it was because that hon. member had scarcely ever attended that committee. When he entered it, on the occasion alluded to, he was so much a stranger, that the clerk applied to him to know whether the hon. member belonged to the committee. It was in consequence of this that he then took the resolution to make the motion he now proposed.-He denied that he had pledged himself to move at the end of the session, that no remuneration should be given to the chair4 P man of the committee of ways and means. It was possible, however, if the report of the committee of finance should turn out as he expected, that in another session he might bring forward a motion to that effect. He had been catechized as to his object in making this motion. He would leave it to the house to say what his motives were, by stating what they were not. His object was not to march round the vulgar circle by which men rose to power; to creep from popularity to place, and from place to apostacy. If the small talents he possessed should ever be thought worthy of being employed, they should be at the public disposal; but it was upon this condition alone, that he did not participate in the public emolument in any shape whatever. The house then divided: For the motion 21; Against it 70; Majority 49. [PETITIONS AGAINST THE ORDERS IN COUNCIL.] The house went into a committee to consider further of the Petitions against the Orders in Council. Bankes, if no objection existed to the proceeding, was anxious that the order for committing the Reversion bill, which was dropped yesterday in consequence of there having been no house, should be taken up to day, and that the bill should be committed. Mr. Tierney said, he should be the last man to occasion any unnecessary delay in the discussion of a subject that had excited so much of the attention of the public, but he did think, that in proportion to its importance it should be entitled to a fair and adequate consideration. There were several gentlemen now absent who had taken a particular interest in that measure, and who, had they known that the discussion would have come on to-day, would have attended in their places; they did not, however, think that it would have come on, nor had they any right to ex-, pect it would, as it was the established usage of that house, whenever an order had dropped, not to revive it without a specific notice. If this was a general rule, it should hold particularly in a case of such importance as the present. The bill in question had deservedly excited a great portion of the public interest; and that interest had not been lessened by the rumours that had been so very prevalent, perhaps unfounded, but not altogether discredited, that the great principle of the bill would be compromised. He was anxious, therefore, that the public should be satisfied that every advantage of a full, fair, and adequate discussion, had been afforded to the measure. He hoped that on these grounds the hon. gent. would have the goodness to let the order for going into a committee stand for to-morrow, and he was sure that his hon. friend near him (Mr. Whitbread) would have no objection to give way, by postponing his motion that stood for to-morrow, to a future day. Mr. Stephens proposed to adduce evidence on two points: 1st, To shew that the export trade from this country to the continent was at a stand anterior to the passing of the Orders in Council: 2d, That the trade of this country was greatly affected in the article of insurance, by the Berlin decree. On the first of these points, he proposed to examine Mr. John Hall, a ship-broker. This gentleman was accordingly called in. In the course of Mr. Hall's examination, a discussion took place on the propriety of a question proposed by Mr. Whitbread as to the authenticity of the witnesses information, respecting certain ships, alleged to be neutrals, and sequestered by virtue of the Berlin decree.-After some further observations from Messrs. Rose, Tierney, Marriott, the chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. A. Baring, the witness was called in, and in answer to Mr. Whitbread's ques- The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that tion, could only speak to his belief. The he was very far from being disposed to purport of his remaining evidence went to give any obstruction to the motion of his shew the reality and extent of the injuries hon. friend; and could not conceive why sustained in the export trade to the conti-the right hon. gent. who had just sat down nent, in consequence of the Berlin and other decrees, prior to issuing the Orders of Council.-Other witnesses were then examined, and the house resumed, the chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, April 6. [OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] should think that there could not be as full and as ample a discussion of the measure, in so very full an attendance, as at a future day. However, he did not wish to press the motion at present, since the right hon. gent. seemed to think it would be attended with so much inconvenience to his friends. He did entirely agree with him, that the bill had excited a great porMr. tion of the public attention; for that rea son he was most anxious that the least delay possible might occur, before the sentiments of that house upon the "subject, in its present circumstances, should go forth to the country; and he was the more anxious on this ground, because a very general misunderstanding had arisen without doors, both upon the measure itself, and the late proceeding thereupon. That misunderstanding had been most industriously excited; he would not say with what view, nor from what motives, but certainly it had been most actively disseminated. For himself, he was free to declare what, in his humble opinion, should be the main object of that house in its further proceedings on this measure; so to arrange and model the bill, that they might not send up to the other house the same bill which that other house had already rejected; and if they could so qualify the bill as to ensure the concurrence of the other house, without vitally affecting its principle, he did think that the house in that case would have accomplished its object. But if any bill which had been rejected by the other house should be again sent up to them, gentlemen must feel, that the lords would, in that case, jealously assert their own privileges, and consult their honour and dignity as one of the houses of parliament, in rejecting at once any attempt to force upon them a measure they had already negatived. He, for his part, should chearfully accede to the proposition of his hon. friend; but at the same time, if it would be so inconvenient to the right hon. gent. now to go into a committee, he should not resist any arrangement for mutual accommodation. The Speaker thought it necessary to apprize the house, that no order being dropped was revived of course, unless a general understanding in any particular case dispensed with the general usage: it was otherwise competent for any hon. member to object to any motion grounded on such order. Mr. Bankes said, that he should be governed by the opinion of the chair, and therefore should now merely move, that the house do to-morrow resolve itself into a committee on the said bill. object of the right hon. gent.'s amend ments. The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, that in any amendments he might feel it his duty to offer, his sole object would be, to prevail upon that house to let the bill so go out of it as to ensure, as far as could be done, the concurrence of the lords; to make the bill now before the house substantively different from that which had been already rejected by the upper house. He knew not that it would be necessary for him to suggest any amendment to the committee; nor was he at all anxious to engraft any amendment on the bill, but in the way and for the purpose he had already stated. Mr. Calcraft really felt for the embarrassment under which the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer laboured. Having given notice of two precise amendments, he thought that in courtesy to the house, and in justice to his own consistency, the right hon. gent. ought to explain his intentions more specifically. The Chancellor of the Exchequer could only repeat what he had already distinctly stated on the subject, with respect to the principle by which his conduct would be regulated. The manner in which it would be proposed to fill up the blanks in the committee, must unquestionably influence his determination. He thanked the hon. gent. for his kind sympathy, in what he was pleased to term his embarrassment. He was, however, conscious of no embarrassment; but on the contrary, believed, that the embarrassment was on the part of the hon. gent. and his friends, who were apprehensive that the measure, about which they professed to be so anxious, should go to the house of lords with less obstruction than they anticipated. Mr. Calcraft declared it was his most anxious wish that the bill should go to the lords in such a shape, as to give it a chance of being passed by their lordships. It was on that account that he was glad to find the hon. mover intended to limit the operation of it to two years. He could not at all comprehend the right hon. gent. Mr. Bankes trusted that his conduct in the whole of this transaction would be free Mr. Tierney, before the question was from any suspicion that he would admit of a put, wished to know from the right hon. dishonourable compromise on the subject. gent. opposite, if it was his intention to He repeated his former statements, that he propose in the committee any amendments, had never in the most remote degree aban of a nature so important as to affect mate-doned the original principles in which he rially the principle and constitution of the submitted this bill to the house; he hoped bill? He wished, in short to know the that the house would never abandon them; but he had considered himself obliged to give up for a time a part of those principles, in order to do as much as he could, since he could not do all that he wished. Mr. Tierney disclaimed all intention of imputing to the hon. gent. any improper motives. | pro most melancholy one. He meant to propose in the bill, that they should be properly taken care of by the respective parishes to which they belonged. The priety of extending the bill to Ireland and Scotland had been suggested to him; but as in those parts of the empire parochial relief was not afforded to the lower classes, some measure of a different description must be devised to meliorate the condition of these unhappy wretches in those countries. Mr. Whitbread thought the house had not been fairly treated by the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer. He had formerly stated two specific amendments which it was his intention to propose; amendments which would certainly render the bill nugatory, but which had nothing on earth to do with the limitation of time in the operation of the bill; and now the right hon. gent. said, that he should be regulated by the filling up of the blanks in the committee, when in fact there was but one blank in the bill, and that blank related solely to the limitation of time. This bill had attracted great attention throughout the country. It was a bill of considerable public moment, and that had been much increased by the manner in which it had been opposed in the other house. As the house of commons could have no security that the bill, however modified, would be agreed to by the house of lords, he thought it most important that they should at least preserve their consistency, even at the hazard of giving offence to their lordships; it had always been his intention, therefore, and he now formally notified it, when the bill had passed through the committee, to move that the limitation of time should be left out altogether. For the purpose of allowing the bill to be committed to-morrow, he would cheerfully postpone his motion for papers respecting Russia to Friday.-The bill was then ordered to be committed to-morrow. [PAUPER LUNATICS.] Mr. C. Wynne moved for leave to bring in a bill for the better care and maintenance of Pauper and Criminal Lunatics. The hon. gent expatiated with much feeling on the misery to which these unfortunate beings were at present exposed. It appeared by the returns on the table, that there were at the present moment, above 1800 pauper and criminal lunatics, confined in places where they were precluded from all possible chance of recovery. When it was known, that of the lunatics in Bedlam, St. Luke's, &c. about half were annually restored to a sane state of mind, the consideration that so many unhappy wretches as the criminal and pauper lunatics should be doomed to irremediable misery was a Sir J. Newport perfectly agreed with his hon. friend that some measure was loudly called for in Ireland, to relieve the distress of the pauper and criminal lunatics, the imprisonment and treatment of whom, in that country, afforded a most disgraceful spectacle. He could never be reconciled to the grounds on which the bill that he had, himself, submitted to the house on this subject, had been rejected.-Leave was granted to bring in the bill. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 7. [JESUITS BARK BILL.] On the Petition of Mr. de Testat against the Jesuits Bark bill, Mr. Campbell appeared as counsel for the petitioner, and stated the circumstances under which Mr. de Testat would be a great sufferer if this bill was carried into effect; and several witnesses were examined in support of the petition. Mr. Campbell then requested till to-morrow, or such other day as their lordships should please to appoint, to sum up. The lord chancellor called upon him to sum up now.-Lord Grenville suggested, that in fairness and justice to the petitioner, time should be given till to-morrow, to enable the learned counsel the better to consider the evidence.-Lord Hawkesbury saw no reason for delay; the case was not of a complicated nature, and did not in his opinion, require any further postponement. A conversation of some length ensued, in which lord Holland moved, that the counsel should sum up to-morrow. Lord Auckland moved as an amendment, that the counsel should be called upon to state what delay he asked, and the reasons for asking it. This amendment was opposed by lord Hawkesbury, and supported by lords Grenville and Erskine. The amendment was negatived.-The house then divided on the main question for hearing the counsel to-morrow: Contents, 15: Noncontents, 32. Majority, 17.-Mr. Camp |