Star.
London, England, 1809-06-10 00:00:00

influence. This system trenches! as Much on the
rights of the Crown as the interests of the people,
and it was only the borough-mongers who profited
by it. It was. also important to observe, that the
Learned Gentleman supposed the system would go
on in spite of thLs Bill, in which he concurred with
him ; but it was so much gained, as it fairly laid
aside the mask at once, and acknowledged the etist-
ence of the system. For his part, he would rather
have men entering that House by paying their way,
than by coming in under the wing of Government.
It was not merely office which produced this undue
influence, but the expectation of office. With regard
to this clause, he thought that it necessarily placed
the exclusive influence in the hands of those who were
most likely to abuse it.
Mr. WILBERFORCE was against the atnend-
went moved by the Noble Lord. The word express,
whether ;n the clause or not, must be understood, as
it was impossible, he thought, that any Committee
could turn a Member out of his stainless the proof
of the allegation amounted to an express conviction.
The clause itself he thought highly necess4ry, as
when money transactions were no longer achnitted,
the barter of offices and honours were likely to be
much more frequent,without some check of this kind.
Mr. S. WORTLEY was also against the aippude
=tent. •
Sir W. MILNER was in favour of the amend-
ment, and of opinion that the word express would de-
stroy the whole tendency of the clause, if not of the
whole Bill.

Mr. CURWEN coitended, that should the Bill
fass with the clause in question unamended, it must
ail in producing the great object he had in view. The
Bill he thought, if not too much narrowed in its opera-
tion, would prove a remedy forevery evil complained
of. He regretted that most Governments that he
bad seen were more inclined to carry their several
objects by numbers than the justness and reasonable-
ness of their measures. Of this propensity a tendency
to corruption was the necessary consequence which
the Bill was calculated to check. The passing of such
a Bill, he was convinced, would raise the House in
the estimation of the Country ; and he would therefore
vote for it, even though Ministers should insist on the
word express' remaining part of the clause.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT was in favour of the
amendment, and observed, that one great difference
betweeen seats bartered for money and those for of-
fice was, that in the former case they might have a
bad Member of Parliament, but in the latter they
would not only have a bad Member of Parliament,
but also an improper person, in many cases, to fill up
the office Fo bartered.

Mr. GRATTAN approved highly of the tendency
of the Bill, and ascribed its defects, not to the Gentle=
man with whom it had originated,but to the alterations
since introduced. He considered it not as enacting
any new law, but as reviving the laws existing on the
subject, and which had not been in fact, though in
practice, repealed. Should they refuse to pass such
a Bill, it would be equivalent to sanctioning the exist-
iag corruptirm and violation of the law. He did not
attach so much importance to the word " express" as
some others, because though Ministers should buy by
implied and not direct contracts, the notoriety would
necessarily become so great that there would be suf-
ficient ground for impeachment, and the law, even
as it now stood, would find them guilty. He would
rather, therefore, have the whole clause thrown out,
than that word continued as a part of the clause. In
either case he should vote for the Bill, as reviving the
common law

Mr. CANNING agreed that an object of the I
highest importance would, be gained by passing the
Bill, but placed much less stress on the particular de.
rails than some other Gentlemen appear to do. The
Bill, he conceived, had originated in the admission
that seats in that House were bought for money.—
(Some cries of ! No !) The idea, no doubt, of
barter fur office had been introduced during the dis-
eussion ; but the great object of the Bill was to pre-
vent the sale of seats, and should it effect no more in
the first instance than this, much he conceived was
Rained, and the means furnished of going still farther.
But as the Bill now stood, it would not only prevent
the sale of seats on the one hand for money, but also
any direct agreement or barter for office on the other.
He did not wish however that the innocent should be
involved in unnecessary difficulties, and even exposed
to hazard, where their intentions were the most pure,
which would be the case if implied contracts were
admitted incapable of proof, but perhaps equally in-
capable of refutation. In this case a Minister would
not have it in his power to look ansott his friends
either by blood or m 4rriage, or even by a similarity
of opialtAis and principles, for men to rill up vacant
offices. This would immediately create a suspicion
that would prove fatal to both. He must therefore
look among his enemies and political ofponents for
men to be appointed to public offices. The opposi-
tion then would be the fair channel of preferment,
-as no Minister would be daring enough to prefer any
friend of his own.— ( Bursts of laughter, and Hear !
Hear !) The general enactments and principles of
the Bill were good.
Mr. WHITBREAD thought, if the Right Hon.
Gentleman by his speech meant to amuse the House,
and display his own talent at humour, and his com-
mand of the English language, he had certainly gain-
ed his end ; but as to answering any of the arguments
that had been advanced in favour of the amendment,
should that have formed any part of his object, he
had entirely, in his opinion, failed. The Bill in its
present state, he contended, had undergone such al-
terations, that it had no longer any resemblance to
the original measure. Should the word " express" be
omitted, which, he contended, ought to be the case,
he put the quastion, if any man in that House could
seriously believe that a Committee of the House of
Commons, or a Jury, would find any man guilty
without sufficient evidence to prove and establish the
fact ? and was it reasonable then that a man should
be acquitted, though evidently guilty, merely because
the contract was not express ? He wished to know
what was meant by the word express in this instance.
Was Lord Castlereagh's contracting with Reding an
express contract, or not ? • Perhaps his Lordship was
acquitted on the ground that his contract was not ex.
press, thuugh they had had his Lordship's own con-I
fession. The House might deceive themselves by'
subterfuges, but he assured them that they could not
ileceive me public. The direct tendency of the word
,:xpress was to promote corruption in the government.
Mr. CANNING, in expliurations stated, that the