Star.
London, England, 1809-05-12 00:00:00

(This was the Resolution passed
Castlereagh, on the discussion of
Archibald Hamilton.)th This RL.
Substance, that if is e duty of the
mons to maintain and guard the pur
deuce of Parliament; but that the ___ charged
not having been carried into effect, no criminatory
proceeding appeared to the House to be necessary to
be instituted.

Mr. MADOCKS then rose and stated, that before
he redeemed the pledge he had made to the House,
and proceeded to state the facts, which, lie was confi-
dent, warranted him in the imputation he had made
of conduct corrupt and criminal against the Right
Hon the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Noble
Secretary of State, he should hope that the House
would allow him to make a few preliminary observa-
tions. He wished to abstain from any personal ob-
servations, and he could assure those two Right Hon.
Members, that he was actuated by no personal mo-
tives.
,He was desirous even to overlook the men,
provided he could expose and reform the system to
which he had called the consideration of the House ;
a system which said, in effect, that corruption was ne-
cessary to the support and existence of the British
Constitution, and that our Constitution, according to
the best explanations and defence of its principles and
practice, was without corruption, inadequate to the
maintenance of our relations to foreign powers, and
the means of our self-defence. He would repeat,
that at any rate he had no stronger feelings against
the two Right Hon. Members than they themselves
had manifested against the conduct of another admi-
nistration, when that conduct was not such as to reach
their approbation. He declared that he was np party
man, except in so far as he was disposed to support
those Gentlemen who held principles which he
deemed it right to support ; and he avowed that he
was a decided foe to corruption. He thought he
could not do better than to recur to the Right Hon.
Gentleman's (Mr. Perceval's) own words,4 when he
maintained, that at no time had there been less cor-
ruption in this country than at the present, but yet
stated that we ought to bunt out the instances of cor
ruption and abuse, and expose them, and bring public
offenders to public punishment. That Right Hon.
Gentleman had stated on a former day that he (Mr.,
Madocks) had not observed the usual courtesy of the
House, in having failed to give him a previous notice
of his motion. If he recollected right, however, that
Right Hon. Gentleman had two or three years ago, he
meant on the subject of the Hampshire Election, met
with complaints from Gentlemen then in power, that no
notice had been given them of the motion which wa s
so warmly supported by that Right Honourable Gen-
tleman. With the permission of the House, he would'
read a part of his speech, to shew what sort of com-
plaints were then made against the conduct of the
Right Honourable Gentleman and his friends. It
was then said that it was always understood that some
previous intimation should be given in the case of an
important motion, and particularly in the case of one
which attached some censure upon individuals, but
that in that case not one word of any intimation had',
been given. The Right Honourable Gentleman. at
Ithat time maintained, that the case was one which
involved the highest privileges and dearest interests
of that House, and that the allegations were so seri- '
sous, that it mattered not whether there were any in-
timation. on the subject. Such, he believed, were the
arguments then used in defence of the attack then
made. His (Mr. M.'s) ignorance of the. history of
his country had been complained of by another Right
Honourable Gentleman (we believe, Mt. York) ;
but how that Gentleman, with whom he had not the
honour of being acquainted, came to tax him with
such ignorance, he could not tell. Certainly, how-
ever, he must say that he had never read in the His-
tory of England that sinecure places were conducive
to the public interests, or that rotten Boroughs form-
ed an essential part of the British Constitution. From
t'ie time when the Honourable Member below him
had taken soactive apart respecting the transactions of
the Treasurer of the Navy in his official department,
down to that when another Honourable Gentleman
had so distinguished himself in discovering improper
proceedings in the department of the Commander in
Chief, such various and enormous abuses had been
discovered in almost all the public departments, that
he trusted the House of Commons would put them
all into a train of investigation. But among all these
instances of abuse, he thought the influence of the
Treasury, in returning Members to that House, stood
pre-eminent. If were to refer to good times, he
might take the liberty of reading to the House a part
of an excellent speech of• Sir John St. Aubyn, deli-
vered in that House in the year 1734, on the discus-
sion of a Motion for the repeal of the Septennial Act.
[The extract contained a strong view of the influence
of the Crown upon the House of Commons, and the
dangerous effects to be apprehended, from the farther
lessening of the representative rights of the people.—
The last fatal compliment might be paid to the Crown
by a subservient House of Commons, and the people
might indeed.remain ; but the doors' of that House
might be for ever shut against them. It makes a
strong appeal to the wisdom and patriotism of the
country gentlemen, whose elections are frequently
interfered in and controuled by the influence of the
Minister, and whose zeal and ambition to sit in that
House would be increased by the superior means
afforded them by getting rid of the influence of those
officers of the Government who so often supplanted
them.] The nature of this influence of the Treasury
branched out in so many vays, that he had no inten-
tion nor time to enter at length into the subject ; but
he thought there was one view of it in which it de-
manded the most serious consideration and investiga-
tion of the House—he meant particularly to allude to
that practice by which sinecures were given in pay to
individuals who nominated Members for corrupt Bo-
roughs. 'Phis money, he believed, was applied to a
fund established for the purpose, and was doled out
to carry on particular elections. He could enumerate
several boroughs under the influence of the Treasury,
through the instrumentality of the public money
IThere was the borough of Hastings, where there was
a Mr. 'Milward and. his Son, who were the agents of
the Treasury in that place, the younger of whom was
Comptroller of Excise, a place worth £1450 per
annum, avd which in the case of a Parliament lasting
seven years, produced a sum of £10,150 for that spe-
cies of agency in the representation of that House.
There was the Borough of Rye, where there was a
Mr. Lamb, who had a place under the Exchequer
(the amount of which we did not exactly hear.) He

we believe Queenborough),
/ever .worthy these were of
_ouse, he was about to state
aggravated in the extreme. He
Borough of Cashel, in which
,reasury acting in die teeth of the
Resolution of the House, in violation of the principles
of the Constitution, and inflicting a signal injustice on
an individual for refusing to act contrary to his con-
science. In this instance that individual had acted
in a manner strikinglycorrect, and such, as he thought,
must meet with the esteem of every man in the coun-
try. He should conclude with a motion to call evi-
dence to the Bar to sub,tantiate his accusation. He
should, to a certain extent, depart from the line he
took on a former night ; but he must observe, that
having looked again at the precedent lie before men-
tioned, he did not think that his conduct had been
then irregular: He then proeeeded to state, that in
the last Election, a sum was paid-through the nego-
ciation of Lord Castlereagh, to Mr. Henry Wellesley,
as the Agent of the Treasury, by Mr. Quintin Dick,
in consequence of which payment, the said Seat for
the Borough of Cashel was obtained by Mr. Quintin
Dick. He was likewise informed that M. Spencer
Pirrceval Was privy to the transaction, and that Mr.
Quintin Dick having taken his Seat in that House,
did, puiding the discussions concerning the Admini-
stration of the Army under his Royal Highness the
Duke of York, wait upon Lord Castlereagh, and
acquaint him with the nature of the vote lie intended
to give on that subject ; on which Lord Castlereagh,
after consulting with Mr. Spencer Perceval, suggested
to Mr. Quintin Dick the propriety of his relinquishing
his Seat rather than give that vote. He hoped that
in such a case the House of Commons would vindi-
cate its own purity and dignity ; • and quoted a pas-
sage in the Hampshire Petition, on which he passed
,an encomium, as worthy the perusal of the.country.
He concluded by observing, that he had thought it
his duty to bring forward this outrage on the inde-
pendence of the House ; and felt the more embol-
dened to do so from their Resolutions, which had
been read to them.

After the Honourable Member sat down, no motion
having been formally made, Lord FOLKSTONE
spoke upon the subject of the forms, in the precedent
of Shepherd, and on the question respecting the
withdrawing of the two Right Hon. Mernbees oppol
site. Mr. Shepherd did not appear in the first in-
stance to have withdrawn, and his Lordship thought
there was no reason for the two Members now to
withdraw, as the charge was not yet before the House
in a sufficiently substantial shape. If the matter was
sent to a Comrattee, they would wait the result of
that Committee ; and, if its report was accusatory,
they might then withdraw. He thought that the mo-
tion ought previously to such a step to be proposed ;
and, if it appeared objectionable, his Hon. Friend
might withdraw it. -
The SPEAKER was obliged to the Noble Lord
for calling the attention of the House to the precedent,
but wished to know whether the Honourable Member
intended to pursue the same course he had before pro-I
posed. If se, this was the moment to hear the
Charge, and there was no compulsion at present on
nny Member to withdraw. In the case of Walpole,
Counsel was • heard previously, an instance rare in
such cases in later times. It was not fOr him to say)
that the House was not at liberty to pursue the pre-
cedent, which case was conducted by Sir F. Sey-
mour, who !lad been Speaker of the House of Com-
mons, but there appeared no call in. the Journals on
the party to withdraw.
Sir JOHN ANS'PRUTHER explained.what he.
had stated on a former night respecting the precedent
of Shepherd.
Mr. HORNER said a few words on the mode of '
proceeding.
The SPEAKER wished still to know whether the
Honourable Member meant to proceed on the prece-
dent alluded to. Then the Hon. Member must be
heard as to what he might think fit to offer. But the
Noble Lord was not quite correct in supposing that
the parties had a right to vote, as they.were certainly
interested in the question. '•
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said, that he was very desirous to conform to the wish
and sense of the House, and was prepared to expect
that the decision from the Chair would be adopted by
the House. He expected that according to their ordi-
nary practice the individual charged would be heard
previous to the motion being made. Bowing to the
practice of the House, and not thinking it becoming
in him to question and canvas its propriety, he thought
that calling on a Member in the first instance was
attended•wsth fewer embarrassments and difficulties,
than by his remaining there during the discussion,
under the supposed right of taking a part in the de-
bate, and abiding there, without the privilege at
last of a vote on the subject. He was disposed, there-
fore, to conform to the practice, and, after saving
few words upon the subject, to withdraw from the
House. He certainly felt that it would be more con-
venient to the object of such a charge, to speak at
the close. than at the commencement of it, as it worild
enable him to-observe upon all the different tenden-
cies and bearings of the question ; but as the course
was otherwise, lie must abide by that course, as. the
most expedient to be pursued. He confessed that,
with respect to the present occasion, he had felt and
still felt considerable doubts as to the course which
he should pursue in the address he' had to make
to the House. If he had felt that this case was one
' of an ordinary nature, in which a criminal proceed.
ing was proposed against any Member, or a Minis-
ter being a Member of that House, he should be
disposed to•meet it by an open denial of such part of
the statement made as was unfounded, by an expla-
nation of what was incorrect, and by an examination
of the law upon the subject, to induce the. House to
come to a proper opinion on the question t but he
could not look on the subject in that light. The
course of proceeding prevented him from that. The
Honourable Member had, indeed, stated, in the corn-
mencement, that there was, behind this motion, a mass
of other matter to be enquired into, whether against
him he knew not, or whether it extended to an en-
quiry into who, or what former Government ap-
pointed certain Officers at Qucenborough, Rye, and
other places, for the purpose of influencing the elec-
tors. By this statement, it did appear, that this was
not an attempt to assert the dignity, or avenge the
injured honour of the House in any particular case of
offence, but merely a step in the pursuit of that plan
and measure which had been already announced by

lb
gs ,T A
; n the caw of Lord men another place (w
the motion of Lord and thin stated, that hOvn
.esolution 'states, in the consideration of the Ho
the House of Come one case of a nature aggrav
purity and indepen- I meant the case of the Bon
e intention charged i he should spew the Treasur