in completing them, and then if it was thought the committee could be of service, it would be time enough to refer the papers to them. It would be but doing them slender justice, to allow the delay which might take place in making the returns to seem to attach to the committee.

Mr. Curwen supported the amendment.

Mr. Sheridan thought it impossible, after what had fallen from the chairman of the committee of finance (Mr. Bankes), that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could per severe in his motion, or if he did so, that the House would support him in it. It was nothing but an evasion of the noble lord's motion. Its object was to see how many members of this House were possessed of sinecure places, -pensions, &c. and of course might be supposed to be under the influence of the crown. The motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, went to exhibit a list of all persons whatever having any place, pension, &c. This was to overwhelm the inquiry, and to strangle and suffocate the object which the noble lord had in view.

Mr. Vyse supported the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Biddulph thought the inquiry could not be charged as invidious, as some gentlemen had represented it, unless it had been directed against persons on one side of the House only.

Mr. Wilberforce was surprised at the great change which had so lately taken place in the language of gen tlemen on the other side. Lately they confessed there was little or no difference in the object which seemed to be in view by all parties, and that the form was the only ob struction to unanimity. Now they had all at once disco'vered, that the motion of his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was calculated only to evade and defeat the object which the noble lord had in view. He contended that the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was completely adapted not only to the object sought to be gained, but that the evidence to be obtained by it might also be of importance in other respects.

Dr. Lawrence lamented to see gentlemen who talked of their independence, and prided themselves on that circumstance, so entirely forget in what it consisted as to lend their countenance to a déception on the public. He argued strongly in support of the amendment.

The Solicitor General of Scotland vindicated Mr. Wilberforce,

berforce, and contended that the motion of the Chancellor. of the Exchequer was better calculated for the object in view than that even which had been proposed by the noble lord, in so far as the former would shew those collateral ties of influence by which any of the members might be supposed to be actuated.

Mr. H. Martin objected to the delay which was likely to result from the business being referred to the finance committee; and stated, that when the committee appointed in the year 1797 were retiring from office, they made a report that their precepts had not been obeyed. This was a conduct which no public office would dare to pursue to that House..

་

Mr. Rose supported the motion, maintaining that all the places, pensions, &c. were already well known, and that sinecures were not now so numerous as they had bcen.

Dr. Lawrence and Mr. Wilberforce mutually explained.

Mr. Calcraft observed, that such a list as was now spoken of might, if any person were to give himself the trouble to do so, be collected from papers that were already on the table of that House. The object of the motion he conceived to be simply this, to bring fairly before the House in one point of view the names of all the members of that House, who either held places or enjoyed pensions, or else whose wives of children derived a similar emolu ment from the crown. He could not avoid remarking, by the way, the great activity of the member for Yorkshire (Mr. Wilberforce) in interposing with his shield over those who were in that situation. With regard to the honourable and right honourable gentlemen on the opposite bench (the treasury bench), he might certainly find some room to compliment them on their ingenuity upon this occasion; but he was certain that they had not left him the smallest opportunity to compliment them on a much more solid qualification-their sincerity.

After a few words from Lord Henniker and Mr. Holford, the House divided, and the numbers were

For the amendment
Against it

60

161

The original question was then carried without a division.

Mr. Sturges Bourne gave notice of a motion for the Ff2

next

next day, the object of which is to obtain a return of pensions granted and new places created for a certain num ber of years, with the name of the persons by whom they were proposed, and in favour of whom they were granted or created.

Upon the question being put, that the House do resolve itself into a committee on the bill for preventing the reversion of places,

Lord Henry Petty mentioned the shameful practice which has for some time prevailed in Scotland, namely, that of granting reversions of professorships. The forms of the House prevented his lordship from entering into any detail at that time, and he gave notice of a motion on. that subject the next day.

The bill then passed through a committee, and was ordered to be reported the next day.

Mr. H. Martin then gave notice of a motion for Thursday, to obtain a return of all sums of money issued, otherwise than from the treasury, since the year 1803.

The further consideration of the report of the traders' assets bill was postponed till the next day.'

The American indemnity bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed the next day.

The reports of the committees of supplies, and of ways and means, were brought up, and bills ordered pursuant to the resolutions.

The other orders were disposed of. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8.

Mr. Hobhouse and several other members of the House of Commons, brought up the American treaty bill, which was read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8.

Mr. Young presented an account of the foreign and British shipping employed in the British trade, for three years, ending the 5th of January, 1807, and of the tonnage and number of men. Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr.

JULY 8.]

EAST INDIA COMPANY.

Mr. French brought in the Irish prison fees bill. This was read a first and second time, committed and reported, with a view to its being sent to Ireland, so that it is not intended to pass this session.

Mr. Hawkins Browne moved for the report of the commissioners for inaking bridges and roads in the Highlands of Scotland. Ordered.

The Dover pilot regulation bill was read a second time, and referred to a committee.

Mr. Wharton moved for the postponement of the con-, sideration of the Saltash election petition from Tuesday next to Thursday the 23d instán, with a view to submit to the House a motion on Monday se'nuight for a farther postponement. Ordered.

Mr. Dent presented a petition from the debtors in Lancaster gaol, praying for relief. Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Alderman Shaw presented a petition from the West India dock company, praying for public aid. Ordered to be referred to a committee.

Mr. Sturges Bourne adverted to the act passed for limiting the pensions from the civil list to 90,000l. Since that period the pensions had not exceeded that sum, and a view of this he believed would be satisfactory to the House. He moved, 1st. for an account of the pensions charged on the civil list during 1803, and the subsequent years, exclusive of those paid to our foreign ministers; 2d, an account of all offices created or revived since the 20th of May, 1804, held immediately from the crown, with the salaries, the names of those appointed to them, and the dates of the appointment; Sd, an account of all offices of which the holders were superannuated, granted since 1804, the names of the persons, the dates of the appointments, and the amount of the superannuations. Or.fered.

Mr. Dent moved for a committee to examine the state of the West India trade; but this was negatived, because it appeared that some relief was to be claimed, and therefore it was necessary to proceed by petition.

EAST INDIA COMPANY.

Mr. Charles Grant presented a petition from the di rectors of the East India company, praying for leave to raise one million by bonds, until it should be found expedient to raise money by augmenting their capital, or

such

T

such other relief as to the House should seem meet. He, moved, that this petition be referred to a committee of the whole House.

Mr. Creevey objected to this, because it was unprecedented to grant the prayer of a petition without a statement and consideration of the state of the company's af fairs. An attempt had been made in 1772 to have recourse to a similar practice, but it had not succeeded. This was a more aggravated case, for it became the House to be well apprised of the state of the company's affairs, for it ought to be recollected, that this was the year in which, according to Lord Melville's prediction, the debt of the company was to have been reduced to five millions. But whatever was the nature of the case, the subject required a previous discussion.

Mr. Robert Dundas said, that this case was very differ ent from that of 1772, for then the company came for new powers; in the present instance they had the power to raise the money in one way, and only asked for power to raise it in another, as being more expedient. But, he intended soon to bring forward the India budget, and had only delayed it that he might have the accounts to the latest pos sible period. Besides, as to the exposure of the company's affairs, the motion made for referring the petition to a committee of the whole House, afforded an opportu nity for that purpose.

Mr. Creevey contended, that this case was exactly the same as that of 1772.

Mr. P. Moore observed, that by the act of 1793, the directors had not the power of raising beyond three millions by bonds. Besides, it became the gentlemen on the other side to explain why they had not had recourse to the method of raising their stock.

Mr. Wallace replied, that their reason was that they considered it as more expedient to raise the money on bonds. They only requested leave to transfer their authority, and did not claim any new powers. The case therefore was different from that of 1772.

It was then agreed that the House should the next day go into a committee on the petition, but afterwards, at the suggestion of Mr. Dundas, the committal was postponed till Friday.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE.

Mr. Rose presented the report of the committee of pris

vileges