ceed with his case; and it was now necessary that he should proceed; for had he been disposed to withdraw the petition, the conduct of the right hon. gentleman would have prevented this. The case of that officer would go out of the House with the statement of the chancellor of the exchequer, delivered with an air of candour, but hostile and offensive in the highest degree towards him. Having stated what the charge and ground for dismissing the petitioner was, it was impossible for him, if he possessed those feelings, which he believed he possessed, to hesitate one moment as to the course which he should pursue.

Mr. Lushington said, if the hon. gentleman had looked into the case deliberately, he would have found that so far from the petitioner having been treated with cruelty, too much lenity had been shown him. He owed an apology to the country and to his right hon. friend near him, that this officer was not dismissed sooner; and when he stated the circumstances to the House, which were proved by evidence which he held in his hand, and the records of the Treasury, he trusted the House would be convinced that he could not suffer the petitioner to remain any longer in his situation. In August last, the petitioner proposed, in consequence of the wounds he had received in the service, to retire on a superannuation allowance. It was stated to him in answer, that he had not the least claim; that his services, as a naval officer, were quite distinct from his services in the other situation; and that as he had only been two years and a half connected with the revenue, it was impossible to allow him to superannuate. He had calculated his office worth 1,500l. a year; and on this calculation he wished a superannuation of 1,000l. a year. In the mean time it was discovered that he was endeavouring to sell his appointment; and this was the ground for his dismissal. The case had been sent to the law officers of the Crown with the evidence, to ascertain whether the negociation for resigning an office, accompanied with the corrupt purpose of receiving money from the person who succeeded him, did not come within Mr. Perceval's act. The answer received was, that it did not come quite within that act. As the law now stood, he escaped the penalty of the law; but if he had negociated for another person's resignation, he would have come within the act. With

respect to the particular statements in the petition they were totally groundless. He did not mean to deny that he entertained a regard for his constituents; but he should be ashamed to sit in that House, if he had misapplied his patronage in the manner charged against him. He should have no difficulty in showing, that the persons named in the petition were recommended by captain Hanchett himself. The only fault he had to accuse himself of was his lenity towards captain Hanchett : but this proceeded from a wish not to throw any discredit on an officer of character in the service to which he had belonged. And under these circumstances he would ask the House, whether he was not justified in the lenity which he had shown.

Sir Francis Burdett was of opinion, that all that the hon. gentleman had just said, amounted only to an additional reason for receiving this petition. Now, as to the alleged transaction of the secret agreement, there was no moral guilt, no actual crime, in selling a resignation; they might make it a crime, and had indeed done so, at law: but it was well known that, among officers, the sale and exchange of commissions were matters of every day occurrence. If the officer in question had been detected in taking money to pervert the duties of his office, then indeed he would have been guilty of a moral crime, of a crime too against the public. It did not appear that in this instance the transaction would have prejudiced the public service. The hon. gentleman opposite had said, that it was not included in the provisions of Mr. Perceval's bill-a bill which was brought in after the commission of what was, beyond doubt, a very corrupt act-an act which was proved against Mr. Perceval himself, and a noble lord who was now sitting opposite; yet upon that occasion the House did not think proper to allow the slightest expression of its disapprobation to be recorded. The hon. gentleman had been pleased to consider this before the House as a casus omissus in that bill. Now, he would beg gentlemen to remember, that supposing what that hon. member had stated to be perfectly correct, it did not follow that the petitioner was necessarily guilty. Nothing advanced by the hon. gentleman himself necessarily implied any thing like moral guilt. But there was a charge against the hon. gentleman, that he had used the patronage and influence of government to further his own electioneering views. For his own

duly appreciated. He did not know what the artful old Mr. Dombrain might have said, not one word of whose depositions, by the bye, had been communicated to the House; but he knew that captain Hanchett solemnly protested, that, so far from expressing a wish that any arrangement between them should be under the rose, he would not be a party to any one without every particular having been previously communicated to the hon. gentleman opposite. What he complained of in the appointment of lieut. Dombrain was as regarded that appointment three years ago, when he had never seen either duty or service as a lieutenant on board any of his majesty's ships. There was no doubt that so intelligent and active a young man as captain Hanchett described him to be, would have taken good care since that time to render himself efficient. The hon. gentleman reminding the House that at the first outset of this matter he had deprecated the discussion which had ensued, concluded by moving that the petition be printed.

Mr. Wynn said, that the extreme length of the petition was a strong objection to the printing of it. The great length of petitions presented to the House struck at the right of petitioning itself, as it would compel the House to make some regulation to save its time. He thought it the duty of every member to impress on petitioners the necessity of compressing their statements. The facts of the petition before the House might have been stated much more briefly and intelligibly.

Sir M. W. Ridley could not subscribe to the doctrine of his hon. friend. Every petitioner was bound to make out his case as fully and satisfactorily as possible. In the present instance, however, he was inclined to believe that the petition was incorrect, and that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lushington) had correctly stated the case. Mr. N. Calvert said, there was an objection to the printing of the petition independently of its length. It contained a severe charge against a member, which should not be circulated until its truth was inquired into.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the denial of captain Hanchett of his proposal to receive 6,000l. was wholly inconsistent with a letter of his of the 19th March, to the secretary of the treasury in which he acknowledged that he had, though unintentionally violated the act of parliament.

Mr. Bennet said, that capt. Hanchett had acknowledged the fact of a consultation, for the purpose of obtaining an allowance on the resignation of his office, but he denied the fact of any thing of the 6,000l. being spoken of.

Mr. Lushington argued, that the letter of captain H. of the 19th of March, could only refer to this accusation of his having bargained to receive 6,000l. petition, he was willing to make this proposal:-He would lay before the House all the documents which he thought necessary to illustrate the case, and any others which the hon. gentleman chose to call for; and he would leave it to the hon. gentleman, when he had read them, if any shadow of doubt remained on his mind, to make what proposition he thought proper.

Mr. Bennet accepted the proposition; and the petition was ordered to lie on the table.

BARNSTAPLE BRIBERY BILL.] Lord Clive brought up the report of this bill On the motion," That the Amendments made by the Committee to the bill be now read a second time,"

Sir Robert Wilson rose. He claimed the indulgence of the House now, as having on former occasions, in obedience to its wishes, postponed his opposition to the bill until its present stage. He did not feel quite satisfied with its object, which being only. the extension of the elective franchise to some 800 freeholders, over the five or six hundred electors of Barnstaple, was not sufficient, he feared, to guard the public against the recurrence of similar events. The mere addition of this number of voters would not, he thought of itself resist the machinations of such a Lothario as sir Manasseh Masseh Lopez. He saw no reason why they should restore to the freemen-freemen they were not-to the salesmen, he should say of Barnstaple, their elective franchise. It was a restoration that was, in effect only the reward of guilt. A fine opportunity was now presented for what he would call, an elementary system of reform. His proposition was, either that one of the counties at present inadequately represented, should have in addition the two members it returned, or that the electors of Barnstaple should be allowed to vote only in the election of the knights of the shire. Since the time of Edward 1st, about sixty boroughs had been created

and annihilated; and he thought that they were entitled in these times, where they had justice on their side, in like manner to make and to reject precedents. Let it be remembered, that they had seen thirty unoffending, at any rate unconvicted boroughs in Ireland disfranchised, and the representatives of that country reduced from three hundred to one hundred. There were many men, and he would admit, conscientious men too, likely to be alarmed at his proposition; those who would sanction the most notorious abuses, rather than put in practice any thing like reform; who thought that to amend, was to innovate, and that to innovate was to destroy: who were unwilling to admit that any of the horrors of the French revolution had been caused by the profligacy of its rulers, the corruption of its ministers or the imbecility of its government, because it produced such mighty changes. The government of this country must always depend in a great measure on the authority of opinion, and that authority could not be maintained without showing a respect for popular rights, and a steady observance of the great constitutional compact by which all classes of the community were bound together. A reform was demanded, not upon theoretical principles or for the purpose of gratifying visionary schemes, but from a deep-rooted attachment to the principles of our free constitution. The people claimed it, not in indulgence of theories, but as a security against the mal-administration of their affairs and a safeguard of their liberties. It might be said, that if the House acceded to his proposition there would be no limits to the proposals of the reformers. For his own part, he only demanded such a reform as was suited to the moral and intellectual advancement of the age. His constituents, in whose behalf he spoke, were not advocates for annual parliaments and universal suffrage. They claimed the restoration of triennial parliaments which were withdrawn from them, not on any allegation of their inconvenience, but from the fear of a Stuart faction, and which should have been restored to them when that danger ceased. As to universal suffrage, they thought that whatever was the ancient law, a right of voting founded on that amount of property which could be easily obtained by industry, was more suitable to the present state of society. They looked not only to what was desirable, but to what was attainable. In fixing

the place to which he should propose to transfer the right of returning two members, he had some difficulty, as so many unrepresented or inadequately represented places had claims. He however thought that as in the West Riding of Yorkshire there was a population of 563,000 persons very inadequately represented that as Leeds, in that riding contained above 60,000 people and 11,268 houses-as it had been an ancient borough, formerly disfranchised without any cause assigned in the parliamentary records, he might propose to give that town the privilege of returning two members, without affording cause of offence to Manchester, Birmingham, or other unrepresented places. It was his intention therefore to propose that the amendments be read this day six months, with a view of moving for leave to bring in a bill to transfer the privilege of returning two members from Barnstaple to Leeds; giving the electors of Barnstaple the privilege of voting for the knights of the shire for Devon, and continuing the sitting member in his seat for the remainder of the parliament.

Mr. Wynn said, he had in the case of Helston, suggested the propriety of transferring the franchise to the West Riding of Yorkshire, because all the borough had participated in the benefit of the corrupt bargain proved to have then taken place. In Barnstaple, many electors had not participated in the corrupt practices; he therefore thought, that the present proposal for infusing healthy blood into the borough was more just than a bill to divest it altogether of its franchise. He approved too, in the present instance, of the clause to prevent the making non-resident honorary freemen, as the purpose of the bill might be otherwise defeated by the corporation. He suggested that all persons hereafter obtaining their freedom by any means, should not be allowed to vote unless resident.

Sir J. Newport approved of the bill, before the House. There was no other borough in the four hundreds in question, so that that part of the country would not have an undue share of representatives. The proposal of his gallant friend might be less objectionable as applied to Penryn. The bill which he proposed to introduce was objectionable, if not on other grounds on account of the anomaly, that one member would be left seated for Barnstaple on the old, and one returned for Leeds. on the new plan.