been before appointed, out of which nine were new appointments, with an expence of 1,5007. a year. It placed the power of appointing these commissioners in the treasury, a thing that had never been done in any act since the Revolution. Excepting these additional commissioners, the additional expence and the unprecedented patronage for the treasury, the bill did nothing more than the former bill. The whole professed object might be answered without any additional expence, and therefore the bill appeared to be nothing else than a piece of management to fix the character of negligence and inattention on the late government, and to increase the popularity and patronage of the present. He hoped, therefore, that a delay of twenty-four hours would be granted.

Lord Henry Petty thought it remarkable, that after the right honourable gentleman had stated the ignorance of the House on this subject, he had gone into a full discussion on the point, and availed himself of that ignorance in order to favour his own views. He had no objection to the delay, but he would prove that the object was not to procure patronage from the treasury, although this was a strange objection from the right honourable gentleman. He would prove that a more useful measure, both generally and in detail, had never been submitted to the House on this subject. As to the statement respecting his conduct in proposing the measure, he did not think it worth his while to give any detailed answer. He could only assure the House that he had not been out of breath, and that he had given no such notice of something to astonish the House, as the right honourable gentleman had stated, and for the truth of this he appealed to the recollection of the House. As to the appointment of the commissioners, the right hor. gentleman had stated that an additional nine had been permanently appointed, whereas the appointment was only temporary, and particularly applicable to the circumstances of the case, as the accounts were, from neglect, in such a situation, that nothing but such a measure as this could bring them into the condition in which they ought to be. He concluded by moving that the ilouse should the next day go into the committee.

Mr. Rose asked when the noble lord intended to bring forward his general plan for auditing the public accounts, as he would then prove to the House that there was no foun VOL. III. 1805-6.

dation

dation for the charges of negligence that had been brought against the late administration?

Lord Henry Petty was happy to announce, that he should be enabled to lay it before the House in a few days.

It was then agreed that the bill should be committed the next day.

Mr. Rose gave notice that he would then move for certain papers relative to the public accounts.

MARQUIS WELLESLEY.

Mr. Paull moved that the order of the House of the 22d of April last, relative to Indian papers, should be obeyed forthwith. This was agreed to. He then moved that the correspondence of the governor-general and his secretary, with Major Ouseley, aid-de-camp to the nabob vizier, during the year 1802, should be laid before the House.

Sir Arthur Wellesley had no objection, on the part of Marquis Wellesley, but, as it involved the character of Mr. Treeves, an honourable gentleman who was absent, he submitted whether it would not be better to give a notice at present, and leave the board of controul to consider whe ther the correspondence ought to be produced.

Mr. Paull said that he did not move for these papers with any view to the character of the gentleman alluded to; but they were very important with respect to the Oude charge, as they would prove that Major Ouseley had been threatened with disgraceful expulsion, except he made some communication which had been required of him.

Mr. Wellesley Pole trusted that the House would observe, that there was no objection to the production of this correspondence, on the part of Marquis Wellesley. They only meant to enter their protest against any attack on the character of an individual who had no opportunity of defend-ing himself.

After a few words from Mr. Paull, Mr. Creevey, and Sir Arthur Wellesley, a notice of the motion was given for the next day.

Sir Arthur Wellesley gave notice that he would, the next day, move for six inclosures in a letter from the Governorgeneral to the court of directors, of the 28th of March, 1803.

CHELSEA BILL.

Mr. Windham moved the third reading of the Chelsea

bill.

Mr.

Mr. Huskisson observed that his objections to this measure had received strength from a more mature consideration of them. He still maintained that Parliament ought not to bind itself to pay any money without an estimate, and he also thought that the plan was derogatory to the Crown, as the object might have been attained by its power without this application to Parliament. He then objected to the plan of limited service, which, in his opinion, would put it out of the power of Parliament to disband any part of the army without continuing their pay, and might spread a number of veterans over the country, which, like those of Sylla, Marius, and Octavius Cæsar, might' be dangerous to the liberties of the country.

Mr. Windham was rising, when

General Tarleton said, that such an important measure ought not to be discussed in so thin a House, and moved the standing order, that the House be counted. Strangers were then ordered to withdraw. It appeared, however, that there was a House.

When the gallery was re-opened, Mr. Windham was on his legs. He entered into a general history of the debates that have taken place on the subject of his military system, and observed that the arguments which were at one time advanced by the honourable gentleman opposite, were, so completely at variance with those adopted by the same honourable gentleman at another, that the one set of argumeats might very fairly serve for an answer to the other. However he should endeavour to satisfy the honourable gentleman as to each distinct point of objection, without any consideration of it in a relative view with respect to the objections which were at other times started. The argument as to what was called the invasion of the right of Parliament seemed now to be principally dwelt upon. But he would beg gentlemen to consider for a moment, first,' what was the nature of the confidence generally placed in the crown; then, what sort of confidence that was which was acted on with respect to the army in particular at other times. By comparison, these gentlemen would see how far the principle of the present bill was at variance with, or agreeable to, those general principles which have been uniformly acted on by Parliament. In all treaties, but most particularly in commercial treaties, is there not a degree of confidence reposed in the Crown? But, more especially, do we see the existence of that confidence in any transaction relative

Q 2

relative to the army? Is not the soldier first engaged by the Crown, and is not that engagement afterwards sanctioned by Parliament? Are not the terms now agreed on for life, and yet does not Parliament annually deliberate whether they shall approve of that engagement or not? And there can be no doubt that Parliament has the power of refusing to grant the pay to the soldier, or where is the use of an annual mutiny bill? In the interim the soldier has to rely on Parliament for his pay; the same principle will still be to be acted on. Then as to the argument, that by the periodical discharge of men, the country would be overloaded with these dangerous set of veterans, at a time when every statesman acknowledges the necessity of adding to the military strength of the nation, will any man seriously declare that it would be wrong to have such a corps-de-reserve to call upon in case of any sudden emergency? Are not the volunteers a military body; nay, are they not military with arms in their hands? and yet, danger is said to be apprehended from these unarmed men who shall have obtained their discharge from the army, and return to the avocations of civil life! Where, he would ask, was the consistency in these modes of reasoning? It was said, however, that we could not disband a regiment in time of peace because the terms had been agreed on, and that, if we discharged a soldier, we would rob him of the benefit to which he would have otherwise been entitled at the expiration of his seven years, and so forth. Gentlemen need only to look at the specific term of the oath, where it is expressly stated that a man engages to serve so long "in case the King shall have occasion for his services." Then, surely, there cannot be any breach of contract, nor can we be said to have acted ungenerously by a man when we shall have told him that the King has no longer any occasion for his services; when at the same time the man knows that he has sworn to continue in the service with that precise condition that the King shall so long have occasion for his services. If this was wrong, he would ask again, what would become of the an nual mutiny bill?

Mr. Huskisson explained.

Sir James Pulteney and Lord Castlereagh requested that the right honourable Secretary would consent to the postponement of the question till the next day, on the ground that several gentlemen, who were not then in the House,

wished to have an opportunity of delivering their sentiments on the subject.

Mr. Secretary Windham, however, did not see any necessity for far her delay in the progress of a bill which had already received most ample discussion.

General Tarleton then moved that the House be counted. Strangers were accordingly excluded. Only thirty-five members being then in the House, an adjournment took place of course.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

THURSDAY, June 12.

Their lordships proceeded in the usual form to Westminster-hall, previous to which Lord Hood of Catherington was introduced, and took the oaths and his seat.

They returned about four, when the House came to a resolution, that this House, having taken into consideration the articles of impeachment against Henry Lord Viscount Melville, do acquit the said Henry Lord Viscount Melville thereof, and he is hereby acquitted of all the high crimes. and misdemeanours on the articles of charge exhibited against him by the Commons, and of all matters and things therein contained, and this House do hereby dismiss the said impeachment.

An order, usual on such occasions, was made relative to the publication of the trial, and after transacting some private business the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

THURSDAY, JUNE 12.

A good deal of routine business was gone through. Among others, the additional assessed taxes bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time the next day.

In a committee, certain rates were fixed, as the postage of letters between Falmouth and Gibraltar and Malta.

The second reading of the Nabob of Arcot's creditors' bill, and the committee on the grain interchange bill, were postponed till Monday.

In a committee on the foreign linen drawback bill, Mr. Foster proposed to fill up the blank with 25th December next, for which Lord Henry Petty proposed to substitute the words 25th March, 1806.

Сд