oath, was rejected, and a motion for adjournment proposed and carried. The committee of patronage having ceased along with the direction in the month of April, a long and warm discussion took place relative to its reap ointment. On a division, the numbers being equal, the lot decided for an amendment, the purport and object of which was not to reappoint the committee. An attempt was, how ever, made in the beginning of the year 1801, to renew the inquiry by the former method, but it was defeated; there appearing, on a die vision, a majority of 159 against it, On the opinion of counsel having been taken, whether the court of directors, or a committee appointed by them, could examine the persons called before them upon cath, it appeared that such examination would be contrary to law, No further proceedings took place on this subject, though it was well and generally known that appointments to cadetships were procurąble, and that advertisements respecting them frequently appeared in the newspapers, till the investigation respecting the charges against the duke of York forced the subject upon the attention of the house of commons. In the course of this investigation, it was ascer, tained, that there was a regular, systematic, and by no means a concealed traffic in East-India appointments, as well as in subordinate places under government. The instances of traffic in the former were so very numerous and glaring, that the house of commons appointed a select committee to inquire into the existence of any corrupt practices in regard to the nomination of writers and cadets in the service of the East-India company, or any agreement, negotiation, or bargain, direct or indirect, for the sale of such places. By the report of this select com, mittee, it appeared that a very great number of cadetships and writer, ships had been disposed of in an illegal manner; and though they expressly declared that the evidence laid before them had brought out nothing which could in the smallest degree fix any of these improper bargains on any of the directors, or give rise to a reasonable suspicion that such bargains had been formed or carried into execution with their consent or knowledge; yet not only particular facts, but the general bearing of the whole investigation clearly proved, that if all the directors had exercised, in the disposal of their patronage, the same cau tion and vigilance which usually applied in the management of a person's individual concerns, it would have been utterly impossi ble that such a regular and continued traffic should have been carried on for such a considerablę length of time. are All the writerships which had been improperly disposed of were found to be the nomination of one individual; and so strong and general was the persuasion that he had been culpable, at least in so far as culpability was implied in not inquiring how the person, at whose disposal he placed the offices to which he was entitled to nomi, nate, had bestowed them, and on what account, and for what pur, pose of personal interest, he was so anxious to procure them, that, on his offering himself to be rechosen as a director, he was rejected by a large majority. After long and warm debates, it was determined in the court of directors, that those young men who had been named by the com mittee of the house of commons, as having obtained their appointments improperly, should be recalled. In a court of proprietors, and also in the house of commons, an attempt was made to set aside this resolution of the directors: but the previous question was carried in the former; and in the latter it was justly argued, that the house had no jurisdiction over the East India company on this point. The hardship which the carry ing into effect this resolution would inflict on the young men who were the objects of it, was felt and acknowledged; but there seemed to be no alternative, unless the court of directors had resolved to render, by their own act, a solemn and essential law of the East-India company a dead letter. It was very properly argued, that no law could ever be put into regular and impartial execution, if it were obstructed or suspended in its course by the consideration of the individual evil which it would necessarily producet the same time it must be acknowledged, that the conduct of those directors, whose negligence and want of due and efficient inquiry had, in a great measure, given rise to the improper appointments, was highly censurable. Had the practice of disposing of writerships and cadetships for money, or any other valuable consideration, not been generally known, and long established, there might be some excuse for their inattention and carelessness;-but as the traffic was public, and had been so strongly suspected of being encouraged by the remissness, at least, of the directors, that com. mittees of inquiry had been instituted upwards of ten years before, it requires almost an excess of candour, bordering either upon weakness of judgement, or great partiality, to believe that they did not inquire, solely because they had no suspicion that such a traffic existed, or that the friends whom they obliged were not concerned in this traffic. The consideration of this inattention or laxness of principles, where the concerns are not indi vidual or personal, but of a public and general nature, forces itself upon the mind in too many instances, in reviewing the transactions of this year, and weakens in no small degree the hope which many too fondly indulge, that men may be found, who will carry the morality, by which they regu late their duty towards their neighbours, into their transactions, when they act as the servants of the nation, and the guardians and ad.. ministrators of the public good. In the course of the examination of witnesses by the committee for inquiry into the abuse of EastIndia patronage, it came out, that lord Castlereagh, when president of the board of control, had endeavoured to procure a seat in parlia ment for his friend lord Clancarty, then a member of the same board; for which seat lord Castlereagh had agreed to exchange a writership, the nomination to which, he, as president, possessed. The negotiation did not however succeed, owing to the unwillingness of the agent who had undertaken to obtain the seat, to name the person who had the disposal of it. Lord Castlereagh, from his own examination, appeared to have ventured into this disgraceful business without the smallest hesitation or scruple, and to have been perfectly ready and willing to give every explanation, and to fulfil all that was requisite on his part. He acS 4 knowledged knowledged that he had engaged in a traffic which ought justly to be regarded as doubly illegal, as it had for its object both the disposal of East-India patronage and the purchase of a seat in the house of commons. This traffic he entered into with a man whose character and profession was an advertising place-broker he either knew, or might have known if he had made the slightest inquiry respecting him. With this place-broker he had frequent meetings, fixed at his own desire, and according to his own appointment. Our readers, by adverting to our account of the proceedings of the house of commons, under the date of the 25th of April, will observe, that notwithstanding lord Castlereagh, by his own testimony, was proved to have broken the law in a double sense, yet the motion of lord A. Hamilton,-that by his conduct he had been guilty of a dereliction of his duty as president of the board of control, a gross violation of his engagements as a servant of the crown, and of an attack on the purity and constitution of the house,was got rid of, by the order of the day. The arguments which were urged in de. fence of lord Castlereagh, are of such a singular nature, when considered as urged in defence of a man who admitted not merely the facts alleged against him, but the illegality of the facts, that they merit some consideration. If we strip the defence that was set up for the noble lord of all extraneous matter, it will be found to rest principally on these two circumstances:that he was an offender only in intention;that the crime was not complete; and that he was not led to the commission of it by any wish or in tention to violate the purity of the constitution.. It is scarcely possible to regard and treat these as serious argu ments: they seem rather meant to cover the real ground of defence, which was hinted at during the discussion on lord A. Hamilton's motion. There certainly appeared to be a disposition in some mem. bers to justify, or at least to ex. tenuate, the conduct of lord Cas tlereagh, on the plea that he had only done what had been often done before, and that therefore it would be unfair and harsh to punish him, while others equally culpable were permitted to go unpunished. In this implied and indirect defence, as well as in the defence which was openly employed, the simple and single question is overlooked: Is the conduct which lord Castlereagh confesses himself to have pursued, contrary to the laws of this country? Íf the answer had been, as it must have been, in the affirmative, all proof that the crime was not fully completed, or that the accused person was ignorant of the law, or meant no harm in transgressing it, was irrelevant and unnecessary. In ordinary cases it would not have been admitted; and, if urged, would probably have injured in stead of benefiting the culprit in the eyes of the jury; since it would have led them to believe, that it was had recourse to, only for want of more complete and satisfactory evidence. But let us examine these grounds of defence separately, and with more minuteness. Lord Castle reagh, it was urged, was an offender only in intention. But from what cause did it happen that his intention wasnot carried into full execution? Was it because he dis covered eovered that he was acting illegally, law he was transgressing was and therefore resolved to proceed deemed necessary to protect and no further in the transaction? Had preserve the purity of the consti. this been the state of the case, tution, it was impossible that he there might have been some shades should not at the same time have of an argument in this mode of had a clear knowledge that he was defence: but the fact was not so. violating that purity; unless indeed Lord Castlereagh was willing and he regarded the law as useless. anxious to have completed the In that case, he ought to have transgression of the law, provided come boldly forward in the house, he could have done it on his own confessed his transgression of the terms, and to his own satisfaction. law, but contended that such He did not say to the place-broker, conduct had not, deservedly, sub"I shall have nothing more to do jected him to censure or punishwith this business, because I have ment; since, though illegal, it had discovered that it is illegal ;"" but no tendency to violate the constiI will break off the negotiation, be- tution. But so long as he admitted cause you are not sufficiently ex- that the law was just and salutary, plicit, and I am apprehensive I and that he was acquainted with may give away the writership the existence of such a law, his without receiving the seat in declaration, that he had no idea of parliament."-Besides, lord Castle. violating the constitution, must be reagh did not merely intend to regarded as ridiculous and absurd. transgress the law :-he did transgress it in every step he took, from the first letter he wrote to the place broker; from the first interview he had with him, to the breaking off the negotiation. The defence urged in his behalf on this ground, cannot therefore stand a moment, before the examination of the smallest share of common sense; nor would it be admitted in any court of justice. His advocates were not more successful in the other plea which they advanced; viz. that in the whole transaction he had not the most distant ideas of violating the purity of the constitution. Of what use are laws, if a person, when he transgresses them, is suffered to go unpunished, on the ground, that although the law was expressly made against the action he had committed, because it was injurious to society, yet he did not intend to injure society in committing it? If lord Castlereagh knew that the Although lord Castlereagh was acquitted, in a manner indeed not very honourable and triumphant, by moving the order of the day; yet the scenes which had been laid open during the investigation of the charges against the duke of York, in the report of the select commit. tee appointed to inquire into the abuse of East-India patronage, and more particularly and strikingly by the exposition of the conduct of the noble lord, induced Mr. Curwen to bring in a bill for better preserving and guarding the purity of parliament. Ministers expressed their hearty concurrence in the principle and object of the bill when it was first proposed; but they afterwards, during its passage through the house, introduced into it such material and fundamental alterations, as, in the opinion of many, to render it totally inade, quate and inefficient to answer the proposed object. In order that the promise of se curity to the constitution, which Mr. Curwen's own bill held out, may be justly estimated, and the proba bility of the altered bill being beneficial for the same purpose, may also be fairly appreciated, it will be proper to state in what respects they differed from each other. The most remarkable features in Mr. Curwen's bill are, the oath, which it proposed should be taken by every member of the house of commons, at the table in the middle of the house, while a full house was sitting, and the penalties which it annexed to the breach of the oath. It was very explicit and carefully worded, and must have applied to almost every possible case of the purchase of a borough; and even where legal discovery could not have been made, yet the dread of falling under the imputation and punishment of perjury, joined to the suspicion which seldom fails of being fixed where such a purchase has taken place, would have deterred men from offering money for seats in parliament. For it was expressly declared by Mr. Curwen's original bill, that if any person, having taken the prescribed oath, should be afterwards proved to have done any thing contrary to it, he should suffer the punishment inflicted in cases of wilful and corrupt perjury. It was contended by ministry, that this oath was wholly objectionable, on the ground that the offence against which it was intended to guard, was perfectly indefinite. But certainly the offence of purchasing a seat in parliament is not only a definite of fence, but may be technically described, in an act of the realm, in such a precise, clear and explicit manner, as should leave no doubt in the minds of those who were interested in not transgressing it, how far it permitted them to go with impunity; nor in the minds of those who were to administer the law on this head, in what particular instances it had been broken. It seems not easy to understand what was meant by the assertion, that the crime (for a crime it was allowed to be by all parties) was of so vague, fleeting and changeable a nature, that it could not be described. It may indeed be true, that no law could be made on the subject, which should be so full and precise as to define and state in every possible mode and shade of transgression; but, undoubtedly, the more gross and palpable cases of criminality, as they strike strongly on the understanding of every man of common sense, might be described in language sufficiently appropriate and perspicuous. The mode of preserving and securing the purity of parliament adopted in Mr. Curwen's original bill, was pointed out and strongly recommended by sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries. He declares, that "it would not be amiss, if the persons elected were bound to take the oath against bribery and corruption, which in all probability would be much more effectual than administering it only to the electors." After such an authority, the authority of a man not given to recommend impracticable or unjust enactments, and who certainly was as careful of the proper weight which minis ters ought to have in parliament, as of the preservation of a real and efficient representation of the people,-it is surprising to hear the oath proposed by Mr. Curwen objected to, on the ground of its being framed against an offence totally |