On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    must be kept up by short parliaments , and by preventing any of its members from looking to the rewards of a minister for his vote , instead of the honour to be derived by a faithful discharge of his duty to his constituents . In the House of Commons , Sir F . Burdett brought forward an enquiry into

    a very curious purchase and disposition of land near Chelsea hospital , which wears all the appearance of a job . He stated , that government had purchased a piece of land for the use of the hospital , of which when they had given a small piece to the hospital , they made over a

    lease of the remainder for a great number of years to Colonel Gordon , at a price totally inadequate to its value . On this account , he moved for the copy of the treasury warrant under which the grant alluded to had been made . Mr . Long-, a commissioner of the hospital , declared that every thii «* r had been done which

    the act required respecting the grant of lands , and he believed that if the ground had been put up to auction , better terms could not have been obtained , and he moved for papers to confirm his opinion . Sir Oswald Mosely having been at the place , reprobated the -grant as a great

    injury to the infirmary of the hospital . Mr . Huskisson supported the grant . The chancellor of the exchequer accused Sir F . Burdett of being always jealous of people in office , and of viewing the proceedings of administration with a very prejudiced and jaundiced eye ; he insinuated , that Sir Francis , instead of

    surveyors , should be consulted , and was confident that all his aspersions would be refuted by the papers to be produced . General Tarleton thanked the baronet for his motion , and declared that nothing couJd reconcile him to a grant that interfered with the comforts of the meritorious inhabitants of the hospital . Sir F . Burdett noticed the irregularity of the minister in imputing improper motives to a representative , which required the speaker ' s interference . Arrogance , he said , might be imputed to him for differing from surveyors , but he still retained his opinion , and requested the members of the house to form their own

    jud gment by ocular demonstration . Physicians najght say that a wall , eight feet nigh , built so as to interrupt the free circulation of the air , was not an injury * ° an infirmary , but no man of common sense wpuld believe them . The rent

    Untitled Article

    too of 52 L a year , was a paltry sum to be put in competition with the elegance ^ of a building , and the comfort of old soldiers . He had rather pay the mone ^ out of his own pocket , than suffer such , an injury to be committed . As to th « jaundiced eye , he should continue to look with jealousy on the conduct of ministers , from a conviction that , for many

    years , the public interest had not been consulted as it ought , 1 and as long as he sat in that house he must perform the duty of an honest representative * Compliance with forms was consistent with the grossest mal-practices . The chancellor , in . reply , apologised for his expressions , at the sarae time stating , that the stigma of a job might be some excuse for irritation . The motion of Sir Francis

    was carried , as was that of Mr Huskisson for more papers ; and the debate sent multitudes to see the ground , who were studiously excluded from the view of it . It is said , however , that the motion has made a great alteration in the plan of the ground .

    JLord Folkstone was not so successful in his attempt to obtain a committee to enquire into corrupt practices , and to report the same to the house . He wai opposed by both sides , and the chancellor of the exchequer brought forward a curiows argument , that the house ought only to look prospectively , and see what remedy was necessary . . Lord H . Petty ,

    Mr . Tierney , Mr . Ponsonby , Mr . Secretary Canning , were all indignant at the motion , thinking the power too great , too much like an inquisition , as injuring government in the public mind , as tending to represent all parties as rogue * alike , as affecting the characters of persons now in the grave , Mr . Pitt and the

    Marquis Cornwallis . On the other hand , it was defended by Mr . Whitbrcad as necessary , to shew by what ' means they obtained th ^ ir stations in the army , navy and church ; by Mr . Hutchinson , that abuses might be corrected , under whatever government they might exist , or have existed . Mr , Parnell would give his vote to this or to a motion of a much

    greater extent ^ Mr . Foley heartilyapproved of it , as the people had good reasons to suspect the government of the country . On a division there appeared . For the motion - * - 30 Against it - - - - 178 Majority against it - 348

    Untitled Article

    State of Public Affairs . 231

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), April 2, 1809, page 231, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1735/page/55/