if there seemed any reason for their interference, he should think they had done wrong. The mode adopted by Austria in drawing bills upon our government without authority he agreed with his honourable friend in thinking most extraordinary. His opinion was, that the cause of Spain and Portugal would fail, and that before long the power of France would be as great in Spain and Portugal as on the rest of the continent. The conduct of our government there fore ought to be to secure their insular and foreign settlements. He did not mean that we ought to steal them; that we should play foul to Spain; that when we saw the wreck we should go and plunder it. No; he meant that we should hold out to South America, &c. through our assistance to become independent governments. That Joseph Bonaparte might not in reality, as he already was in name, be King of the Indies. We must look to ourselves as a depot independent of the continent. He threw out these suggestions to ministers. Next session perhaps it might be too late to make them. Mr. Canning observed, that as this was only the vote of credit usual at the close of the session, he should not have thought it necessary to submit any observations to the house upon the subject, if it were not for the challenge thrown out by the gentlemen on the other side. With regard to the amount of the sum for which the Austrian government had thought proper, without any authority, to draw upon this country, he could assure the house, although it was determined to pay them, that such measures had been taken by remonstrance and other means, as were calculated to guard against such a case being drawn into precedent.-From the manner in which something which escaped on a former occasion had been interpreted by the gentlemen on the other side, he thought it necessary to repeat, that ministers left it entirely to Austria herself to consider the capacity of her own resources to engage in the present contest, and to determine the question whether the situation in which she was placed with relation to the enemy was tolerable, or whether it was preferable to make a struggle for her liberation.-Such, indeed, was the conduct of this country with every other state. Austria was advised to examine her own internal strength, to compare it with the re sources of the enemy with whom she had to contend, and not to look to any auxilliary support this country was capable of affording, to enable her to rise out of such a war with safety. His Majesty's government, therefore, although it did not dissuade Austria from making an effort, which she deemed necessary to her own honour and safety, could not be said to offer any counsel that could commit itself in the undertaking. But, when Austria had embarked in the contest, it was thought wise by government to afford every assistance in its power. After adverting to the allusions made to the speech imputed to him at a late meeting (the London tavern), to the formation of which he declared he gave no assistance whatever, the right hon. gentleman begged it to be understood, that he never expressed any disapprobation of the discussion of politics at such meetings, his observations always applying to the nature and character of such discussions. He did not object to the practice, but the matter. Lord H. Petty expressed his alarm at the nature of such a precedent as that of paying the bills drawn by Austria. After animadverting upon what he described as the very extraordinary and unprecedented proceeding of a cabinet minister standing up at a tavern dinner, to explain the views of government, upon the requisition of the chairman, the noble lord urged the necessity of considering the preservation of our resources. He did not press economy from merely national or selfish motives. Economy for England was, in view, economy for Europe; and, therefore, it was the more necessary to husband our resources. The resolutions were agreed to. Mr. Whitbread proposed his address, which was negatived. The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and the house adjourned. Thursday, June 1. Sir J. Sinclair obtained leave to bring in a bill for regulating the number of persons carried on the outside of stage-coaches, &c. Colonel Shipley withdrew the no-, tice which stood for this night, respecting Lord Burghersh's appointments. The hon. gentleman dişclaimed any personal motives of action towards the noble lord, and terest in the matter, which as a member of that profession, to which he belonged, he should ever continue to feel for his honour. He congratulated the house and the country on the triumph which they had thus obtained over the undue influence of the minister; and expressed a hope that the present disappointment of the noble lord would not deprive the service of those benefits which may be derived from the gallantry which the noble lord had always displayed. averred that he felt duly that in- long upheld. He observed, that they should of the two rather have an opportunity of benefitting than impairing their private circumstances. For this reason he would propose to nett their present nominal income, by the addition of 1000l. a year, making in the whole for each 30001, per annum, This he did, that the effect of curtailing the number of those out of whom a selection may be made, should not be produced. He also would propose the same sum in addition to the chief baron of the exchequer, and the two chief justices. Since the year 1772, no provision had been made for aug menting the salaries of the Welch judges, to whom he would now propose an addition of 3001. per annum. Of the Scotch judges he could not, at present, say what was necessary to be done as to their augmentation of salary, possessing, as he did not, any information on that subject. He concluded by proposing a resolution to the effect that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct that 40,000l. be paid out of the consolidated fund, in order to meet the proposed augmentation of salaries to the different judges. Mr. Perceval having read the order of the day for going into a committee of the bill for augmenting the judges' salaries : Mr. Martin stated, that he wished to have a distinct answer from the right hon. gent, on the subject of the sinecures in the different courts, from the reduction of which, in his opinion, a fund might be formed which would answer the purpose of paying the present augmentation to the judges. Mr. Perceval said, the question was not from what fund the augmentation should be made, but of the propriety of making such an augmentation. Mr. H. Martin re-stated that he had no objection to the principle of the bill; but as a committee in 1797 had reported that there were sinecures in the law department to the amount of 26,000l. which ought to be abolished, he was anxious for an explanation on that head. Mr. Perceval stated the income of the puisne judges to be at present, only 20001. per annum, and except in the case of those possessing private patrimony not adequate to the support of an establishment necessary to uphold the dignity of those honourable persons. He did not, by any addition which he would make, intend to encrease that establishment, which with such decency and moderation the judges had so Mr. W. Wynne, from theextended nature of the Welch circuits, did not think the augmentation proposed to the Welch judges a sufficient one. He proposed, therefore, by way of amendment, that the augmentation should be 5001. per annum instead of 3001. He knew many respectable persons, who, on being applied to in order that they should fill those places, declined, on the ground of the great non-requited expences. Mr. Bankes supported the amend-' ment, and wished that the Welch judges should be excluded from parliament, on the constitutional principle, that it was not right that those who were concerned in the execu tion should have any share in the legislative part. Mr. Perceval said, the proposition in these days, and within these walls, of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynne) in utter oblivion of every former deserved more consideration before maxim and feeling of parliamennt, it should be adopted, as it would has been avowed and justified! tend perhaps to overturn the present judicature of Wales. On the motion of Mr. Curwen, the house resolved into a committee on the SEATS IN PARLIAMENT BILL. The right hon. the Speaker addressed the house as follows: Before you proceed to put the question of reading this bill a first time, I wish to offer myself to your notice, And although I am at all times unwilling to request the attention of the committee of this house, thinking that I should render them no service by mixing in their general'debates, and feeling also the inconvenience of being precluded afterwards by my other duties in this house from explaining or defending my opinions in any subsequent stage of discussion; nevertheless there are some subjects of a paramount importance, upon which I do conceive that I have a personal duty imposed upon me (and perhaps the house may think in some degree an official duty) to deliver the sentiments which I entertain :-And suck is the pre We are now, however, come to a pass from which he have no retreat. Upon this question we must decide, aye or no. To do nothing is to do every thing. If we forbear to reprobate this traffic, we give it legality and sanction. And unless we now proceed to brand and stigmatize it by a prohibitory law, I am firmly persuaded that even before the short remnant of this session is concluded, we shall see that seats in this house are advertised for sale by public auction : and we shall have brought a greater scandal upon parliament and the nation, than this country has ever known since parliaments have had an existence. According to the course which these debates have taken, three distinct points have been put in issue: First, whether the traffic be a political evil; in the next place, whether it be any parliamentary offence; and lastly, whether there is any safe and practical remedy by which this mischief can be put down for the time to come. Sir; into the first point, whether this be a political evil, I do not mean to enter at any length; nor is it necessary to my purpose. That the influence of property in maintaining civil order is of the highest importance, no man living can doubt; it is the firmest cement to all the relations of social life; it gives stability to the state, and prosperity to the empire. That the possession of property may, and must, and ought to have a predominating influence in the election of members to serve in this house, I think is equally clear. But, that, abandoning all their legitimate rights of influence, and laying aside all the virtuous and generous motives of friendship, affection, and the fair preference of talents and integrity to fill places of such high public trust, they should go to a shameless and open market; that they should sell the attachment of their friends, neighbours, and dependants, for dry and sordid gain; and sell it to utter strangers, of whose qualities they can have no other estimate than the weight of their purses; this does indeed appear to me to be a great political evil, and a great public grievance. It dégrades and debases the habits of the higher ranks of life, who confess their own sense of the nature of these transactions, by the concealment with which they seek to cover them: it taints also and contaminates the general character of parliament and it furnishes the most formidable weapons to those who are professing, and I am willing to believe sincerely professing, to reform, but as I fear, are, in truth and fact, by the tendency of their endeavours, labouring to subvert the entire system of our parliamentary representation. With respect, Sir, to the next question, whether these practices are any parliamentary offence:-That it is a high parliamentary offence, every page of our history, statutes, and journals, appears to me to bear evidence. It is essential to the very idea of elections that they should be free. Such is the ancient language of the statute of Westminster in the reign of Edward the First, speaking of elections in general; such also is the modern language of the bill of rights, with reference specifically to the election of members to serve in parlia ment; and we have a memorable instance in the year immediately following the Revolution of the sense in which this fundamental principle was understood, in the case of the Cinque Ports; for by a statute in the second of William and Mary, it is not enacted only, but declared, that for the lord warden to nominate or recommend any member to serve in any port or place within his jurisdiction, was a violation of the freedom of parliaments, and contrary to the ancient laws and constitution of the realm. In the description of these offences, which constitute a violation of our privileges, there is nothing techni cally narrow, but the rule is to be tried by its substantial effects. Force, fraud, corrupt practices and undue influence of any sort, by which the freedom of election is controlled, have been reprobated in all ages. These offences, if pursued as matter of personal delinquency, were anciently triable before the committee of privileges; if they touched the seat, they were cognizable in the committee of elections. At a later period, when these committees were united, all such offences were of course tried indiscriminately before this joint jurisdiction. And so things continued until happily the functions of the committee of elections were transferred by the Grenville act to a better tribunal. But the general conservation and vindication of our rights and privileges, except so far as divested by special statute, still resides, as we all know, in the house at large, and its committee of privileges. Whoever therefore looks into the proceedings of all these several jurisdictions according to their different periods, will find abundant traces of the inquiries which have been instituted, and the censures which have followed upon offences of all these descriptions. And from the period of the Revolution, we may see them exemplified in the prosecutions conducted by Sir Edward Seymour against the directors of the New East India Company in the reign of King William; in the reports of the secret committee upon the last ten years of Sir Robert Walpole's administration during the last reign; in the charge brought against Lord North upon the Milbourn Port elec tion, and the general character of these offences is evidenced by all the language of similar proceedings, in our own time. But, Sir, beyond this:-practices of this description are not only of fences by the law of parliament; they have been long since adjudged to be criminal by the common law of the realm. firmed.-At a later date, another question of this sort came before an election committee under the Grenville act, from the county of Berwick, in 1781. The petition there stated that two of the candidates, had by themselves, and friends, combined to controul the election, by chusing first one of those two candidates, who should sit for a certain number of years or sessions, and then the other should be elected to succeed him. The election committee before whom that case was tried and proved, reported the agree ment to be corrupt and illegal, and voided the election. common law, were insufficient to restrain the growing practice of bribery to voters, proceeded to superadd the cumulative penalties of the sta tute law; so also it is for us, who have before us such flagrant proofs that the traffic in seats has broken through the existing checks, to put it down by a new prohibitory law. The bribery of votes was adjudged by the court of King's Bench, in the early part of the present reign, to have been a common law offence, even though no precedents could be adduced to show it, and to have been punishable as such long before its increased prevalence What, therefore, it remains for us, made parliament deem it necessary to do is plain. As to our ancestors, to restrain it by special statutes. when they found the censures of And in like manner any previous parliament, and the decisions of the agreement or compact to controul the votes of electors (even although the electors are not themselves bribed) has been adjudged to be illegal upon general grounds of policy and jurisprudence. Such was the case which arose in the burgh of Stirling in the year 1773, where some of the town council had entered into a corrupt agreement to divide the profits And now, Sir, we are brought to of the burgh, and what they were also pleased to call the parliamentary profits, and to bring no person into the magistracy but such as should vote with them upon all parliamentary elections; under this agreement, elections were had, and passed unanimously: but when this agreement was discovered and questioned, although it was manifest that the other clectors were neither party nor privy to the agreement, nor had profited thereby, the court of session not only declared the agreement itself to be illegal, unwarrantable, and contra bonos mores, but also that by reason of the undue influence under which such elections were had, all those elections were void and null. This judgment afterwards came by appeal to the house of lords, and was there, in November 1775, af the last consideration-whether we can by any safe and practicable remedy suppress the mischief: and of this I have no doubt, if with sincerity and diligence we apply ourselves to the task. According to my views of this subject, the committee will perceive, that I must naturally desire in the first place that our law should be in itself declaratory; lest we should impair the principle which we are endeavouring to strengthen. The definition or description of the of fence should also be marked with a degree of precision that we may not include in it things or conse quences beyond our own intentions : and the prohibitory provisions should be such as are most analogous to the rest of our election laws upon corresponding cases. |