HOUSE OF COMMONS.

MONDAY, APRIL 16.

Sir John Newport stated that, about three wecks fince, he had moved for a return to be made by the treasurers of counties in Ireland to that House: he understood no fuch return had been made. He rofe now to give notice, that, on that day fe'nnight, if the return was not produced in the interim, he thould move an order to enforce it.

An officer from the Navy Board prefented an account of The number of artificers now employed in his Majefty's dock-yards. Ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Carry mentioned that a notice which had been given to the Houle of a motion to be fubmitted to its confideration on the fubject of the filver currency in Ireland, had been poftponed to that day, in expectation of the arrival of fome neceflary documents from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He had now the pleasure to acquaint the Houfe that documents had been received from his Excellency of fuch nature as to render unneceffary any act of legislation upon the fubject, and fucli meafures had been taken by his Majefty's Minifters, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, upon this fubject, on which they had long continued to deliberate, and of which they had never loft fight, as effectually to provide a remedy amply commenfurate to every exigency of exifting occafions.

Sir Robert Buxton obferved, that as it was highly important to the Houfe, and to the country at large, to be acquainted with the names and public deferts of the feveral perfons who were diftinguished by the public bounty of the Crown, in thofe penfions which formed fo confiderable a part of the public charges of the nation, he fhould move, that there be laid before the Houfe a lift of the names of perfons to whom penfions are granted, payable at the Exchequer; the amount of each penfion refpectively; and the date when granted. Ordered.

AYLESBURY ELECTION.

Sir George Cornewall moved the order of the day for the fecond reading of the bill for the better prevention of bribery and corruption in the borough of Aylesbury.

The queflion being put,

The Marquis of Titchfield rofe to oppofe the further proceeding on the bill; firft, because he did not think the advocates of the bill had made out a cafe fufficiently trong to warrant the adoption of fuch a meature, which went to pu nith indifcriminately all the electors of Aylesbury, for the

alleged

alleged chime of only a portion of them; and secondly, because the charge was only ftated to be fubftantiated againtt a few, compared with the number who claimed the right of voting. For the prefent the noble Marquis did not feel it neceifary to state any further arguments upon it; but com cluded with moving an amendment, that inftead of thre words, "be now read," there be inferted the words, "this day three months."

Sir J. Newport warmly fupported the bill. He contended. it was a meature abfolutely neceifary to mark the juft indignation of that Houfe against the grofs and flagitious delinquency of the borough of Aylefbury, and the infamous initances of the most foul and atrocious corruption openly car ried on with the electors of that borough at the late election, in defiance of the laws, in the moft flagrant proftitution of electioneering franchifes. It appeared from the reports of their Committee, to whofe confideration the merits of that election had been referred, that three houfes in the town had been opened for the palpable and avowed purposes of bribery and corruption; that upwards of two hundred of the electors had received the bribes, not only of one but of all the candidates; that they figned their names to an addrefs, foliciting a candidate, whom they had never known or feen, to stand for their borough, for no other purpose than to raife the market, and enhance the price of corruption; that in the public room where thofe men entered for the purpose of receiving their bribes, there was a bowl of punch at one end of the table, and a bowl of guineas at another. Having mentioned a variety of inftances of a like nature, he said it was impoffible for Parliament to pass unpunished a cafe of fuch foul corruption, fo utterly obnoxious to the fpirit of our conftitution, and the purity of the Commons, without abandoning both, and furnishing new and ftrong arguments for reformers out of doors; when the best and most wholesome species of reform was already in the power of the Houfe itfelf, by checking in the first inftance, and branding, by the moft exemplary punithment, every fuch flagitious inftance of corruption, as that which marked out the borough of Aylefbury as a fit example to deter other boroughs from acting with fuch bafenefs, and proftituting to bribery the conftitutional truft repofed in the electors; he therefore fupported the bill.

Mr. Hurft fully agreed in the fentiments of the hon. Baronet, as to the juftice and neceflity of exemplary punishment to the perfons actually guilty of fuch foul and flagitious corruption as that which had been ftated, and to this the law of the land was already competent to the full extent neceffary,

3Q2

fo

fo far as utterly disfranchising, and multing, by heavy, penalties, the perfons who should be proved guilty thereof, and against whom profecutions were at this moment carrying on. But he never could agree to punith the innocent indifcriminately with the guilty, in fubverfion of the mild, juft, and conftitutional spirit of our laws, as would be the inevitable effect of a bill that muft eventually disfranchife the innocent, honourable, honeft, and unoffending electors of Aylesbury and their pofterity, merely for the crimes of the guilty.

Lord Offulfton understood it was the intention to throw open parishes in the hundreds furrounding the borough of Aylesbury, which, in his mind, fo far from remedying would rather promote the evil complained of, as it would let in the rights of election to a description of persons without property, and certainly more open to the temptation of bribery than thofe already charged with it; befide, he did not think that Aylefbury was fo very fingular a cafe, as to call for peculiar disfranchisement for a species of corruption, of which instances were unhappily but too numerous elsewhere. If the hon. Baronet would bring forward any general meafure for the more effectual prevention of bribery and corruption, and fpecifically declare any degree of fuch delinquency which fhould hereafter fubject a borough to disfranchisement, he should have no objection to fupport it.

Sir George Cornewall was in favour of the bill, and argued that the portion of corrupted votes appeared to be as 271 to 37, and faid he should divide the Houfe againft the amend

ment.

Sir Robert Buxton fupported the bill, and

Mr. P. Moore fpoke against it. He contended that the law was already fufficiently ftrong to punish the delinquency of the parties against whom the charge could be established, against whom actions were this moment in fuit for penalties, to the amount of a million fterling.

Mr. Francis difapproved of the measure, as calculated to punish the virtuous for the acts of the guilty, who formed the minority of the electors of this borough, and whom, ftrange to tell, this bill did not propose to difqualify.

Mr. Grenfell stated that it appeared in evidence that above 200 of the voters accepted bribes at the laft election, and that the fyftem of corruption which prevailed in this borough was flagrant, extenfive and uniform.

The

The Mafier of the Rolls reafoned against the bill. preamble, he obferved, contained only this allegation, that bribery was notorious at Aylesbury. It did not flate what unb er was corrupt. It was not pretended that they formed

the

!

the majority of the electors; but even if the majority had actually accepted bribes, it would not, on that ground, be just to deprive others of thofe rights, which were granted not merely to the prefent poffeffors, but to generations yet to come. If, however, the minority only were implicated in the guilt alleged, this proceeding was ftill more unjuftifiable, for it would be rather a new thing, and one directly contrary to the fpirit of our conftitution, or of univerfal equity, that one man's conduct should forfeit the rights of another, and it would be ftill more new and iniquitous, that the minority should forfeit the rights of the majority. The learned Gentleman contended, that this bill fhould, from its nature, be rather entitled an act to encourage bribery and corruption in all other boroughs; for, as it did not propose to disfranchife the guilty, but rather to put them, with many others, in competition with the virtuous majority who had defeated them at the laft election, the inference from the adoption of the meafure would be this that if any bribery thould take place in any borough, the man who fhould partake of it, and the man who fhould reject it, would, in the event of an appeal to the House of Commons, be put on the fame footing. Thus, contrary to the general policy of Jegiflation, a man's intereft would be put on the oppofite fide of his duty. He cautioned the Houfe against holding out fuch a propofition to the public as this bill implied, from its preamble, that the existence of "notorious bribery" in any borough, to whatever extent, would be fufficient to justify the disfranchifement of fuch borough. Of this mode of mak-" ing legislative regulations, applicable only to particular individuals, he always difapproved. A law fhould be general, defining the nature of the offence, and the punishment to be applied; but in no cafe fhould it have an ex poft facto ope-` ration, as the measure before the Houfe propofed to take.

The Secretary at War obferved, that all the reafoning of his learned Friend who had juft fat down applied to the principle of the bill, which was precifely the fame as that upon which acts of a fimilar nature, with refpect to Shoreham and Cricklade were grounded. Of thote acts he highly approved, and from entirely the fame reafons which induced him to fupport the bill before the Houfe.

Mr. Serjeant Beft contended that this bill did not reft on grounds fo ftrong as either of the acts alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who fpoke laft, as in the cafe of Shoreham an allegation was made in the preamble, that the majority of the clectors were corrupt, and the fyftem which prevailed at Cricklade was notorious to every man acquainted

with

with that celebrated cafe. With refpect to the bill before the Houfe, he faw no reafon why Aylesbury fhould be particularly felected for disfranchifement, upon the allegation of bribery, as the fame charge might be fubftantiated against feveral other boroughs; nay, had it not been very recently made against the electors of lichefter, Durham, and Windfor, by the feveral Committees to whom the trial of the petitions refpecting thofe elections were referied? Independently of this confideration, and others which had been ftated by the learned Gentleman (the Mafter of the Rolls), he objected to the bill under difcuffion, on this ground, that it was unreafonable; that it would, if adopted, go to decide upon a fubject which at prefent was pending in the courts below; and that it would prejudge a queflion that involved a fum of no lefs than two millions, which formed, as he understood, the amount of the actions brought by the fitting Members for Aylesbury, and others, against fuch electors as were charged with accepting bribes.

Sir William Young fupported the bill, upon the principles of the Grenville acts, which gave to Committees emanating from that Houfe, the authority to propofe and recommend measures for the punishment and future prevention of fuch flagrant inftances of corruption, as thofe which juftified the introduction of the meature before them.

Mr. Fox expreffed his opinion that there was no fair neceffity for the bill. He could fee no reason why the cafe of the borough of Avlefbury thould be taken out of the general rule, and not left to the operation of the exifting laws to punish bribery and corruption.

Mr. W. Smith gave his concurrence to the bill, and contradicted the flatement of the learned Serjeant, that the penalties fued for amounted to any thing like a million, as he had reprefented.

The Houfe divided on the Marquis of Titchfield's amend

ment:

Againft it 68-For it 49-Majority 19.

The bill was then read a fecond time.

On the motion of Sir Robert Buxton, it was ordered that countel thould be heard at the bar on Wedncfday next, for the petitioners against the bill.

Several Members were added, on motion, to the Committee on the corn petitions.

Lord Folkestone moved, that there be laid before the Houfe an account of all the unqualified captains that had · been appointed to commiffions in the militia under the act of laft feffion.

Ordered.

I'd