nay, not so much as accused or even suspected, of any crime against the state, or against society, should be deprived of his estate, for no other reason, than that he professed the religion most agreeable to his judgment and his conscience; or that he should be placed in the wretched situation of holding his estates at the mercy of any protestant relation, who might be profligate enough to strip him of it by enforcing this very penal law. The liberality which had induced the House last year, and, on a former occasion, to grant relief to the Roman Catholics of England, would, he was persuaded, induce them to extend relief also to the Roman Catholics of Scotland, whose loyalty and good conduct gave them an equal claim to the indulgence of the legislature. He admitted that the particular law to which he referred was too odious to be often carried into execution; but if it was not fit that it should be executed at all, it ought not to be suffered to remain merely as a temptation to the profligate to strip honest and meritorious people of their property. He was extremely sorry to inform the committee, that there was at this moment a suit actually depending in the courts of law in Scotland, founded on this particular statute. A Roman Catholic gentleman, as respectable and amiable in character as any man in this or any other kingdom, was possessed of an estate of 1,000l. a year, which had been in his family for at least a century and a half; this gentleman, loved and respected by all who knew him, was now on the point of being stripped of his property by a relation, who could have no other shadow of claim to it, than that which he might derive from this penal law, which he was endeavouring rigidly to enforce. In the courts as much delay as possible was thrown in his way; but it was to be feared that he must succeed at last, and reduce to beggary a gentleman in every respect a most meritorious subject. If it was too late to save him from such a misfortune, the legislature, he trusted, would interpose and take care that he should be the last victim to a cruel law, and that it should never operate in future, to the destruction of any other person; for surely it was no longer to be endured that a man should be placed in the horrid situation of either renouncing the religion of his heart, or by adhering to it conscientiously, forfeit all his worldly substance. His lordship concluded by moving, “That the chairman be directed | to move the House for leave to bring in a bill for requiring a certain form of oath, abjuration and declaration from his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in that part of great Britain called Scotland." The motion was agreed to nem. con. and the bill passed through all its stages without opposition. Stockbridge Electors Incapacitating Bill.] March 18. Mr. Eliot the chairman of the committee on the Stockbridge election, called the attention of the House to the report of that committee. It appeared, he said, that previous to the last election, a club had been formed for the purpose of proceeding regularly upon the business of bribery and corruption: at this club was chosen a common agent to transact the business; and none could be admitted to the club but electors of Stockbridge. Here they debated upon their own corruption, and settled the sum that each elector should take for his vote, as well as the security he was to require for the payment of it. He therefore trusted the House would see the propriety of coming to some measure to prevent such shameful proceedings in future. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the preventing of bribery and corruption in the election of members to serve in parliament for the borough of Stockbridge." March 20. The said bill was brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 11th of April. April 10. Mr. Salusbury moved, that leave be given to bring in a bill to Incapacitate those Electors who had been found to be guilty of the bribery and corruption mentioned in the report from voting at elections in future for members to serve in parliament. Mr. Powys said, that as to the first bill he had no objection, but unless he had better evidence laid before him, he should not think himself justified in voting for the second. Mr. Fox approved of the mode which had been adopted in the present case, in separating the two objects of the report of the committee. He considered the bill to disqualify the electors, as a bill of pains and penalties; and he remembered in the case of Shoreham, when a bill of pains and penalties passed, he heard a great deal of evidence in the House, but not thinking that evidence sufficent, he 769] Stockbridge Electors Incapacitating Bill. Mr. Hussey thought the proceeding in this bill to be properly speaking, a proceeding upon an ex post facto law; if the law was perfect, why not proceed upon it as it stands; if otherwise, why make a law for this case in particular, why not alter the law in general? He considered this measure as an act of oppression upon these persons; for was it possible for them to appear properly before the House to make their own defence? He therefore moved "That this debate be adjourned to this day threemonths." The Solicitor General objected to the principle of the bill. There was, he said, an act of parliament, the 2nd of Geo. 2nd. which regulated the mode of trying persons for bribery at elections, and of punishing them if convicted. The time of prosecution was by that act limited to two years after the conviction of the offence, and this bill might be said to be a bill for enlarging the powers of that act. Mr. Buxton thought that every man who had the right of electing members to serve in parliament, ought not to consider himself as holding it for his own interest, or even for the interest of the place in which he lived, but that he held it for the general interest of the whole country, and that so regarding it, he should give his vote for the wisest and the best man he knew, in order that the people at large should be satisfied with the state of their representation; for these reasons he thought that House could not be too eager to punish those who had been guilty of bribery and corruption. Mr. Windham was not of opinion that the present was such a case as called for the severity of a bill of pains and penalties; such a measure should be reserved for great offenders; he was therefore against the bringing in of the bill. Mr. Francis said;-Mr. Speaker; my opinion, on the nature and effect of this bill, may possibly be singular, and perhaps may be thought extraordinary; but it is serious and sincere. Every man must be sensible that there are many considera[VOL. XXX.] A. D. 1793. [770 tions, belonging to this particular subject, which are fitter to be suggested and left to the reflections of the House, than to be publicly argued in detail. Considering the actual state of what is called the representation of the Commons in parliament, I am against this bill, and shall oppose every measure of this kind, that may be introduced hereafter on similar ground. In what I am going to say, I do not mean to make a particular application to the present House of Commons. I look back to what has been, and forward to what may be. My opinion relates to a general system, which I believe to prevail through the kingdom, and of which it would be equally unnecessary and disorderly to select the present House of Commons as a distinguished or prominent example. I deem this bill to be, in the first place, partial and unjust in its immediate penal operation; in the second, utterly useless and ineffectual to its professed or supposed; and finally, according to my view of the whole subject, not only not beneficial, but likely to be injurious to the public service. In the distribution of justice, particularly where great penalties are proposed to be inflicted, I hold it to be an essential principle, that We have equal measure should be observed, alike and indifferently, to all men. no right to fix upon special instances, for the purpose of particular punishment, while we permit or connive at the general system, to which those instances inseparably belong. They, whose minds are vigorous enough to deny, or too feeble to believe, that the construction of the House of Commons, in former times, has not been considerably influenced by money,-that it has not been or is not likely to be the subject of pecuniary bargain between the candidate and the constituent-will differ from me in my conclusion. But he who believes, as I do, that a system of bribery and corruption prevails almost universally, with the tacit consent, at least, of those who ought and are able to correct it if they think it a bad one, will never consent to inflict special penalties on persons, who are no way distinguished from their neighbours, but by the accident of being caught. You suffer the snare to exist, and you punish the unwary offender, who happens to be taken in by it. But is he any worse than the multitudes who escape? If you believe that the commodity in question is every day bought and sold by wholesale, [3 D] | view of the subject, nothing can be more injurious to the public service than to hold out to the people the appearance of parliamentary vigour, in particular instances of corruption, when, in fact, we are indifferent about the whole system, and suffer it to take its course without interruption or notice. The effect of these pretended remedies, these occasional palliatives, I fear, will be to lull and stupify the people, already too dull and indifferent, on the subject of a parliamentary reform, and to deprive us of any chance of a real effective remedy. Believing, as I do, that a complete alteration in the construction of the House of Commons is indispensably necessary to the preservation of the constitution, I never will concur in any measure that tends to throw a veil over the general abuse, or to encourage the people in thinking that a general comprehensive remedy for a universal and rooted evil may be delayed with safety. For my part, Sir, I seriously and solemnly declare, that, considering all the circumstances of our situation, I think it would be ultimately more advantageous to the country, that the abuse, of which we have now one solitary example before us, should be suffered to grow and increase, as it has done, rather than resort to the useless checks of such occasional bills as this; for then, perhaps, a time may come, when the evil may cure itself, or when the public shame and scandal of the present mode of election may become so gross and enormous, that this House may at last be compelled to put an end by rich and eminent persons, in all parts to it. Mr. Powys diclaimed all the sentiments he had just heard, and begged it to be understood, that he voted against the bill, not on any theoretic ideas of general reform, but on the insufficiency of the evidence in this specific case. The question being put, That the said debate be adjourned till this day three months, the House divided: Yeas, 18; Noes, 19. Leave was then given to bring in the bill. April 11. A petition was presented from several electors of Stockbridge, complaining of the injury which their property would sustain if the bill then depending in the House, extending to the freeholders of the adjacent hundreds the right of voting for members to represent the said borough in parliament, which right was at present confined to householders paying scot and lot, should pass into a law; and praying that they might be heard by their counsel against the said biil. A motion was made, "that the petition should lie upon the table, and that on the second reading of the bill to which it referred, the petitioners should be heard by their counsel against the same." Mr. Eliot considered the prayer of this petition to be extremely indecent, as it went the length of insinuating, that the right of voting for members to sit in parliament was a matter of property, and that the legislature ought not to pass a law, however necessary it might be to the purity of representation, because forsooth, what the electors very indecently called | their property, would be injured by it. The fact was, the right of voting was a trust, and whenever it was evident that it was grossly abused, it was a duty incumbent on parliament to guard against a repetition of the abuse, and to attend solely to the public good, regardless of private considerations. Irresistible evidence had been given in the committee appointed to try the merits of the last election for Stockbridge, of gross and notorious bribery and corruption practised at the same; so that the committee had directed that a motion should be made in the House for leave to bring in a bill for disfranchising 62 electors of that borough, and for extending to others the right of election. Under these circumstances, he considered it to be his duty to refuse to hear the petitioners by their counsel against the disfranchising bill, which the House had ordered in, and which was to be this day read a second time. He moved by way of amendment, that the words, and that the petitioners be heard by their counsel, &c.' `be left out. Mr. Martin considered the elective franchise as a trust, and not as a matter of property, and therefore hoped the House would not grant the prayer of the petitioners. Mr. Hussey thought that the elective franchise, when attached to a house, rendered that house more valuable than it could be without it; and consequently, that to strip it of that valuable appendage must be an injury to the proprietor. It was laudable in a man to acquire property in a house which would give its owner or inhabitant the right of voting; and the man who should be deprived of that right might complain, that both his property and importance would be thereby diminished. One of the best plans for a parliamentary reform that had ever been laid before the House, was formed on the principle, that the elective franchise in boroughs was a matter of property, and on that ground it went to provide for the purchase of all burgage tenures. With respect to the petitioners, he thought the House could not in justice or decency refuse to hear what they had to say. The House divided: For the amendment, 12; Against it, 39. The bill against which the petition was presented, was, according to the order of the day, to be read a second time. To oppose the second reading Mr. Piggot and Mr. Douglas appeared at the bar as counsel for the petitioners. The former gen tleman first addressed the House, and having proceeded for half an hour in his speech, he was interrupted by Mr. Hussey, who moved that the counsel should withdraw; and the reason he assigned for this motion was, that the arguments which the learned gentleman was using was of too much importance to be addressed to almost empty benches; they were well entitled to the consideration of a full House; and to urge them then, when so few members were present, could be of little use to the parties concerned. He desired that the House might be counted; it was accordingly counted, and only 31 members being present, an adjournment took place.. May 3. Mr. Rose moved, "That the order for the second reading of the Stockbridge Incapacitating bill on Monday next, should be read;" which being done, he stated himself to be an enemy, in general, to all bills of pains and penalties. In the present case the bill went to disqualify upwards of sixty electors of Stockbridge, against none of whom was any direct proof of bribery or corruption brought home by the evidence. He disapproved entirely of the principle of the bill, and would therefore move that the said order be discharged. Mr. Francis said, he congratulated the independent electors of Stockbridge, on the powerful security now held out to them, in the respectable protection of the secretary of the treasury, who had frankly declared himself an enemy in general to all bills of pains and penalties for bribery and corruption. On such a subject, the hon. gentleman's authority was great, for his experience must be considerable, and his knowledge extensive. The cause and the patron had a natural relation, and were perfectly worthy of one another. He should agree in the motion for discharging the order, though not for any of the reasons assigned by the worthy secretary. He had no sort of doubt of the guilt of the persons named in the bill, nor of the corrupt character of the whole borough; but as he was sure that the disease, of which the practice at Stockbridge was nothing but a symptom prevailed universally through the kingdom, he thought it equally inconsistent with his personal honour and public duty, to make himself a party to partial correctives for general abuses, even if the correctives were real and effective, as far as they went; and much more so, to false and hypocritical remedies for a real deep, and rooted evil; for an evil which might be, and ought to be eradicated, but which otherwise, in its nature, was incapable of being cured. The question being put, that the said order be discharged, the House divided. TELLERS. "Sheweth; That the House of Commons is not, in the just sense of the words what your petitioners are from form, obliged to term it, viz. The Commons of Great Britain in Parliament assembled,' not being freely elected by a majority of the whole people, but by a very small portion thereof: and that from the partial manner in which members are sent to parliament, and their long continuance there, they are not the real, fair, and independent representatives of the whole people of Great Britain. "Your petitioners are lovers of peace, of liberty, and justice. They are in general tradesmen and artificers, unpossessed of freehold land, and consequently have no voice in choosing members to sit in parliament;-but though they may not be freeholders, they are men, and do not think themselves fairly used in being excluded the rights of citizens. Their all is at stake equally with the freeholder's; and whether that all be much, or little, whilst they pay their full share of taxes, and are peaceable and loyal members of society, they see no reason why they should not be consulted with respect to the common interests of their common country. They think men are objects of representation, and not the land of a freeholder, or the houses of a borough-monger. "It is not merely because heavy and grievous taxes oppress them, that your petitioners pray for the reform of abuses, which are too notorious to be denied by the most prejudiced: It is as much on account of the application of the money, as of the money itself, for which they are concerned. They love their country, and would contribute a portion of their last shilling to its support, were they sure that every shilling paid was well expended. They pray also for the correction of this abuse, because they are convinced that upon it depend the peace, happiness, and prosperity of their country. "That your petitioners wish the House of Commons to become the true representative, or judgment of the Commons of Great Britain, and the undoubted guardian of the interests of the people. That the delegates and their constituents may feel one common interest, members of parliament should be chosen for short terms; and descending from their delegated station, mix again with the people by whom they were chosen. "That the voice of the great body of the people ought not to be smothered by the voice of a partial interest; but should be fairly and fully heard; as nothing short of this will do away that unhappy spirit of discontent which so generally prevails in our country; and this done, neither proclamations nor prosecutions will be necessary to secure its tranquillity and peace. "Your petitioners therefore, relying with the greatest confidence on the virtue of some, and on the candour, good sense, prudence and justice of all, hope this henourable House will take these premises into their most serious consideration, and |
