Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Of course, the honourable mem- but should fall under the same disability as that enacted by the act of William the III, which I think would be improved also, if it excluded him not for that vacancy alone, but for the whole parliament. The party who received the price of his venality should also of course forfeit it, with any further penalty which it might be thought right to superadd.

ber who has brought in the present bill will not be surprised that I should think he has fallen short of the true point, in not making it declaratory. As to the main part of his enactments, he will also be preprepared for my dissenting from the use of such lax and wide modes of expression as he has employed; a defect into which it is no peculiar reproach for him to have fallen, as our modern forms of legislation have too much involved all our provisions in language so cumbrous, that it is generally difficult to discover their sense and substance, through the multitude of words with which they are overcharged. But beyond this, it is quite impossible for me to consent to that part of his proposed enactment which makes the tenure of seats in this house dependent upon judgments to be obtained in the courts below, or in any way puts the trial of our own rights out of our own accustomed jurisdiction.

With regard to the oath proposed by the hon gentleman, it is such in its present form as I should entirely object to. I do not know that a proper oath for a proper purpose is in itself an exceptionable provision by law. Nor do I think that for solemnity or importance, so long as any oaths are used in election laws, that any occassion for it could be more suitable; agreeing as I do very much with Sir William Blackstone in opinion, that the oath, if administered to the elected, would be far more effectual than when given to the elector. Nevertheless, knowing that to many persons any form of oath whatever upon this subject would be highly obnoxious, and not thinking it indispensably necessary to the efficacy of the bill, I should not be disposed to insist upon it.

What I should require would be, that the party who purchased should not reap the profit of his bargain,

VOL. VI.

And, beyond this, I would think it a proper course to declare it by positive law, what is implied by the judgments which I have already ci-. ted-that by such traffic each party becomes guilty of a misdemeanor.

Upon the whole, Sir, that for which I am most anxious is the establishment of the principle; being firmly persuaded that honourable minds, which may have hitherto deviated from what I think was the straight path of their duty, or may have been made to vacillate by the practices which they saw prevailing around them with impunity-will shrink from them with abhorrence, when they find them condemned by a specific law and other men, if actuated by motives less honourable, will be restrained by fears not less efficacious.

I shall therefore listen with satisfaction to any amendment that goes this length, accompanied by such brief and distinct provisions as may give a reasonable security that its execution will be accomplished.And I shall be contented to lay aside for the present all questions of doubtful policy or difficult expressions; thinking it better to reserve them for future experience, and, if necessary, for future legis lation.

I would presume also to recom¬ mend this course to the house, as the most prudent and most likely to contribute to the further progress of this bill, and its ultimate passing into a law; on my own part most cordially and earnestly hoping for

C

its success, as a measure which has now become indispensable to the honour of this house, and of the country.

Mr. Perceval declared it to be his opinion, that the bill before the committee did not properly and sufficiently define the offence against which it was directed. The offence ought to be so defined as not to make that conduct, which it was not desirable to prohibit, a subject of the prohibition of the bill. In this view of the subject, it was better even to fall short of the object than to go beyond it. It was necessary to provide, not only against those who possessed the sole power over an election, but also against those who, having a minor influence, might yet use that influence in a decisive manner. To such individuals it would be necessary to try to make the bill reach.-He thought, with the right hon. gentleman near him, that the person who received money should be subject to penalties; perhaps, a forfeiture of the sum received, and a fine of 500l. to be given to the informer. As to that part of the bill which related to the giving of offices, if it were duly considered, he was sure that, under such an enactment, it would be impossible for any individual whatever to hold a place with security, which place entitled them to the nomination to offices. Offices must exist, and the officers must be nominated by somebody. In this country the nomination was in the crown. If a provision existed, that any person who, for the consideration of procuring the return of a member, received an office, and that any individual by whom that office might be given should be subjected to punishment for a misdemeanor, he put it to any person who ever had the power of giving an office, whether he could be quite sure that it was possible to keep completely clear of such considerations. It

might be supposed, and he had no doubt that it would be supposed out of the house, that what he said on this subject proceeded from a wish to retain his own influence. He concluded, by proposing an amendment of considerable length, in which all the inconveniences complained of by him, as existing in the bill, were obviated.

Mr. Curwen paid a compliment to the right hon. gentleman in whom the discussion had originated, and trusted, that, after what had fallen from such high authority, there could no longer be any difference of opinion in the house, as to the necessity of some measure similar to that which he had the honour to propose.

Mr. Ponsonby characterized the amendment introduced by Mr. Perceval as a new and superseding bill; and declared, as far as he understood it, it by no means met his approbation. Without any party feeling, he was bound to recommend to the house to consider what was due to their own character. If they meant sincerely and conscientiously to do good, he could not persuade himself but that they had the power to put an end to the practice complained of, not only on the part of individuals, but on the part of the treasury also; and to define the of fence in a manner so precise, as to enable any honest man to swear he had not violated the law.

Sir J. Anstruther congratulated the house on the advance they had made in this necessary measure, and the excellent effects likely to ensue from the clear mode in which the law had been this night laid down, from high authority (Mr. Abbot).

Mr. Tierney considered this as one of the most pressing occasions in which an oath was rendered necessary, and said that he attached so much importance to it that be could be contented were there nothing in the bill but the oath, which

in his opinion, would alone act as an effectual guardian to the purity of parliament.

Mr. Rose objected strongly to the application of an oath, not upon a matter of fact, but upon the construction of a law. He generally supported the amendment of Mr. Perceval.

Mr. W. Wynne thought the effects of the bill would be more mischievous than salutary, unless its provisions were extended to the exchange of government offices, as well as giving money, for seats in parliament. If the part of the bill relative to offices was struck out, it would be to declare that the house authorised this traffic, particularly after their attention had been turned to this subject on a recent occasion. Mr. Bathurst spoke in favour of the principle of the bill, which as a step to the reform of an existing abuse he would be glad to receive in any way in which it might be modified, though perhaps the clause offered by his right hon. friend might not go so far as he could wish.

Mr. Hawkins Browne, from all the arguments he had heard, considered it as very difficult to frame an oath which would not imply an opinion on the construction of the law.

Mr. Abbot (the speaker) thanked the committee for the flattering attention and deference that had been paid to his sentiments. He had no hesitation in stating it distinctly as his opinion that unless the bill applied to the grant of offices in return for seats in parliament it would be mainly deficient.

Mr. Perceval coincided with this arrangement. He then repeated his former arguments, and placed them in other and stronger points of view. It was his desire to extend the provisions of the bill against the transfer of seats for offices, but the house must pause to consider, that in enacting against an illegal practice they

did not frame a law to encourage false accusation, which would nineteen times out of twenty be fatal to the honest and legal representa

tive.

Mr. Hutchinson eulogised the conduct of the Speaker in warm terms, and expressed his hopes that the constitutional principles he had laid down would be attended to during the progress of the bill.

Mr. W. Smith was rather inclined to retain the oath as a thing that would powerfully operate in honourable minds. But his chief objections were to what the bill neglected to provide against. Were peers prevented from interfering in elections? There was no doubt a standing order of that house against such interference; but was it strictly enforced? Not only was it true that peers had the power of interfering in elections, but he believed that men were actually made peers to enable them to interfere more effectually. The Baron would go to the minister, and holding out that influence to him might say, make me an Earl, make me a Marquis, and I will exert that influence in your support. How did the bill provide against dealings of this description? Thus it was the members, not the seats, that were sold; and his grand objection to the measure was, that it made no provision for such an abuse. The patron of the borough, made his bargain with the minister, but the oath could not reach him, while he sent two men into that house, much less fit to sit in it than if they had purchàsed their seats with their own money, at any public auction.

Various amendments were then proposed, and several discussions and explanations took place between different members on this important subject.

The Speaker then resumed the chair; the report was immediately. received; the bill ordered to be prin

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

would be an amount of 49

ted; and to be taken into further expenditure to the consideration on Tuesday next. millions, with which The orders of the day were then we must meet our peace establishdisposed of, and the house adjournment, without allowing for the wined at three o'clock in the morning.

Friday, June 2.

On the motion of Mr. Martin, the house went into a committee upon the THIRD REPORT ON PUBLIC

OFFICES.

Mr. Martin then stated, that since this subject was last before the house, nothing had occurred to make him alter his opinion as to the resolutions he had suggested. From the return made of the amount of the permanent taxes, contrasted with the expenditure of the country, it must be seen with concern, in order to pay the interest and charges of the additional debt incurred, the war taxes must be permanently pledged, even in time of peace. He then entered into a financial statement, in order to shew this necessity; and concluded with moving his first resolution, which

[blocks in formation]

ding up of the war, and, to meet this, there would be a deficiency of upwards of 7,000,000l. which must be procured, either by a continuance of the property tax at 5 per cent, by having recourse to a loan, or by laying on some new taxation in the place of the war taxes which should expire.

Mr. Rose said that Mr. Pitt had made it his constant study to keep down pensions, and to study economy!

Mr. Wilberforce said a few words in support of what had fallen from the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Rose).

Mr. Creevey entered into the history of the 4 per cent, duties, and contended that the crown had no right to grant pensions in the way it did.

Sir J. Newport said, as Mr. Pitt's, economy with respect to England had been so much panegyrised, he wished he had ground for the same panegyric with respect to Ireland. In that country, the number of pensions which were attempted to be regulated by the civil list act was so great, that a diminution of them was considered as absolutely necessary. The diminution of them was frustrated by one of his Majesty's present cabinet ministers, in a way which the house would be astonished to hear. In the year 1793, the civil list act was wrung from his vice royalty, by which it was enacted, that no more than 1200l. per annum should be granted in pensions,, until the pension list was reduced to 80,0001. per annum. This was enacted in the commencement of July, and was not to be enforced till the 25th of the ensuing March. Strange to tell, in the interim, Lord Westmoreland absolutely granted thiṛteen thousand pounds per annum in pensions! Thus giving in seven

months the amount of ten years al

lotment.

Mr. Foster denied that in 'the vice royalty alluded to so much money had been granted in pensions. Deducting the pensions to the Burgh family, and those to Lord Frederick Campbell, instead of 13,000l. only 4,000l. would appear to have been given.

Sir J. Newport repeated his as sertion, which was verified by the returns of the house of commons, and even expressly deducting the pensions now mentioned, 13,000l. annually would be found to have been granted.

Mr. Whitbread declared it was not his intention to enter into the formal details of the debate. He was very ready to confess that Mr. Pitt had laid many perspicuous financial statements before the house, and believed it to be his object, at one period, to attain the utmost perfection he could, in the science of finance. He certainly failed in some of his calculations, and gave an instance of his prophecies in the year to which he alluded, that he would have a fifteen years peace. While he paid every tribute to the disinterestedness of his private life, and praised the poverty in which he died, still he must say the war was carried on with the utmost prodigality. In the barrack department alone the extravagance was amazing. The right hon. gentleman had touched, indeed, but slightly on the subject of the barrack board, that great source of public extravagance, and still less on the abuses of the transport board, where such vast sums of money were so unnecessarily squandered. [Mr. W. Pole said across the table, he did not believe it.] The hon. gentleman was welcome not to believe it if he chose, but he believed it, and thought it was a question even whether that board ought to be allowed to exist at all or not. He certainly did not

mean to say that no officer of the
crown should sit in that house, but
he thought the error too much on
the other side. There were, for in-
stance, the lords of the treasury,
who, indeed, were generally silent
in the house; the secretaries of the
treasury also one of these gentle
inen he did not mean to speak of
otherwise than in panegyric, for his
close and accurate habits of busi
ness; but the other was absolutely
a mute. The lords of the admiralty,
perhaps, also ought to be excluded,
but to the liveliness of one of them,
he must pay his tribute. One per-
son perhaps connected with the
board of controul was requisite in
the house. Of its president he could
not speak, for he was at present so
full of his Irish affairs, that in fact
the office was vacant. It was not
exactly conformable to Mr. Pitt's
practice, for young men who were
but a few years in office to take pen-
sions for life. In order to bring
the question concerning so many of
ficers of the crown sitting in parlia
ment, he would move as an amend-
ment, "That a further limitation
should be provided to persons in
that house holding places of trust,
emolument, &c." With respect to
the exclusion of the Welsh judges,
he left that open as a matter of dis-
cussion.

Mr. Perceval considered this as a most aristocratic principle; that it would throw the offices of the crown into the hands of those who could, from their property, very well dispense with their salaries. He declared it his intention to give his utmost opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Smith argued in favour of the amendment.

Mr. Ponsonby was of opinion that the resolution of his hon. friend was most important in itself, and of the greatest moment to the constitution of the country. For his own part he was inclined to the amendment of his hon. friend; and if it was to

« ZurückWeiter »