Commons Sitting of 29 April 1806

MINUTES.
The house met at ten o'clock, pursuant to order, for the purpose of proceeding to Westminster-hall to prosecute the trial of lord Melville. The managers left the house first, and repaired to the place assigned them in the court, after which the members went out according to the alphabetical order of their several counties, beginning with the English counties and ending with those of Ireland. About four o'clock the house returned to its ordinary place of meeting, for the dispatch of business, as usual.—A message from the lords announced their assent to the Irish Bank Note bill, the Exchequer Bills bill, the Tea Duty bill, and the Irish Hearth Duty Repealing bill; and also that the lords had determined to proceed further in the trial of lord Melville the next morning at ten of the clock. The Speaker then took this opportunity of stating that he would, as he had done that day, attend punctually at ten o'clock the next day; that at a quarter past ten the serjeant at

955
arms would be sent to clear the passages, and that at half past ten, the manager would go forth.—Lord H. Petty reminded the house, that he had given notice of motion on Friday, for leave to bring in bill for the better regulation of the office of receiver-general of customs, and took this opportunity of giving notice, that he should on the same day move for leave to bring in bills for better regulating the offices of receivers-general of excise, of stamps, and of the post-office, and the office of surveyor-general of woods and forests.—Mr. Meheux presented the Furruckabad papers moved for by Mr. Paull. Mr. Paull moved that they should be printed, and, at the same time, begged the house to observe the small bulk of those papers which had been represented as so voluminous. Mr. Creevey said, that the hon. gent. was under a mistake, as the Furruckabad papers had not been represented as very voluminous, though the papers relating to some of the other places had undoubtedly been so represented. Mr. Paull was proceeding to defend the correctness of his statement, when he was called to order. He then said that he was the only person who was kept to such strict order on these subjects; upon which the Speaker appealed to the house whether he deserved the imputation now cast upon him. The papers were then ordered to be printed.—On the motion of Mr. Foster, the house resolved itself into a committee on the Linen act. Mr. Foster stated, that the object of going into the committee was this. It had been the policy of this country to encourage the export of our manufactures, especially those that were common both to G. Britain and Ireland, such as that of linen. Drawbacks had accordingly been allowed, so as to give the decided preference to the exportation of our own manufactures over those of other countries. His object then was, to place the drawback on plain linen in the same situation in which it was before the act of last year. He concluded by moving a resolution to this effect, which was agreed to.

ELECTION TREATING BILL.
Mr.
Tierneymoved the further consideration of the report of this bill, for the purpose of having it recommitted, as the amendments made in the former committee did not meet the approbation of a right hon. gent. (Mr. Fox) not then in his place. It was suggested to him, that he should allow the voter to be conveyed at the expence
956
of the candidate to the place of election, but he could not agree to allow him a sum of money to defray his own expences. The amendments he proposed, when the bill should be recommitted, would be for the most part verbal, and, therefore, not likely to provoke any discussion.
Sir R. Buxtonthought that the candidate ought to be at no expence with respect to the voters, and would rather have the law as it was, than agree to pass the bill with the amendment.
Mr. Paullthought that, however the bill might be disguised, its effect would be, to diminish the number of voters, and for that reason he would oppose it.
Lord A. Hamiltonsaid that his objections went to the principle of the bill; and as to the recommitment, there was only one clause in the bill, and that one involved the principle itself, He was against it therefore, though he believed the right hon. gent. could have no motives in this business except such as were pure and honourable.
Mr. Tierneysaid he had no personal interest whatever in the bill; as, in the place he represented, the law on that point was already settled, and he only wished to extend the benefit of it to all parts of the country. He would rather give up the bill altogether, than have any new doubts started on the law. He stated before, that he did not object to the candidate providing carriages, but the giving of money for that purpose. This bill was no more than explanatory of the act of William III. and he thought if it should be rejected, it would be right, for the purpose of ending all doubts, to declare, that the candidate should in future pay the conveyance, as well as the expence of travelling.
Mr. Francisthought that the amendment would alter the principle of the bill considerably. Carriages were to be allowed to convey the voters, but how were they to be conveyed; alive or dead? An hon. gent. behind him whispered "dead drunk." Well, be it so; but if you gave the voter nothing to eat or drink, in a journey of 200 miles, he would scarcely he alive by the time he came to the place of polling; or, if he were alive, he would not be able to vote.
Mr. Bakercontended that the candidate ought to be at no expence; but this bill would do so little, that he thought it better the law should remain as it was.
Mr. Spencer Stanhopethought this bill better than no bill at all, as it was impossible to leave the matter as it was. He

957
thought that it would be better to regulate the expences of the candidate, for he was of opinion that any law which went to do them away altogether would be evaded. It was a wise saying of Solon to the Atheni- ans, "I do not give you the best laws possible, but the best which you can bear." We ought to keep this in mind.
Mr. Grahamno longer Considered it as the same bill to which he had given his support. He thought that the right. hon. gent. had now completely abandoned the original principle with Which he had set out. The subsistence of the voter was as necessary to be provided for as his conveyance. He stated that he had been credibly informed that the last contested elections for Middlesex had cost the patties 30,000 l. in the article of conveyance alone; and therefore thought that the bill, as it was proposed to be altered, would be perfectly inadequate to its original purpose.
Mr. Rosethought the country was under great obligations to the right hon. gent. for bringing the matter forward; as it was necessary that the point should be decided in one way or the other. He was rather indifferent in which way that decision should be made; but he preferred the mode of exempting the candidate, as it would be impossible to equalize the expences; for 2s. a day may be an object to one elector, when 10 s. a day would scarcely be an object to another. The law at present was extremely doubtful: for on two eminent lawyers being consulted on this point, in a case that occurred at the last general election, one of them declared, that he was convinced the law was one way, but he was of opinion, that the committee would decide the other way.—The house then divided on the question, whether the bill should be recommitted. Ayes 24; Noes 14. The bill was then re-committed and reported, and the report was ordered to be further considered on Friday.