§ Mr. Tierney,pursuant to the notice he had formerly given, rose to bring forward his motion for leave to bring in a bill to explain and render more effectual, an act made in the 7th and 8th of William III. chap. 4, for preventing charge and expence in elections of members to serve in parliament. Every gentleman with whom he had conversed on the subject, agreed with him on the necessity of some measure for giving effect to an act of parliament, which had been found by uniform experience, to fall in most cases greatly short of the object it avowed; but many were of opinion the attempt would be attended with difficulties scarcely surmountable. It was by no means his intention to give to that act any new construction, to the exclusion of any particular class or description of voters, or to pervert its meaning from the object it fairly avowed; but merely to remove the doubts which had arisen upon its construction in the minds of committees appointed to try the merits of elections, and to give it some certain and defined construction; and the construction which he should propose, was precisely that which had always struck his own mind on the subject. The object of the act in question, was to exempt candidates from the enormous demands to which they were made liable, under the head of charges for the conveyance and travelling expences of voters not resident at the place of election, and to prevent the system of bribery and corruption which, under the pretence of such charges, might be and actually were carried on. The evils in those cases could not arise in places where the voters were all residents of the town or vicinage, but where persons claiming a right to vote at such elections resided at a distance, often at the extremity of a county, which constantly gave rise to scenes of confusion and enormous expence; for, in 372 coming to give their votes at such elections they uniformly claimed the expences of their conveyance and travelling charges, and those upon the most extravagant scale, from the candidates for whom they chose to vote. Perhaps there might be no very great objection to allow the claim of a voter, coming from a distance to give his vote, at a considerable loss of time, to some reasonable allowance for travelling charges and necessary refreshment; but the usage of making such allowances had still thrown open a door to such extravagant demands on one hand, and gave such an opportunity for bribery on the other, that every fairintending candidate must have long since wished to see some effectual check put to such a system. Many determinations had taken place from time to time, upon representations and complaints of this nature; but they were all upon distinct grounds, and none of them including all the objections for which remedy was desirable; nor were there any cases which had occurred affording any series of precedents which could be decisive for the clear construction of the act. The chief difficulties had occurred in Westminster Hall; and the courts of Common Pleas and King's Bench had differed materially in their decisions upon the subject. In the former court, an action had been brought in the case of Crickett and others, on the part of a publican, to recover from a candidate a sum for refreshments given to his voters: but chief justice Eyre was of opinion, the law could not sustain such a demand, and that it was contrary to the act of William III. Another case occurred in the court of King's Bench, in which the elector, who had come from Durham, where he resided, to give his vote at Taunton, where he possessed a right of voting for one of the candidates; but before he would give his vote, he demanded 30l. for his conveyance and travelling expenses, and said he should not vote till he was paid. He was an itinerant musician; he had calculated the expence, and would not give his vote without receiving his demand; a suit was afterwards commenced against this man, upon the ground of bribery; but the chief justice then, in summing up the evidence, found that a post-chaise from Durham to Taunton at eighteen-pence per mile, amounted to much the greater part of the charge; that the man's travelling. charges must also be considered, and some little allowance made for junketting with his friends at a time of election, to which, 373 adding his loss of time, the charge altogether was not considered to be of that exorbitant kind, that could justify a charge of corruption or bribery, and therefore the decision was in favour of the defendant. Notwithstanding, however, the decision of the Court of King's Bench in that case, every man must feel the excessive hardship imposed upon a candidate who stood the election for any place situated as Taunton was. If he were to be put to the expence of 30 or 40l. for the conveyance of ally voter from the most distant part of the country, merely because that voter chose, for his own interest or convenience, to reside out of the town where he claimed such vote, and in some other town at a distance where his mere residence gave him the right of another vote, as was precisely the case here, the expences to which a candidate might be put in such cases for the conveyance of electors, to gratify their own wishes, and exercise their own privileges, for their own advantage, were as incalculable as they were unjust, and ought not to fall on the representative; for it was not merely the actual expenses incurred, which they would have to pay, but the extravagant profusion too often indulged by such electors as these, when they felt themselves travelling not at their own charge, but at that of a candidate, whom they suppose well able to pay. With respect to county elections, the case was certainly different in relation to the elector; because, voting from freeholds, often in remote parts of the country, upon which they resided, certainly it would be hard for them to travel at their own expence to a county election to vote for any candidate; and though there might be no strong objection for a reasonable allowance to the voter for conveyance, yet still it would be extremely difficult to draw the line of strict propriety in all cases, so as to guard against the abuses such a system admitted of: but upon the candidate the hardship must be still greater than in the other case; because the expences must be incalculably more enormous. No man of moderate fortune, however respectable his talents and character, could pretend to stand the contest for a county against a wealthy rival. It would be in vain that the law required as a qualification for representing a county 600l. a year landed estate, or 300l. for a borough; since no man, under the liability to such a system of expence, could venture to set up for a counts, who was not prepared to spend in the pursuit more than the fee sim- 374 ple of his qualification; nay, without being prepared to squander from ten, to twenty, thirty, or even forty thousand pounds in the contest. The strong point therefore to which he particularly objected, was the extreme hardship imposed upon the candidate, in being left open to the claims of the voter for his conveyance and travelling charges from one extremity of a county to the other, to exercise his own privilege, and for his own advantage. It was for this he wished a remedy; and so it was an effectual one, he should not be very fastidious as to the form. A plan had been heretofore proposed, for preventing the confusion and expence attendant on county elections, by enabling the electors to give their votes within their respective districts. He should have no objection even to such arrangement; but, from the principle avowed in the very preamble of the act to which he alluded, he held it to be the clear and obvious construction of that act, that the candidate, in all events, should not be charged with the expences of conveying electors to gratify their own wishes, and for their own advantage, to exercise their privileges. And whether the expence was to be defrayed by a county-rate (though he was not quite agreed as to that), or what other mode should seem more eligible, the candidate should certainly be exempt. The act of king William contained no distinction between residents and non-residents. It was an act not hastily introduced, but one that had been, at a prior period, under the consideration of parliament. The right hon. gent. here read the preamble of the act, which stated, that it was to remedy the great grievance of expensive elections, &c. Such being the case, it was obvious that the intention of the framers was not to confine its operation to the places of which the residents alone were electors, more especially as the proportion of these to those where non-residents had the right of voting, was only as one to four. Three-fourths, therefore, of the kingdom were totally out of the beneficial influence of the act. He had never heard it contended by legal men, that the law did authorize an allowance to a non-resident voter for loss of time, &c.; the only ground on which such allowance had been defended was convenience. It might be thought that the operation of the bill, which it was his wish to bring in, would be to disfranchise three-fourths of the voters in the kingdom. If he were of that opinion, he would be the last man to 375 propose it. He would either not propose it at all, or be would propose an adequate compensation to those who would be aggrieved. It had once occurred to him to suggest the propriety of giving to a non-resident the power of voting in the place in which he resided, instead of that for which he was originally qualified, but, on consideration, he found that such a man sustained no hardship by not voting. He would vote, if he did vote, to please himself. In parliamentary language, the elected bears the burthen; the elector casts the burden. Adverting to one of the cases which he bad mentioned, that of the fidler, who went from Durham to Taunton to vote, what was it first induced him to go from Taunton to Durham? Interest.—Had he been desirous to retain his power of voting, he should have remained at Taunton, where he possessed that power. Besides, by his residence at Durham, he had acquired a right of voting there, and he then came forward and claimed a vote likewise for Taunton. What hardship was there in saying, "We do not take your vote away; if it be an inconvenience to you, it is an inconvenience of your own making." Should the house, however, think it right that this inconvenience which a man brought upon himself should be remedied at the expence of the candidate, then he allowed there would be an end to his bill. It might be objected, that such a construction would go to disfranchise the 40s. freeholders. But though that was by no means his wish, nor should he be inclined to vote for such a proposition if it was brought forward; yet he begged it might be recollected, that if the original institution of 40s. freeholders were considered, and the circumstances under which it took place, the original spirit of that measure would be found in no degree infringed by increasing the qualification to a much higher sum, and thereby removing, in a very great degree the evil of which he now complained; for if the comparative value of money, in the reign of Henry. VI. and at this day were duly considered, it would be found the depreciation was as 15 to 1, and consequently that a qualification of 30l. a year, at this day, was no more than adequate to one of 40s. in the former. Where then would be the hardship, if a man possessed of a freehold property of 30l. per annum, were called on once in seven years, to go at his own charge to give his vote at his county election? The effect of the present system, 376 under which the number of 40s. freeholders had been so very greatly increased, was very considerably to decrease the number of candidates for elections, by the dread of the enormous expences to be incurred by election contests; whereas the increase of qualification, by confining the elective franchise to that description of men, by whom it was originally designed to be exercised, would open a wide door for admitting to that house an order of men he very much wished to see there; an order of men in which England more than any country of Europe abounded; namely, men of moderate fortune, independent principles, liberal education, and sound understanding; who well understood the constitution, and the true interests of their country and were firmly attached to the maintenance of the one, and the promotion: of the other. It had been suggested by some [...]enlemen, that it would he advisable to establish a county-rate, for the purpose of paying the expenses of those electors, who resided at a distance from the place of election. To this he certainly had no objection, although he could not see on what principle such non-residents were entitled to it. In large counties taking the poll at several places, might in some degree obviate the inconvenience complained of. At present there was only the alternative of a shameful compromise between the contending parties, or a scene of dreadful riot and extravagance at the place of contest. An objection might be urged, that the law might entangle the candidate, and that no man might be safe in his election, if he had given a glass of wine to an elector. But had there been a petition to this effect from place, where the voters were resident, and where consequently the operation of the act of king William had extended? There was another trifling objection which might be made: it might be said, that a strict adherence to the letter of the law would destroy old English hospitality. In his conception, however, it would promote it; for the country gentleman would not be deterred from shewing genuine old English hospitality by the necessity, that was now imposed on him, of providing for the extravagant expense of a contested election. It might also be said that voters would become indifferent as. to their representatives, and that all manifestations of popular spirit would be repressed. To this he could give a direct answer. In his own election for the borough of South-wark there was, though no riot as formerly, as strong a manifestation of public spirit as 377 ever. All the difference that he could perceive was, that the speeches of the candidates were listened to by sober men instead of drunken ones. When the house came to the resolution that no candidate should be allowed to spend more than 5l. at an election, a sum which was afterwards increased, to ten was it intended by them to leave a loop hole permitting candidates to expend 10,000l.. at an election? Was this practice in consonance with the spirit of the resolution which was passed by the house, thanking the electors of some counties for having elected their members without expense? In 1774, a committee was appointed to revise all the laws relative to elections. The report of that committee was well worth the attention of the house. That report suggested the expediency in some counties of making compensation to the freeholders for their expenses, &c. but not the least hint of throwing this burden upon the candidate. It therefore confirmed his opinion, that the candidate should be exonerated from any such charges. He wished this broad principle to be established, that every man must vote at his own expense, and any particular cases that might occur might be left to the consideration of committees. It would be for them to determine what amounted to a bribe and what not. A bottle of wine given by a candidate to his equal, could not be considered as a bribe, but there might be instances in which even such a trifling gift would influence a man of a different description. If the bill winch he proposed, should pass into a law, he firmly believed that all the evil proceeding from popular elections would be done away. As the law stood, men of small fortunes were completely excluded from parliament. It was a mere mockery to say, that a man possessed of 600l. a year was qualified to be the representative of a county. Perhaps there was no county in which among the men of moderate property there was so much talent, and so much integrity, and yet these men were virtually excluded unable as they were to undergo the expenses of an electioneering contest. The only sufferers by the bill would be men of no family, no talents, no virtue, and who depended for their success solely on the influence which their riches gave them. The right hon. gent. Mr. Tierney concluded by moving for leave to bring in a bill to explain and render more effectual an act made in the 7th and 8th of king William III. for prevent- 378 ing charge and expence in election of members to serve in parliament.
Mr. Secretary Foxallowed that he was one of those who had a good will towards the object of the hon. gent.'s motion. It was necessary for him to rise at this early stage of the question to say, that he did not think so lightly of the difficulties that were in the way of that object, as the hon. gent. There might be means discovered of removing them, but they were certainly not trifling. With regard to what had been said about the 40s. freeholders, it should be recollected, that their non-residence was no act of their own. As for comparing the freeholders to that amount of the present day, with those in the reign of Henry VI, he had always been of opinion, that this was a point of the constitution better understood at the present day, than in the times of the houses of York and Lancaster. There was an aristocratic principle in limiting the right of voting to those who possessed a certain value of landed property, which the subsequent depreciation of money had much reduced and meliorated. Had a bill been offered to the house to deprive freeholders under 30l. a year of their elective franchise, he should have given it his most decided opposition. The hen. gent. himself had admitted, that this would not be expedient. If therefore, it was not justifiable directly to deprive them of their right, neither was it justifiable indirectly to do so. The hon. gent allowed, that Yorkshire was an instance in which; from the extent of the county, inconvenience would result to many of the minor freeholders, if a compensation for their expenses were withheld from them. But not Yorkshire alone, Lancaster, and several other counties, would be subject to the same grievance. As to the plan of taking the poll at different parts of, the county, when it was first suggested, he felt repugnant to it, but the reasoning of the hon. gent. rendered him willing to acquiesce in it. At any rate he was desirous, by every means, to avoid confining the right of voting at county elections to the large freeholders. Now, with regard to the boroughs, he must say, that the hon. gent. went too far in saying that it was in the option of every voter to remain a resident or not; and that if it was an inconvenience, it was one which he brought upon himself. This was much too generally stated. At such times as the present, when the exigencies of the country called so many men from their homes, this 379 sentiment was peculiarly reprehensible. Would the hon. gent. wish that every man who had inlisted for a soldier should be deprived of his elective franchise? That he should abandon his rights as a freeman? Surely not. Much less in the case of a militia man. It would, indeed, be the hardest case in the world, when a man had been ballotted for that service, and had been compelled to go to a distance from his family and his home to defend his king and country, that he should be compensated, by being deprived of his right to vote for a member of parliament. He perfectly concurred in the expediency of the bill, but he merely contended that the difficulties were not so light as was imagined. With respect to the comparative value of money, he agreed with the hon. gent. that a qualification of 600l. a year was sufficient for a County member. He should think the qualification sufficient had it been less. But it should be recollected, when the depreciation of money was argued upon one side of a question, that a hundred years ago the difference of the value of money, from the present time, though not so great as between the present time and the reign of Henry VI, was yet very considerable. On the principle which had been argued by the hon. gent. therefore, these qualifications should be raised; he was however, of a different opinion. This matter should certainly be put so clearly out of doubt, as to relieve committees from any hesitation in their decisions. The hon. gent. had said, that if a candidate asked his equal to drink a glass of wine, it could not be deemed a bribe, but that it might if offered to a poor man. He had added, that committees would be the judges of these and similar circumstances. But were there no intermediate ranks between the gentleman of fortune and the poor man? And would it not be most unseemly to excite enquiries into the probability of such or such a man's being influenced by a consideration of that nature? He was decidedly of opinion, that the subject should be settled, but it must be without virtually or directly disfranchising any considerable number of voters. If this object could be accomplished, the bill should have his hearty support.
§ Mr. Tierneyexplained. All he wished was, that the law should be distinctly established, but in doing this, it was his earnest desire to prevent the possibility of any man's being disfranchised. What the right hon. gent. had said of the hardships 380 which a soldier would incur in being deprived of his elective practice was certainly true. For this, and similar cases, an adequate remedy might be applied. He only hoped that the bill would not be rendered obscure or ambiguous, but that this broad principle should be generally established, namely, that every voter should vote at his own expense.
§ Mr. Leegave great credit to the hon. gent. for the excellence of his intention, and for the clearness with which he had explained it, but agreed with the right hon. gent. under him (Mr. Fox), that the difficulties in the way were considerable. Without a great many safeguards, the result of the bill must be the disfranchisements of some thousands of electors. If it were rendered impossible for a man to vote except by making a journey, the expense of which he could not afford, it would he much the same thing as depriving him of his right altogether.
§ Sir Robert Buxtonwished only to advert to one statement that had been made by the right hon. mover. He had said that the voter exercised his right for his own pleasure; now he had always conceived that he exercised it for the benefit of the public at large.—The question was then put, and leave was given to bring in the bill.