Commons Sitting of 9 February 1807

MINUTES.
Mr. Barhamreported from the committee appointed to determine the merits of the Plymouth Election Petition, that sir C. M. Pole and Thomas Tyrwhit, esq. had been duly elected; and
694
that the petitions against their return were not frivolous nor vexations.—Mr. Vernon appeared in his place, pursuant to order of the house, and stated in excuse of his absence from the Saltash Election committee on Friday, "that when the house, on Thursday last, had given power to the said committee to adjourn till this day, on account of the necessary absence of one of their members, he had by mistake conceived that the committee had actually been adjourned till this day; but being informed of his mistake, he had attended the said committee on Saturday and this day; and that he was extremely sorry the committee had been put to any inconvenience on his account." The substance of what Mr. Vernon offered to the house, was taken down in writing; and the same being verified by him, upon oath, at the table, it was ordered, That the said Mr. Vernon be excused for his non-attendance on Friday last.—The Solicitor General brought up the bill for making the Freehold Estates of persons, dying in debt, assets for the payment of their simple contract debts, which was read a first time.—Petitions were presented from the Tanners of Cumberland, Oxford, and several other places in England, against the Oak Bark bill, which were referred to the committee on the former Petitions.—Lord Temple moved that the order of the day for the second reading of the Oak Bark bill should be discharged, on the ground that the committee on the various petitions against the measure had not yet reported. The order was then discharged, and fixed for this day fortnight.—Mr. Fremantle presented, an Account of the net produce of all the Permanent and War Taxes in the years and quarters ending 5th of Jan. 1806, and 5th Jan. 1807.—Sir J. Newport presented the usual annual petitions from the several charitable Institutions in Ireland, which were ordered to lie on the table. The hon. bart. in presenting the petition from the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Seminary at Maynooth, near Dublin, stated, that it was proposed to make a considerable augmentation to the grant to this establishment, in order to provide more adequate accommodation for the education of the students in that seminary, and that this augmentation was recommended to the house on the part of his majesty. The hon. bart. also stated, that it was proposed to make an additional grant to the Dublin

695
Society of 10,000 l. which was not to be incorporated into the funds usually granted to that institution, but to be left at the disposal of that society, to enable them to afford encouragement and support to similar institutions in the interior of the country, and particularly a society that had been established at Cork for the same objects. It was then ordered that Estimates of the Expences of the several Charitable Institutions in Ireland, should be laid before the house, after which the hon. baronet presented the several Estimates, which were ordered to lie on the table, and to be printed.—Ordered, on the motion of Mr. Johnstone, that there, be laid before the house an account of the Income and Charges of the Consolidated Fund for the years ending the 5th of Jan. 1806, and 5th Jan. 1807, distinguishing each quarter.

GREENVILLE ELECTION ACT.
Mr. Simeon,pursuant to notice, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain parts of the said act. He was willing to yield every tribute of just praise to the act in question, which went in some measure to immortalize its author; great, however, as were unquestionably its merits, it was yet, like all other things human, not perfect. The object of the proposed bill would be, to remove perhaps its only imperfection. In a late case (the Maldon petition) the chairman of the committee had not only a casting voice, but a double one. In mentioning this, it was far from his wish or intention to insinuate the slightest reflection upon the gentlemen who composed that tribunal, but what occasioned a double vote in that committee, might produce the same effect in any other. The unavoidable absence of one of the 15 members might produce a parity of voting, and thus involve the committee in this dilemma; they must decide upon, the issue before them, or they must not; if they did not decide, justice slept; if they did, one of the 14 had a double vote. Besides, as the chairman of such committees was generally a man whom the rest of the committee had preferred for some superiority in certain qualifications, for talents, good sense, address, arising from habits of business, &c. there might be found in some committees men of that diffident cast of mind that would induce them to look rather to the decision of that chairman, than consult the suggestions of their own under-
696
standings. The rules that circumscribed the authority of the Speaker in that house, and precluded him from a double voice, and a casting voice only in the case of a parity of votes, were, he thought, in direct analogy, though he admitted the difference of that house being a legislative, and the other merely a judicial tribunal. It was to be remembered, however, that it was the only court in the empire in which the presiding member had a double voice, He left it to the house to form its own judgment on the circumstances of the case, and decide upon the propriety of the bill he now moved for. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to alter and amend the Act of the 10th of the king for the better Regulating the Trials upon Controverted Elections.
Mr. Bankessaid, that the cause of complaint was of such a kind, and the mode which the learned gent. meant to propose for its redress, was such, that he thought the law was preferable as it now stood; he should therefore oppose the motion upon the present occasion, as he thought it was needless to encourage a bill to be brought in, which was so likely to be thrown out in some future stage. The case stated, was one which very seldom occurred. The act had put it into the most convenient of all forms, because the decision was left to be determined by the casting or double vote of the chairman; who was naturally looked up to on account of his abilities, integrity, and other qualifications which distinguished him. The learned gent. seemed to imply, that this very man who was so held up to notice, on account of the necessary qualifications, should be the only one who should be deprived of the ability to give a double vote, should it happen to be necessary. He saw no remedy in thus taking away the vote of the chairman. The general maxim of law was, that there should be an end put to a dispute by the judicature to which it was originally submitted, and therefore it was better to take the decision of the committee as at present constituted, than that it should be suspended altogether. The chairman was bound Jo perform the same duties, and to take the same oath, as other members of the committee were; and why should not the decision depend upon his vote, as well as upon others, the more especially as he was the one who paid the most particular attention to the subject?
Mr. Simeonexplained. He never meant that justice should be asleep by the decision being suspended. He meant only, that in no case should the chairman vote, except in cases of equality, where 7 of the other members bad voted on each side; and that in no case should he have a double vote.
Mr. C. Wynneconcurred entirely with the hon. gent. who had spoken last, and who had anticipated almost every thing that he had meant to say on the subject. The analogy between the practice of that house and that of the committee did not seem to him to apply. It was essential to the dignity of the house, that the opinions of their Speaker should not be known, as his interference must thereby possess far greater weight and authority. The committee appointed their own chairman; he as well as the rest, being sworn to a faithful discharge of the trust reposed in them; and he believed, there was no instance for the 30 years that the act had existed, of a charge of partiality being even alledged against any one committee. He could not, therefore, see any propriety, in altering the law, or in, saying that the person best qualified to judge on such an occasion, as the chairman must naturally be presumed to be, should alone be precluded from speaking and voting equally with the rest of the committee.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, that he conceived the election laws to be of such very great importance, that the house should hear some very cogent reasons indeed urged, before they even allowed a bill to be brought in. He believed his learned friend's motives were pure and sincere; but as the subject had engaged much of his (the Attorney-General's) attention, he found himself to be of a very different opinion. In courts of law, the judges were frequently equally divided in opinion, and consequently not able to decide; but ancient usage had been so much respected, that nobody had ever thought proper to propose any alteration in their constitution. In the year 1775, Mr. Grenville brought in that act, which gave the casting vote to the president of committees, and even where the numbers were equal, no case of unjust or improper partiality had occurred. His learned friend seemed to aim at theoretical and unattainable perfection. He appeared inclined to render the very person who was likely to be most intelligent amongst that committee,
698
a mere nonentity. Supposing that a committee were to be reduced to 14, by the indisposition of any one of their number, would his learned friend propose to have the matter decided, by giving a casting or double vote to one of those 7, with whom the chairman was not united in opinion, in preference to having it determined by the others, with whom he agreed? Why not give a double vote to the chairman, as well as to any of the other members of a committee, when found necessary?
Mr. Simeonhere rose, and said, that as he plainly saw the opinion of the house was different from his own, he should withdraw the motion he had proposed—It was accordingly withdrawn.
Lord Folkestonehoped, that the fate of the motion which had just been disposed of, would not have any influence upon that which he rose to make. The object of his motion was to make the notices at present required by an order of that house, respecting the entering into recognizances, a part of the law. The house would be more disposed to agree to his bill, as the effect of it would be to put an end to its interference in such cases, on applications for extending the time for receiving recognizances. He therefore moved for leave to bring in a bill to alter and amend so much of the act of the 28th of his majecty, as relates to Recognizances.
Mr. C. Wynnedid not think the object of the noble lord's measure corresponded with its title. It would not alter nor amend the act of the 28th of the king, because there was no mention of notices in that act, neither was there any provision in it, respecting the time for presenting petitions. These matters were settled by the regulations of that house, which all parties who came before it as petitioners, were bound to make themselves acquainted with. As there did not appear to him to be any necessity for an act of parliament on the subject, or to make the other house of Parliament a party to the orders by which the proceedings of that house were to be regulated, he should oppose the motion—The motion was then negatived without a division.

FOREIGN PROPERTY IN THE FUNDS.
Mr. Bankesrose pursuant to notice. He was happy after the fate of the two last motions, to be able to state that he had one to make, which was not likely to meet with any opposition. The document for which he

699
was to move, was a very important one, and was very material to the house to have on its table, in order that gentlemen might perceive how far the strength and resources of this country were supported by its own property and means, and whether the property of foreigners in our funds was considerable or insignificant. He had also another view in bringing forward his motion, namely, that it might he brought under the consideration of the house, how far the exemption of the property of foreigners from the property tax was, or was not expedient. He did not mean then to enter into any argument upon the subject, but he was inclined to think that the exception of the property of foreigners from the tax had been founded on a mistake, and that this would be made manifest when the subject should come to be reviewed. He had framed his motion not so much with a view to this Object, as on the precedent of a similar motion that had been made last year. As an indulgence had been granted to foreigners, he was of opinion that they would not be slow in claiming it, and that, therefore, the document he was to call for might be easily prepared. He took this opportunity of asserting that his opinion on this subject remained the same as it was last session; and so far from having been in the slightest degree altered, it had been strengthened by consideration and reflection. He still continued to think that the property of foreigners should be subject to the tax. This was but an act of justice to our own subjects, to shew where the burthen of the tax fell, and could not be construed into a severity upon foreigners, who invested their money in our funds for its security, not for our advantage. If they enjoyed the protection, they ought to contribute in a just proportion to its maintenance. He would not have it understood, however, that he was pledged to bring forward any motion on the subject, because such a proceeding would, in a great degree, depend upon the support it would receive, and principally upon the opposition it would meet with. At the same time he was of opinion, that, though a motion might not lead to a successful result, there was often much advantage derived from the frequent discussions that took place even upon motions that might have been finally unsuccessful. He did not by any means propose to bring forward this question front views hostile to
700
government. But, as he should very soon have an opportunity of stating his opinion on the general question respecting the finances of the country, he should then content himself with moving, "That there be laid before the house an account of the amount of all Exemptions granted to Foreigners, in respect of the duty on Dividends, in the various public funds of Great Britain, and on the duty on Dividends on South Sea and East India stock, under the Property tax, for the year ending Lady Day, 1806."
Lord Henry Pettythought it might be more satisfactory to the hon. gent. to have the account made up to a later date, as well as more likely to answer the object he had in view. He was not aware that the account could be furnished to a later date, but would assure the hon. gent. and the house, that if upon enquiry he found that to be the case, the account should be presented. The information called for by the hon. gent. was such, that however he might differ from him as to the result to be drawn front it, he thought it ought, and could not with propriety be kept from the house. As the hon. gent. had with so much candour stated, that the opinion entertained by him last session on this subject remained unaltered, he thought it not amiss to declare, that upon the best reflection he could bestow upon the question, he could see no reason for changing the opinion he had on that occasion expressed of the propriety of granting the exemptions to the property of foreigners in the funds. He was confirmed in the opinion, when he considered the small assistance that could be derived from extending the tax to such property, and the indirect but great mischief that would result from adopting the suggestions of the hon. gent. At the same time he was ready to admit, that whenever the question was brought forward, he should be open to the arguments that he knew would be ably urged by the hon. gent. As to the expediency of bringing forward motions without any prospect of success, and the beneficial consequences of repeated discussions, he trusted that the present session of parliament would afford an instance (the Abolition of the Slave Trade) of the advantages and happy results of discussions upon reiterated motions.—The account was then ordered up to the latest period, to which it could be made out.