§ Sir John Cox Hippisley
moved the further consideration of the Report of the above Bill, which was opposed by sir W. Curtis, and sir J. Anstruther, who moved that it be postponed to this day three months. After a further conversation, in the course of which Mr. Simeon and Mr. Shaw Lefevre spoke against the original motion, and Mr. Pole Carew in support of it, a question arose as to the propriety of disallowing the votes of members, personally interested; upon which the Speaker rose and referred to two cases, one in 1800, and an antecedent one in 1797, when this description of votes had been rejected.
said he would not vote on this question after what had fallen from the Speaker, but expressed a wish that the point should be clearly decided.
§ Sir J. Newport
observed, that such a principle might be extended to any length, and quoted the instances of questions connected with the public funds, the encouragement of corn, &c. Those who had an interest in opposing, by the same rule, ought to be excluded.
§ Mr. Huskisson
thought there was no danger to be apprehended on that head. No question could arise on the validity of any* N.B. The passages omitted when the Amendments were moved by Mr. Horner, on the Report of the Resolutions, on the 15th of May, are printed in italics, and the words then inserted are printed be tween brackets.177 member's vote, except upon a particular challenge, of the justice of which the House must finally determine. The rule laid down by the Speaker had been applied, in 1797, with respect to the Loyalty Loan: he had himself then been challenged, and justified by disclaiming the possession of any personal interest.
§ Mr. Fuller
assured the hon. member (Mr. P. Carew) that if he should vote on the question, he would challenge his vote.
§ The House then divided,
|For the original Motion||63|