WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS BILL. (Hansard, 1 February 1819)

§ Mr. Bennet
brought up the report of the committee on this bill. On the motion that it be agreed to,

§ Mr. Hume
said, that but for an accident, he should have had that day a petition to present against this bill, and on that ground he wished the further proceedings on it to be postponed. The act which the present bill was intended to renew, was passed in 1811, professedly only for two years, in which time inquiry was to have been made. It had been continued from that time to the present, and no inquiry had ever taken place. It threw the whole expense of the hustings on the candidates. The petition which he should have the honour to present would show that there were funds 185 to defray the charge; that the high bailiff bought his office from the dean and chapter, and that if that body had not sold the office, but had bestowed it as they should have done, the officer would have been able to erect the hustings without charging the candidates. The charge upon one of the candidates alone had been 900l. and odd at the last election. He hoped the house would not compel a candidate for the representation of Westminster, to be fined to that amount; but would previously appoint a committee to inquire into the merits of the case.

§ Mr. Bennet
said, that the bill was only to continue for one year what had been law for six years. He was very willing that a committee should be appointed, to inquire whether the candidates or the dean and chapter (neither of whom he did not know to be legally liable) should be charged with the expenses of the hustings. But he believed it would be agreed on all sides, that the high bailiff should not be saddled with the expenses. He therefore could not consent to postpone the bill, at a time when they were on the eve of another election for Westminster; and when an individual might be ready without the slightest hope of success, to raise a disturbance in Westminster, and, from a vindictive spirit towards the high bailiff, compel him to raise hustings and keep open a fourteen days poll, with the expense of which he would attempt to saddle that officer.

§ Mr. Curwen
thought the better course would be for the citizens of Westminster to erect some permanent place, which would answer for the business of their elections without being obliged, on every occasion to erect a hustings, as was the present practice. He thought that this measure should not be pressed through the house in such a hurry, and that time ought to be given to ascertain whether funds could not elsewhere be found for the purpose. If the office of high bailiff was, as was said, an office of considerable emolument, and one for the purchase of which a large sum was given, it might be necessary to see if this expense could with any degree of justice be attached to it. He was quite of opinion that no burthen of this nature ought to be thrown upon the freedom of election, and the postponement of the report for a day or two could not affect the approaching election, and some permanent arrangement might be made which would prevent 186 so heavy a burthen from falling on the shoulders of a candidate.

§ Mr. Bennet
said, that the urgency of present circumstances evidently admitted of no delay. This bill must pass, or the election must take place, without any act existing on the subject. The shortness of its duration would, however, soon afford ample opportunity for inquiry and deliberation.

§ Sir M. W. Ridley
thought the operation of the present bill could not be said to affect the freedom of election. It was surely very hard, if an individual who had in fact caused the expense should refuse to pay the amount which the law justified, and which was absolutely necessary, and that the whole should fall on the high bailiff. He thought it would be equally hard to throw the expense on the inhabitants generally. In his opinion the candidates were the proper persons on whom it should fall.

Mr. Wynn
said, he could not agree with the hon. member who spoke last, that, under any circumstances, so large an expense should be thrown upon the candidate. The candidate came forward as much in obedience to the king's writ as the electors did who gave him their votes. To put an extreme case: suppose nobody came forward, and that no return was made, then the city would be punished by fine for not obeying the king's writ. Parliamentary service might be cast on a man with or without his consent, and no man, should be fined for seeking or accepting it. He therefore should propose inquiry. If the dean and chapter had funds (and he was inclined to believe they had none) which could be legally liable to this charge, the expense should be defrayed by them: if not, a rate ought to be levied on Westminster, and a permanent building be erected, or hustings which might be put up when required, and which would not entail any considerable expense on the city.

Mr. C. Tennison
said, he concurred generally in what had fallen from the hon. gentleman who spoke last, and thought it an unconstitutional principle which went to fix the expenses on the candidates: especially as they were sometimes brought forward without their previous assent; a case of this sort had actually occurred in Westminster. There seemed as little propriety in fixing the expenses on the high bailiff or dean and chapter who were not more materially interested in the repre- 187 sentation of the city of Westminster than any other individuals there. The argument of an hon. baronet, who seemed to think the candidates were the proper parties to pay the expenses, was founded in the idea that a seat in that house was a beneficial possession for which something was to be paid. He (Mr. T.) thought it clear that the inhabitants generally or the electors of Westminster, who had the benefit of being represented in parliament, were the parties who should be called upon to pay the expenses incident to the election of their members.

§ Mr. Denman
said, that the House was called on to pass a bill of whose object it appeared to him that it was utterly ignorant. For his own part, he must observe, that it was unknown to him, and that therefore he could not support it. The reasons which had been urged by hon. gentlemen to induce the house to pass this bill in a hurry, inclined him to pause before he gave his sanction to it; and he should therefore willingly second the proposition for time to inquire whether the high bailiff had any funds with which to defray these expenses, and whether there was any place in which the hustings could be permanently held and the expenses incurred in erecting them avoided in future. He scarcely knew what the law on the subject was, and he believed that other gentlemen were in a similar state of ignorance. This was an additional reason for delay. It might be hard on the high bailiff, if he had to pay the expenses incurred in the election out of his own pocket; but he would rather indemnify him for them by an express act of the legislature, than impose them on others by the operation of an ex post facto Jaw like the present.

§ Mr. Bennet
said, that the act which the present bill was intended to renew, had passed in 1811, it was repassed in 1813, and had expired a month ago. The bill only continued for a year longer what had been law for eight years. He wished to have the bill passed before the circumstances could arise which would be affected by the bill, which seemed to him to be directly the reverse of an ex post facto law. If the house wished to have the bill postponed, he should bow to its wishes [cries of No, no!]; but he had no doubt that he should be able to give a sa- 188 tisfactory answer to the petitions, as he had had an interview with one of the principal petitioners.

§ Lord A. Hamilton
proposed, as an amendment, that Friday next should be substituted for to-morrow for the third reading. He also thought that some inquiry ought to be made to ascertain the emoluments of the high bailiff. Suppose a member were elected, and did not choose to attend at the hustings lest he should be called upon to pay this large expense, in what a situation would he not be placed! He would be exposed to the penalty of the House for not attending, and to the high bailiff's bill if he took his seat.

§ Mr. Holme Sumner
suggested to the hon. mover whether it would not be right to limit the scope of this bill to the 1st of April next. If this suggestion were not adopted, he would vote for postponing the discussion until Friday next.

§ Mr. Bennet
said, that the first of April would be rather an awkward day but he had no objection to the first of May. He never meant to propose this as a permanent measure; on the contrary, it was his intention hereafter to move for a committee, to take the whole subject into consideration.

§ Mr. Hume
submitted to the house, whether they would allow a bill, not yet printed or known to the members, to be passed in so hasty a manner. The hon. gentleman who had brought this bill forward was, on all former occasions, one of the readiest persons to demand inquiry; but on the present occasion, he was most hostile to it, and said, if not in form, at least in substance, "Do the act first, and then inquire into the reasons for doing it." He must consider the whole of the proceedings in this affair as most rash and precipitate, and must in consequence, deprecate them with all the ability in his power.