WESTMINSTER HUSTINGS BILL. (Hansard, 3 February 1819)

§ Mr. Bennet
having moved that the bill be now read a third time,

Sir F. Burdett
said he should have been strongly inclined to forward any measure which would indemnify the gentleman for whose relief this bill was intended, from any unforeseen expenses which had fallen on him, if his public duty allowed him so to do. But on the consideration of this question, divested of private feelings, he could not agree that the gentleman who held the office of high bailiff of Westminster should be allowed to throw off his own shoulders the burthen of an office which he voluntarily had undertaken. Not only had this task been voluntarily undertaken, but he had paid a large sum of money for the office. The law which the 283 present bill was intended to continue was first passed in the year 1811, on the re-commendation of a committee, which at the time of recommending it stated, that it was objectionable, but that pressed, as they conceived themselves to be, by the necessity of the case, imagining (as he thought, without any good grounds) that the peace of Westminster depended on its passing, they had brought it forward as the best measure which occurred on the spur of the occasion. This act, stultified as it might be said to have been by its authors, had now continued for seven years, and he thought the House would agree that they were not warranted in renewing a measure which was so objectionable in itself. The high bailiff had stated that the profits of his office were only 200l. a year—a statement on the face of it hardly probable with respect to a place for which that gentleman had given 4,000l. But if they looked into the accounts they would see the cause of it. The gross profits were 450l.; but out of this there was reserved a rent of 150l. to the dean and chapter, and the high bailiff moreover paid 100l. a year to a deputy. But if by reason of these deductions, the high bailiff was unable to bear the burthen of the office, he surely was not entitled to come to parliament for relief. It was a law principle, that benefit and burthen should go together. Where the benefit of the office was equal to the burthen, but the benefit was divided among a number of individuals, it was not to be contended, that they should be relieved from the necessary charges of it, because the sum could not otherwise be divided among so many. The dean and chapter had sold the office, and had reserved a rent out of it. The House had nothing to do with that. The high bailiff appointed a deputy to execute the duties which he did not perform in person; the House also had nothing to do with that. The high bailiff therefore was in the condition of any man who had made an improvident bargain, and was not entitled to come, to the House for relief. At any rate, it was not on the candidates that the burthen should be thrown. The dean and chapter had made the office a matter of emolument, which in its nature was an office, of the highest trust. The high bailiff in Westminster had to perform all the duties of a sheriff in a county. To impannel juries, to return the members, and to preserve the peace of the city. 284 This office they had sold; and though it happened in the present instance it could not have been better filled, it was evident that this was mere accident, for they had only confirmed the appointment made by Mr. Browning, the present high bailiff's predecessor. On them, therefore, if not on the high bailiff, the burthen of the election should fall; for he considered the attempt to cast the expenses on the already over-burthened poor-rates as objectionable as the proposal to throw it on the candidates. The charges made at elections were formerly considered as an emolument, rather than as a bare remuneration to the high bailiff: the charges which had been made upon him (sir F. Burdett) on a former occasion he had resisted, as he thought the principle unjust. The chief justice of the court of King's bench had decided that he was liable to pay the expenses—but they were reduced to the legal charges, which turned out to be very trifling. It was proved, therefore, that even at present, under this decision (which he certainly had thought objectionable), the high bailiff could get his legal expenses; the present bill, therefore, could only be considered as a sanction for the extortion of excessive charges. He therefore should propose, that the bill should be read a third time on this day fortnight, to give time for a committee to inquire, that the House might legislate with deliberation. To him it seemed plain on whom the burthen should fall. The church had been very astute in taking the good things of the world, and throwing from its shoulders the burthens of it; but it seemed plain to him, that the collegiate church of Westminster, being in the habit of making a profit of the high office with the disposal of which they were entrusted and being possessed of estates charged with the performance of the duties of that office, should pay the expenses with which the duties of it were burthened. The hon. baronet expressed his opinion, that rather than let the present bill pass, it would be much better to have the candidates at the next election called upon to pay a specific sum for the expense of the hustings; for such a levy, although he could not think it strictly justifiable, would be a much lesser evil than permanently to burthen the people of Westminster. Such a burthen ought obviously not to be imposed without any previous inquiry, and especially on a place where the election was 285 decidedly more free and popular than in any other part of the empire.

§ Sir R. Wilson
followed on the same side. He observed, that in his opposition to this measure, he did not mean to act invidiously towards the high bailiff, but he thought that the dean and chapter should rather be called upon to pay the expenses of the election. The law, he said, required that every member of parliament should be possessed of 300l. a year; but the enormous charges of the high bailiff of Westminster might oblige an independent man, of small fortune, to mortgage, for a space of three years and a half, the property which would entitle him to sit in that house. It was not true, that county members were obliged to pay the election expenses: it was altogether optional with them. If county candidates did not think fit to give three days notice of their intention to stand the election, they were not legally bound to pay the expenses.

§ Mr. Lawson
said, that in a constitutional point of view he thought there were serious objections to the bill. He did not think that the expenses of elections should fall upon any of the candidates— not, certainly, on the unsuccessful candidate. It was unreasonable to demand that the political criminal should defray the expense of erecting that scaffold on which had been executed his hopes, his character, and not unfrequently his fortune. Nor was it fair at this game, that the loser should pay for the tables. According to the good old practice of the constitution, candidates were paid for their attendance in parliament, on the principle that elections took place for the benefit of the people; and he did not see why this practice should have been discontinued; for members ought to be remunerated for their trouble, whatever might be thought upon the subject by those who resorted to taverns instead of attending that House, and who looked for their remuneration to some casual extortion or unduly acquired place. But the opinion of such persons could have no weight with him [a cry of question!] He was surprised at the haste with which the hon. mover sought to press this measure. Although a professed advocate for parliamentary reform, the hon. member would not allow time to inquire upon a subject so interesting to the public. It was strange that the hon. mover, who was the other night such an advocate for in- 286 quiry upon the subject of the Bank restriction, should on this occasion be such a strenuous opponent of Inquiry—thus preferring precipitate injustice, to tardy justice. If the high bailiff had made a bad bargain, and could not be reimbursed by the dean and chapter, he should seek it at the hands of those who derived benefit from the arrangements necessary on such occasions; namely, the parties represented. With this view of the subject, if a division were pressed, he should be happy to be in a minority with the hon. baronet.

§ Mr. Bennet
observed, that no one but the hon. baronet had maintained the singular doctrine, that the expense attending the erection of hustings for the Westminster election should be defrayed by the high bailiff. If, indeed, this doctrine were admitted, in what a situation would, the high bailiff be placed! Seven years had elapsed since this officer had purchased his office, and if the hon. baronet's doctrine were established, he must have lost within that period no less than 3,000l. It had been stated, that the candidates at a Westminster election had to pay 2,000l. to the high bailiff for the expense of the hustings; but this statement was utterly untrue, as was another allegation very confidently made, that one of the candidates at the last election had a claim made upon him for 900l. So far was this from being true, that 900l. formed the whole amount of the charge for hustings, &c. at the last election. But dismissing these falsehoods, the question for the consideration of the House was this—was it fitting or just that the high bailiff should be obliged to pay the expense arising out of the erection of hustings necessary for the conduct of a contested election? The high bailiff had already suffered a severe loss, and a special act was passed for his relief from such a hardship. Yet to such hardship would this officer be again exposed, if the present bill were not passed into a law. But this bill was, in fact, in strict conformity with the principle of the law with regard to the elections for counties, and a mere transcript of the law which had existed in Westminster itself for above seven years, during which it was never petitioned against. No objection to this law had; indeed, ever been made either by the candidates for Westminster or their constituents, since its enactment. Yet it was now proposed by the hon. baronet to have this officer ren- 287 dered liable for an expense which it was no more fitting that he should pay, than that be (Mr. B.) should be called upon for it.

§ MR. D W. Harvey
observed, that although all sheriffs, and other returning officers in the country, were indemnified for any expense connected with elections, the high bailiff of Westminster should in equity be excepted from such indemnity: the services of the former being compulsory, while that of the latter Were voluntary. The former were compellable by law to accept their offices, and to discharge the duties attached to them; but the high bailiff had taken his office from choice, and for the acquisition of profit. This, indeed, appeared from the report of the committee with respect to that office, the high bailiff having confessedly paid 5,000l. for it originally, and avowed before the Committee, that in making that purchase, he calculated upon deriving profit from the return of members to that house. Was it to be endured as a principle, that a public officer should be allowed to obtain profit for executing the king's writ, and making the return of a member to that house? for these reasons he should vote with the hon. baronet.

§ Mr. Hume
observed, that the ton. mover had pat the question for the consideration of the house on this occasion rather unfairly. For the question was not, whether the high bailiff should pay the expense of a Westminster election or not, but whether that expense should be defrayed by the dean and chapter. This was the real question, and upon this he felt himself called to vote for the amendment, in order to afford time for examination. It was a principle always maintained by the chancellor of the exchequer, that where any man could obtain redress in a court of law, he was not entitled to make an appeal to that house. The high bailiff in making his contract for the purchase of his place, ought to have been apprized of the expenses to which be was liable in the execution of its duties. If so, he bad no grievance to complain of on the point before the house; but if not, he had his remedy by law, being entitled to tell the dean and chapter, that if they would not pay the expenses connected with the Westminster election, they must make the return themselves.

List of the Minority
Barnett, James	Sebright, sir J.
Harvey, D. W.	Williams, W.
Hume, Joseph	Wellesley, W. P. T. L.
Lawson, M.	TELLERS.
Ommaney, F. M.	Burdett, sir F.
Protheroe, E.	Wilson, Sir R.
Rancliffe, lord