Sitting of 29 March 1814

COLONIAL APPOINTMENTS.
Mr. Creeveyrose to move for copies of all letters patent, commissions, or other instruments, in virtue of which appointments had been made in his Majesty's West India colonies, and at Malta and Surinam. In doing this he did not expect to meet with any opposition. He should shortly put the House in possession of his object: which arose out of a Bill already under consideration, and coincided precisely with the 22d of the King, enacted in 1782, and which ordered, that all holders of patent places in the West Indies, granted after the passing of that Act, should become resident. The operation of this law was not made retrospective, as it would have borne with undue severity on the possessors of preexisting places. There were now in his Majesty's colonies, comprehending those acquired by war, 100 offices. Out of these, 90 had been granted since the passing of the Act which required personal residence; and yet it was a fact, that not one of the 90 holders of these places resided in the colony in which his appointment lay! he said nothing of the 10 who held their offices before the passing of the Act, as theirs was a case reserved; neither did he wish to deprive them of their places, as they had now enjoyed them for so many years, without any complaint from the inhabitants of the colonies; but when their interest in those offices should expire, he wished the state to take the profits arising from them, and to transfer them into the consolidated fund. But he wished to interfere with the places granted since 1782. If patent places, then their holders should reside in the West Indies; and if not patent, then they were removeable at his
376
Majesty's pleasures or might be compelled to become resident. He should prefer, however, that the House should abolish those situations, and turn their profits to the service of the state. He could have wished to have known the hon. and learned master in Chancery's (Mr. Stephens') further views on that subject. Of those which that hon. and learned gentleman had lately expressed, be much disapproved. In defence of the pretended vested right in places granted by commission, the duties of which were fulfilled by deputies, that hon. and learned member had instanced an officer in the army. But the comparison was most unfortunate; for if an officer in the army had acted as the holder of West India offices, and when the war broke out, and his regiment was ordered on foreign service, he remained at home, would not the crown take away his commission from him, and give it to another who should perform its duties? Even the learned master in Chancery himself, if he should go to another country, and never come near his office, would he think himself duly intitled to continue in the receipt of its profits? The first object, however, which the papers he now moved for would enable him to attain, would be, the ascertaining whether the offices in question were really patent places or not. On this knowledge further proceedings might be founded. As those papers would be very numerous, he had made a selection, confining himself to certain offices in certain colonies.
He then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal, highness the Prince Regent, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all letters patent, commissions, or other instruments, under and by virtue of which the several appointments in his Majesty's colonies hereafter mentioned have been made; viz. the right hon. sir Evan Nepean, bart. as clerk of the crown, and peace in the island of Jamaica, and as chief clerk of the supreme court in the same island; John King as naval officer of the same island; sir Thomas Capel as secretary, registrar, and receiver general of Berbice; John Augustus Sullivan, as secretary, registrar, and receiver of Demerara; Charles Greville as naval officer of Demerara and Essequibo; Charles Greville as secretary, registrar, and Clerk of the council of the island of Tobago; lord George Seymour as naval officer of St.

377
Croix, and as harbour master of the same; Adam Gordon is cranage master and ganger of the island of St. Croix; sir Walter James, bart. as vendue master of Surinam; sir James Athol Wood as vendue master of Curaçoa; the hon. Morton Eden as vendue master of Demerara and Essequibo; and Robert Richard Wood as vendue master of the island of Malta."
Mr. Goulburnwished to correct an error into which the hon. gentleman had fallen, through want of sufficient intimacy with West India affairs. He seemed to imagine, that a saving to the state would arise from the confiscations he proposed; whereas, in fact, no money saved by the suppression of offices could be transferred into the consolidated fund, unless the hon. gentleman should succeed in persuading the assemblies which governed the several islands to vote that money exactly in the manner he wished. He certainly did not pretend to know what their sentiments would be on that subject; but he was well aware, that those assemblies had always been found very unwilling to admit any external interference, in their domestic concerns.
Mr. Creeveyexplained. His great object was to abolish those offices; as they were places of patronage in the hands of the crown, and instruments of corruption.
Mr. Grantwished the consideration of the Colonial Bill to be put off till Thursday, when these returns might be made.
The motion was then put and agreed to, and an Address ordered to be presented to the Prince Regent, for the production of the papers.

ELECTIONS EXPENCE BILL.
Mr. Douglasrose, in pursuance of notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the more effectually preventing charge and expence in the elections of members to serve in parliament. The hon. member, in a tone of voice scarcely audible in the gallery, proceeded to explain the nature of the measure he was about to introduce. His object was, to restrict, or rather to prevent, the payment of their expences to what were called out voters, not resident in the borough when the election took place. He thought that some apology was in the first instance necessary for having ventured to undertake a subject of such great importance to all classes of the community—It not unfrequently happened, that while the older and more experienced members of parliament were fully em-
378
ployed upon questions of political economy that affected the immediate interests of the state, younger and less able hands were in a situation to propose some alternation in less obvious and momentous, though not ultimately less important subjects of legislation. From particular circumstances that it was unnecessary to detail, his attention had been particularly directed to the question now before the House; and from his connection with individuals for whose judgment he entertained high respect, he had been able to procure opinions of considerable value, which, he hoped he might add, would have no little influence on the House itself. Ill-fitted as he was to accomplish the task, he had devoted his utmost attention to perform it; and he could not avoid taking this opportunity of expressing his gratitude to many gentlemen with whom he had communicated, for the facilities they had afforded him; for the assistance they had given him, by their opinions and advice; and by the indulgence they had shewn to his comparative incapacity, which had emboldened him to endeavour to become the organ of this amendment of the law. There was one objection which would be likely to indispose many from giving him their aid in the accomplishment of his design; he meant the unwillingness that they felt to innovate upon established practices.—All speculative rashness in the pursuit of some doubtful good, or in the correction of some glimmering of abuse, he was most anxious to disclaim: such an imputation could not be laid to his charge; but there was a species of reform, which was often the very opposite to innovation: grounded upon old and established principles, it proceeded with caution, never venturing to move without calculating upon the consequences, whether it would tend more to renovate the old and excellent system, or to encourage and augment the corruptions which had crept into it. Such a reform must, of necessity, be accompanied by the good wishes and assistance of all friends to good order. It was no insignificant undertaking, thus early in his political life, to commence the reformation of the House of Commons, although he certainly was no advocate for what was vulgarly understood by the words Parliamentary Reform. By the improvement he was about to suggest he was in hopes of securing many important advantages, without incurring the danger that must

379
necessarily attend the sweeping reforms countenanced by some other members. In bringing this question under the notice of parliament it would be his duty, first, to prove the existence of the abuse he proposed to remedy; and then to state that remedy, and to shew that it would be effectual. The hon. member then noticed the proceedings of parliament on former occasions in the repeal, and virtual repeal, of some of the laws relating to the expences of elections. He referred also to the increase of the internal commerce of the country, and to the enlargement of the metropolis, and of the trading towns of the empire, which prevented any danger of rendering the number of electors too limited, by excluding the out-voters: it seldom, however, happened during a general election, that the scale was not in some instances turned by the weight of the out-voters, brought in by the members, frequently at enormous and ruinous charges. He was aware that he was now touching upon the most plausible and popular objection to his plan; since it would be urged, that he was virtually, if not openly, disfranchising a number of electors: if this were the fact, this plan would never have been proposed by him, or have received his vote if suggested by another. The truth was, that such a suspicion was founded upon exaggeration: he then proceeded to refer to the question, whether in fact the out-vote, when procured, was worth the expence at which it was necessarily obtained; but whichever way it was directed, it could not counterbalance the attainment of a great ultimate advantage. There was another much more serious grievance, existing by custom, and not by the constitution, originating in the electors, viz.—that the represented had no opportunity of looking round and selecting the representative who they thought would be most likely to guard and maintain their interests. It was not necessary for him to state any instances of this kind, since every general election supplied them; there were many cases likewise where, whole families had been reduced to poverty by vain attempts to obtain a seat in parliament which the ancestor had held, and to which ancestor the House was frequently indebted for much of its present consequence and dignity. It was impossible, as the House would see, to open the doors of parliament to some individuals, without excluding others; but those who would be
380
principally shut out by his Bill would be those to whom parliament was generally least indebted. He did not wish to retain those individuals, who, to use a trivial phrase, might be said to form the ready money interest of the country, who by means of their influence, or by the length of their purses, procured seats in the House. The hon. member then, in an almost inaudible voice, directed the attention of the House to the former statute made upon this subject, and to the previous resolution of parliament, that no elector for his expences should be allowed more than the sum of 10 l. This resolution had been always evaded, and the result was the passing of the Act he had referred to. If terms were ever unequivocal, those employed in that statute must be so considered: the title was "An Act to prevent charge and expence in the Election of Members of Parliament," nearly similar to that which he had adopted. It was there stated as fully and clearly as possible, that the payment of any part of the expences of any elector shall be unlawful; and it was utterly impossible that in such a Bill exceptions should be included which would defeat the very object that the measure had in view. In the year 1783, when lord Mahon presented a Bill containing the same or similar provisions, it was rejected, chiefly on the authority of lord Mansfield; and that great authority opposed it solely on the ground, that the law, as it then stood, without this addition, was adequate to the purpose. So confirmed was he in this opinion, that he objected to a clause proposed respecting the mere conveyance of the voters, because he said it might lead to endless corruption. This decision was strengthened by the opinion of lord chief justice Eyre, in a case which he decided upon this important subject. The same judgment had been given by eminent lawyers wherever the question was brought before them, but the determinations of committees of the House had not been conformable to it. The first committee before whom the point was in issue, was in the case of the Worcester Election in 1775; where it was decided, that to pay a reasonable sum for the expences of out-voters was not bribery. The next cause was that of Mr. Cater; where it was contended, that the most palpable bribery had been committed, under colour of defraying needful charges. Another case still stronger, was that of Barnstaple. The consequence of this dis-

381
crepancy was, that an opinion now generally prevailed, though directly in the teeth of the positive enactment, that the payment of expences was legal. This notation had been acted upon at every general election; and as it was possible that many elections might take place before a court of law could decide again upon the point, it was fit that an enactment should pass the House of Commons, to set the subject in a distinct and indubitable point of view. This sentiment had been entertained by many persons who had at previous times taken in hand this subject: lord Mahon, who, in consequence of it, brought in his Bill in 1783, carried it through the lower House. The next attempt to regulate and restrict this practice, was made by an hon. friend of his, in 1807, in whose hands he wished the present measure; but that was a declaratory measure, while the one he (Mr. Douglas) suggested was an enacting Bill: his friend's plan extended to counties as well as to boroughs; yet, in considering this question, although he (Mr. D.) deemed it equally illegal to pay the expences of voters at county elections, if it could be avoided, yet several reasons had induced him not to include that subject in the measure he now proposed. He did not think himself justified in interfering with the rights of freeholders who might be resident on their estates in distant parts of the county, and who had besides such sort of establishment there, as generally not to be influenced so much by corrupt motives. Having thus endeavoured to prove the policy and necessity of this measure, he should say, little more than to express his surprise how it was possible that many individuals, who were inclined to support the Acts against treating, could disapprove, as he had heard they did, of the Bill he wished to introduce. The other statutes were passed to prevent charges upon the member, and influence upon the voter; and why should they not second this attempt to reader them more effectual? Did they imagine that this new law would infringe the privileges of electors? but, however sacred they might hold them, they could not allow those privileges, falsely so called, to destroy and corrupt the great sources of the liberty of the nation. Do they think that the representation would be more free and unbiassed by the payment of the electors? if so, they ought to be the enemies to all kinds of restrictions on bribery. This measure only
382
carried a little further a principle which had been often recognized. When his Bill should be before the House, and the provisions were known and duly appreciated, he did not despair of the support even of the decided enemies of the treating Acts. The great object he proposed to himself was, the removal of the uncertainty that at present existed—and certainty being the main end of all civil policy, he should feel it his duty, if he was defeated in this attempt, to follow the victorious steps of some distinguished leader, who, rather than leave the subject dubious and vague, as at present, would bring in a Bill to declare the payment of expences to out-voters necessary and legal. He concluded by moving for permission to bring in a Bill, for the more effectually preventing charge and expence in the elections of members to serve in parliament.
The question was put and carried; and Mr. Douglas, Mr. Tierney, and Mr. Rose, were appointed to prepare and bring in the Bill. The nomination of the latter gentleman to assist in a reform in parliament, excited a general laugh.

PETITION OF MR. ST. JOHN PRIEST.
Mr. Whitbread presented a Petition of St. John Priest, clerk, master of the endowed school at Scarning, in Norfolk, rector of Reepham cum Kerdiston, in the said county, and vicar of Parham, with Hacheston annexed, in the county of Suffolk; stating the particulars of his case; and setting forth, that the petitioner has been summoned to appear in the court of Common Pleas to answer to Mr. William Wright, who sues for penalties said to be due from the petitioner on account of non-residence upon either of his livings aforesaid in the years 1812 and 1813, and incurred by the Act of 43 Geo. 3, c. 84; and praying for relief.
The Speakerreprobated the manner in which many petitions were presented, with the whole undigested mass of letters and affidavits on which they were founded, instead of an abstract of the whole.
Mr. Whitbread explained.
Mr. Bathurstwas aware, that there were many cases full as hard as those which he had already mentioned, or as the present. He described that of a clergyman who had a house in the country; and on applying to take a licence to go there, received a letter, stating that it was not necessary. Yet Mr. Wright had returned him among the non-residents.
Mr. C. W. Wynneadhered to the maxim, that we should not take advantage of our being in the wrong. Those who had incurred the penalty could not certainly bring that as a reason why they, should be excused paying the costs: neither, if brought, ought it to be admitted.
Mr. Prestonwas ready, for one, to introduce some clause into the Bill now pending, by which the prosecuted parties should be empowered to bring their case before a jury, and to produce the evidence required. If they were found guilty of pardonable neglect only, then they might be relieved from the payment both of the penalty and of the costs.
Mr. Manners Suttonthought this would only add to the difficulty. In that case, the law expences of the trial would fall on the individual; and he very much doubted, whether they might not prove heavier than the costs, which he would originally, though perhaps unjustly, have had to pay.
The Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

MAYO PETITION.
Mr. Wetherall presented a Petition from the petitioners against the return from the county of Mayo; praying that the time for receiving the recognizances appointed to be entered into should be enlarged.
The Speakerstated, that this was a Petition from certain individuals in the county of Mayo, praying to be allowed to lay before the House facts verified on oath, to shew cause why their time should be enlarged for entering into the recognizances demanded from them. The Act said, that such indulgence could not be granted unless it should appear to that House, by facts stated and verified upon oath, "That the applicants were entitled to it." This was exactly what the present petitioners wished to do. They offered to state facts to the House, verified by affidavits. As far as he could recollect, the House was not in the habit of receiving affidavits, taken out of doors, unless some member should be at hand to give a proper explanation, or the parties should be called to the bar to be examined.
Mr. Bathurstthought that, although not exactly consistent with practice, it would be hard not to take the oath of the petitioners, but to examine them at the bar of the House. If that course were adopted, it could not be known where it would stop.
Mr. C. W. Wynnethought an examination at the bar of the House the most proper course.
Mr. Bankessaid, the House would be departing from the course adopted in cases relating to the expences of their own members. If the evidence on oath were of that kind that on the face of it no suspicion could arise, then he should say that to receive affidavits would be complying with the sense of the act of parliament. He thought there were many and grave reasons for the House not departing from their usual practice.
The Speakerstated, that the same words occured in the Election Act of the 12th of the King, relating to excuses from members on account of sickness. The House had always, however, received evidence at their bar. The petition might be suffered to lie on the table; and the House, on a subsequent day could come to a determination on the course to be adopted with respect to it.
After a few words from Mr. Wetherall and Mr. Bankes, the petition was ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Wetherall presented a petition of the same import from the freeholders of the county of Mayo, which was also ordered to lie on the table.

REPORT FROM THE COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.
Mr. Brogden reported from the Committee of Supply the following Resolutions, which were read, and agreed to by the House:

1. Resolved, That a sum, not exceeding 1,900,000 l. be granted to his Majesty, for discharging interest on Exchequer bills.

2. That a sum, not exceeding 290,000 l. being the one hundredth part of the sum of 29,000,000 l. of Exchequer bills, authorized in the last session of parliament to be issued and charged upon the aids granted in the present session, and a further sum of 10,000 l. in respect of certain debentures issued by virtue of two Acts of the last session of parliament, be granted to his Majesty; and that the said sums, making together the sum of 300,000 l. be issued and paid, by equal quarterly, payments, to the governor and company of the Bank of England, to be by them placed to the account of the commissioners for the reduction of the national debt, for the year ending the 1st day of February 1815.

Preamble
The royal assent was given by commission to Mr. Grant's Indemnity Bill, and two others. The commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor, earl Cholmondeley and lord Walsingham.