ever unqualified, was to get a majority of votes, by this Act we should be obliged to admit him as a Member, and it would lay in the breast of the King and Lords whether the Houfe fhould have any redrefs. He was extremely fevere on the noble Lord throughout the whole of his speech.

COLONEL BARRE, amongst a variety of other particu- Col. Barre. lars, faid, he fincerely hoped Lord North would not infift on the abolition, and call forth his Minifterial influence to carry a measure so obnoxious to the independent part of the Houfe; but that, should his Lordfhip make a point of oppofing the Bill effectually, he felt himfelf fo warmed with enthufiaftick zeal for the meafure, that he would fpeak fuch things to the Houfe as fhould make the gentlemen in office tremble. This the Colonel declared he fhould do, regardlefs of danger or any perfonal inconvenience.

Mr. AUBREY-I fhall naturally be expected to favour this Mr.Aubrey. motion, from the acquaintance I had, very honorable to me, with the author of the Bill before us.. For could there be a doubt of its utility, yet the impreffion which his great knowledge and integrity had made upon all who perfonally knew him, would alone incline them to refpect any plan modelled by him. But were all perfonal motives removed, I could not help giving my teftimony of approbation to this last act of that great Statesman, who, unhappily for this country, is now no more. He has, however, left us this Bill, which I truft, from its importance in fecuring the rights of the people, will be confidered as an inviolable legacy to us and our pofterity.

The reasons upon which it is founded is well known. The . power invested in the whole Houfe of deciding elections was liable to abuse. Votes were determined rather by the influence of parties, than by the merits of the caufe: and there cannot be a ftronger proof of this, than the thinnefs of the House in the course of evidence, and the crowds that rushed in at the close of it to give their fuffrages to that they could not have examined; infomuch that, in the other House, a late noble Peer, of a very diftinguished character (Duke of Argyle) called us, in derifion, that tribunal where there are few to hear, but many to judge.

To remedy thefe mifchiefs, the prefent Bill was framed. And though many gentlemen, in the courfe of this debate, have laid much stress upon the circumftance of the time for its expiration being limited by the author of it, yet I can take upon me to affure the Houfe, from my own knowledge, that he never meant it as a Bill of experiment. The fact is (and I can appeal to fome gentlemen now in the Houfe to bear me witness in the affertion) that Mr. Grenville originally intended to

make

make this a perpetual Bill; but, in compliance with the opinions and folicitations even of his friends, who feared, that, by attempting too much at once, as the subject was as new as it was important, they might lofe the whole; and that there might be no complaint of its being haftily obtruded upon the Houfe, he modeftly recommended it only upon trial. And I look upon this as a ftrong argument of his own conviction, that a trial would only ftrengthen and establish it. How foon this trial would be made could not be foreseen. It was therefore neceffary fome period to it fhould be fixed. But it is clear that a trial has already fufficiently been made in the opinions of many, otherwife we fhould not have met to-day to debate upon this motion. Has not this Bill proved in fact what it appeared to be in fpeculation? Has not the decifion of every Committee been fo impartial and juft, as to meet with the applause of the whole nation? I am one of thofe, Sir, who will venture to appeal in particular to that of the Shoreham election. For, whatever may be the opinion of fome gentlemen concerning it, it fo far received the fanction of the whole Legiflature, as to be followed by an Act of Parliament, which I hope to fee the great land-mark for future Committees to fteer by on all fimilar occafions.

The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Fox) who spoke last but one feemed to think, that the Houfe, by this Bill, parts with a power it ought to maintain. Others, perhaps, may go ftill further, and urge the common maxim, that the abuse of a power is no argument against the use of it. This I acknowledge to be true in any one particular instance; but I cannot help thinking, that the frequent and conftant abufe of any power is the ftrongest argument for its total abolition. I leave it to the memories of the oldeft Members of the House to make the application.

It is therefore a power which no honeft man would wish to fee continued with us. It likewise makes us fubject to the influence of a party, which, whenever juftice is concerned, can never be exerted but to bad purpofes. For how could equity prevail, when every diffent from a friend was held a breach of friendship? On the contrary, this Bill leaves every man independent of party claims; both him from whom it takes the power, and him to whom it gives it; for the latter being bound by his oath, has nothing to liften to but evidence.

Some gentlemen have objected, that, after the next general election, petitions will probably be fo numerous as to embarrass a Committee with a series of tedious examinations. If this objection fhould appear well grounded, why may not feveral Committees be appointed at the fame time? The prin

ciple of the Bill is, I believe, univerfally admitted. For the fake of this, therefore, let it be perpetuated; as it will be always open to amendments, and whatever may be the inconveniences of its prefent mode, I am fure there can be none so fhocking in a cafe of justice and equity as the fhort question.

A noble Lord (North) who fpoke early in the debate, expreffed his furprise that gentlemen on this fide of the House fhould think fo well of this Parliament as to choose to trust the fate of this Bill with it. Sir, with regard to what the noble Lord alludes to, I am bold to fay, there is no man in this House that can more difapprove of fome of its paft decifions, particularly that of the Middlefex election, than myfelf. But I am, at the fame time, willing to acknowledge its merit, whenever I When, therefore, the noble Lord afks why we need establish this Bill during the prefent Parliament? I answer, this loufe of Commons firft brought it to light. This House of Commons has experienced its utility. Let us not leave it to another to confirm it. Upon the whole, I cannot help faying of this Bill, what its great author, in the warmth of his zeal and affection, faid of the Houfe of Commons itself, efto perpetua.

can.

Mr. De Grey, jun. spoke a few words against the Bill.

CAPTAIN PHIPPS, in a long and animated fpeech, faid, Mr. Phipps. no perfon could object to the old mode of trying elections more than he did, for it was an infult to common fenfe to call themfelves a Court of Judicature, on several elections which he had feen tried, to one of which he was applied to attend, but gave his vote against his friend, for which it was faid he used him ill. He faid the House used always to be a scene of confufion, during the trial of an election, and, if the petition was founded on bribery, it was laughed at. He afterwards fpoke much in favour of the prefent method, and faid, he agreed with the Hon. Member who feconded the motion, that any person who objected to it was an enemy to his country.

COLONEL BURGOYNE, in a spirited fpeech, fet forth Col. Bur the utility of the Act, faid, the plunder of Afia had been diftri-goyne. buted about this country in fuch a manner as made it neceffary for fome stop to be put to the growing evil, otherwife no natural intereft or merit would ever be able to gain a feat; he therefore fincerely wifhed the Act might be made perpetual, as it would deter many a young Nabob from fquandering away his fortune, in hopes of a feat at the general election.

LORD GERMAINE faid, he well remembered the iniqui-Lord Ger tous proceedings on former trials of elections, the parties used maine, to apply to one set of the House to be their Managers, another fet to give their Attendance and Intereft; to a third fet, with

VOL. VII.

I

whom

Mr. Ellis.

Mr. Dun

ning.

Sir Gilbert
Elliot.

whom they were intimate, they would apply for their Vote and to the lazy part of the Houfe they would fay, We won't trouble you to attend the dry examination of a parcel of mean evidences; only let us know where you will be, and when the question is going to be put, we'll fend you a card.' Such were the proceedings of former trials; and he was certain, every Member, who had feen both methods, would give the preference to the latter. As to the arguments used by the Honorable Gentleman (Mr. C. Fox) they needed but little reply; for it was abfurd to think the House, by this Act, gave away their privilege, as every Member had a chance of being one of the Committee, if he chofe to attend. It was ridiculous to say that the Act was defective, and let it pass on fo until the term it was made for. No, let it be made perpetual now, and if there were any amendments to be made, they could be made afterwards; it was dangerous to let flip fuch an opportunity, as not knowing who would be Minifter at the expiration of the Act; he might be a great enemy to the Bill; and as for a perfon faying, let the Act go on as it is now, when its time expires, I will not be againft renewing it;' he would be bound to fay they would not have it in their power to give a second opinion on it, if they let the prefent occafion flip them; he said, the author of the Bill had preferved a good name while in office, and when out; and he fincerely hoped the noble Lord would endeavour to have his name handed down to pofterity with the fame honor as Mr. Grenville had.

Mr. WELBORE ELLIS faid, it was highly ridiculous to make this Act perpetual now, though he loved the Bill: for as the noble Lord (North) had said, a proper trial of its merits had not been made, and it was confiftent with the rules of the House in all commercial Bills to make them temporary, until proper proof had been made of their utility: he faid, the encouragers of the Bill had endeavoured, with the zeal of lovers, to protect it, but he was confident it would deceive them at the laft.

Mr. DUNNING made an apology for his cold, and faid, no perfon had a jufter right to be against the Bill than himself, for it had hurt him much in his profeffional capacity; for, fince the Act had been put in execution, not one trial had come into Westminster-hall; and he was confident, was the Act made perpetual, there never would be one; yet he would always facrifice private emolument to publick good: he expatiated much on the merits of the Act, and he would venture to fay, at a general election, it would be found (even with all its defects as had been stated) a glorious Act.

SIR GILBERT ELLIOT made a long speech of the privi

leges

leges of Parliament in the reign of Elizabeth, but mentioned not a word of the merits or demerits of the Bill, only faid, he fhould oppofe it now.

Mr. EDMUND BURKE was at once fatirical, mafterly, and Edmund eloquent. He attacked the Minifter in the most pointed terms; Burke. called upon his boasted honesty to fupport the perpetuity of the Bill; he said, though the noble Lord was daily deferted by numbers, he would still be deferted by more, for there were men in that Houfe, not like the Minifter, tired of being honeft. In addreffing the Houfe, he faid, we have the noble Lord now, let him not flip through our fingers; trust not to his fpecious promises a fingle hour; his fimooth-tongued plaufibility is calculated only to deceive; let us at once finish the bufinefs by making the Bill perpetual; and if it ftands in need of amendments, they can be confidered afterwards, but let us have no fhuffling off, no delay, no previous queftion.

derburne.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL, in a long and masterly Mr. Wedfpeech, expatiated on the foundation of the Bill; he was very fevere on Mr. Charles Fox, who, he faid, had dreadful apprehenfions of lofing his privileges; but did he think, if an old woman was to petition the Houfe, her petition would be referred to a Committee; and if it was, could he have any apprehenfions from the decifions of the Committee? No. But if the young gentleman was not of fuch an obftinate difpofition, he would endeavour to convince him of his error. He concluded with wishing the Bill might be made perpetual.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL fpoke much against the Bill Mr. Thurbeing made perpetual; he attempted to ridicule the methods low. prefcribed by it; he faid, what was the word Nominee, but Manager; and contended that a perfon ftood no better chance of having a fair decifion from the prefent method than he had from the former.

Lord George Cavendish anfwered the whole of his objections in a very fpirited manner, and reminded him that both the judges and evidences were on oath by the prefent method, which they were not in the former.

Mr. Stanley made nearly the fame objections to the Bill as

Lord North,

Sir George Saville, in a long and animated fpeech, went through the whole of their objections, which, he faid, amounted to nothing; he afterwards expatiated much on the merits of the Bill, and was for its being made perpetual,

Sir William Meredith fpoke much in favour of the Bill, but was averfe to any reflections being thrown on the noble Lord (North),

I 2

Mr.