A motion was made in the house of commons on the ninth of March by Mr. Marsham, and feconded by Mr. Honeywood, members for the county of Kent, for leave to bring in a bill for fecuring the freedom of election, by excluding perfons holding places in the navy and the ordnance from voting as electors. This bill underwent confiderable difcuffion on its fecond reading, which took place on the thirtieth of March. Mr. Marfham endeavoured to recommend it to the house, by ob. ferving that its object was merely to extend the provisions of an act, introduced by Mr. Crewe in the year 1782 for fetting afide the votes of the officers of the customs and excife, and which had always received the loudest applaufe of the friends of liberty and the conftitution. He replied to the common objection, that to deprive men of their franchifes was to inflict on them a punishment, and to fix a ftigma on their characters, by obferving, that a franchise was in relity of no value, when the per. fon by whom it was held was not permitted to exercife it according to his difcretion, and that in reality he was conferring a benefit, not committing an injury upon the perfons in question. He asked what right had any one to conceive that the bill would be deemed a hardship by the objects of it, and where were the petitions against it? Mr. Pitt rendered himself confpicuous by his oppofition to the bill of Mr. Marfham. He reprobated the idea that had been fuggefted, that the house would be guilty of any inconfiftency, in having for merly received the bill of Mr. Crewe, and new rejecting the bill of Mr. Martham. At the period in which the former had been in troduced, the house had very fuf ficient reafon for the conduct they had adopted. A fhort time before they had come to a refolution, that the influence of the crown had increafed, was increafing, and ought to be diminished. The truth of this pofition was abundantly apparent from the hiftory of the times; and the people had been convinced that it was under the operation of this influence, that the house of commons were induced to lend their affittance towards the carrying on a moit ruinous and difgraceful war, after it had long ceafed to be, what he much feared it once had been, a favourite with the nation. The object of Mr. Crewe's bill had been to give life and effect to the principle of that refolution, which otherwise must have remained a dead letter upon the journals. Nothing could certainly have been better calculated to reduce that influence of the crown which had been complained of as a grievance, than the restrictions thus impofed upon the officers of the revenue. But did it follow, that, because it was neceflary to reduce the influence of the crown to a certain level, it would of courfe be an act of inconfiftency to refufe to reduce it till farther? Had the object of Mr. Crewe's bill been accomplished? If not, why extend to a greater compafs an invidious distinction, which, having nothing to fupport it but its fuppofed beneficial operation, muft lofe all fhadow of pro. priety if that operation fhould appear to have failed? But if the bill had proved fuccefsful, then the object for which it was adopted was obtained, and all further proceed ings were rendered unneceffary. It was not however fo much upon thefe grounds, that Mr. Pitt thought it became him to oppofe Mr. Marfham's bill; fince he was willing to to admit, that any influence remaining in the crown, in matters of election, ought to completely deroyed. The farther arguments of Mr. Pitt were derived from the confideration of the defcription of people who were the objects of the operation of the propofed bill. The perfons excluded by Mr. Crewe's act, were fuch, as were concerned in the collection of the public revenue, and to whofe interefts an extention of the public burthens, muft neceffarily be conducive. How different was the fituation of the officers of the navy and ordnance The one fattened on the diftreffes of their country, the other earned a livelihood by contributing to its defence. A fecond point of difcrimination between them lay in this circumftance, that the officers of the excife and customs were difperfed over every part of the ifland; that they formed a phalanx which pervaded the kingdom, whereas the workmen belonging to the navy and the ordnance were entirely confined to a few particular fpots. But another dilinction more ftriking than all the reft was, that the revenue pincers were completely under the influence of government, which could in a moment reduce them to beggary. But on the contrary, the perions employed in the departments now under confider ation, had no reafon even to thank their employers. by going into the fervice of the merchant, they might earn as comfortable a livelihood as they could in the fervice of the public; and fhould they be exasperated by any ill treatment to leave the kingdom, there was not a maritime nation in the world that would not be ready to receive them. Had there, Mr. Pitt demanded, ever happened any real cate of complaint against any of the perfons belonging to this clafs, for fubmitting to take their orders from government at elections? The houfe would be pleafed o confider who were the reprefen-, tatives for thofe counties, Kent, Hampshire, Devonshire and Cornwal, to which this fuppofed influence was wholly confined. From their independence, as well in fortune as in principles, they were the very men, whom of all others a corrupt government would with to keep out of those walls. Mr. Fox replied to the reafonings of Mr. Pitt. Mr. Pitt had at firit feemed to imagine that there was fome degree of influence proper to remain in the crown; but he had afterwards recanted, and acknow ledged that no fuch influence ought to exift. But, if this were the cafe, the whole of his argument on the fubject of confiftency went for nothing, and the charge of felf-contradiction was completely brought home to him, if he perfiited in his oppofition. He had pretended to make a diftinction between the perfons concerned in the former and in the prefent bill. Mr. Fox fhould not take upon himself to fay which of the two bodies of men were the most dangerous; but he would affert, that the reafoning of Mr. Pitt upon this head did not reach the principle of the meafure, but only tended to prove, that, though it was neceflary and proper, it was not fo indifpenfible as the former regulation. It was difficult to avoid fmiling at the idea, that the arti fans, ir deprived of their votes in elections, would go to foreign countries in retentment. What were they to do abroad? Were they to have voices in the appointment of members of parliament in France? were they to influence the elections of Spain? or were they to look top a fhare in the aristocracy of Hol land? 1and? Mr. Pitt had ventured to fay, that no bad effects were fcit from the interference of thefe men in elections. Mr. Fox however inftanced in a late violent conteft for the county of Southampton, and averred, that no perfon, who remem bered the circumflances of that election, would pretend to fay, that the influence of government had not been employed upon the people in the dock yards. The idea of arguing, that, becaufe the exercife of influence had been unfuccefsful, the influence itself could not exift, was too ridiculous for animadverfion, That influence had not in any degree been diminished, fince the ceIcbrated refolution of the houfe of commons to which Mr. Pitt had referred. The circumftances of the late changes on the contrary proved, that it had continued moft rapidly to increafe, fo as to fill every true friend to the conftitution with alarming apprehenfions. The arguments of Mr. Pitt were further purfued by lord Mulgrave and Mr. Dundas. By the former of thefe it was enquired, who there was, that had ever dared to grant a workman preferment, merely on account of his election intereft? The man that did fo deferved to die upon a fcaffold. Mr. Dundas oppofed the bill upon the broadest principles. He declared, that it was highly indecent to fix a figma upon any fet of men, merely becaufe they were employed in the king's fervice. He reprobated Mr. Crewe act, and cefired any one to and up and fhow his face manfully in defence of it. He maintained that the idea of all reform bills of that fort, deferved a high degree of contempt and ridicule. The real fact was fimply this, that, whenever perfons of a particular defcription were out of place, they found it neceffary every now and then to amufe the public by ferving up a difh of disfranchifements. Mr. Sheridan replied to lord Mulgrave and Mr. Dundas. With regard to the dish of disfranchisement, Mr. Dundas, of all men, fhould not have fet it before the houfe, who must undoubtedly remember, that he had not only first been induced to nibble a little at a plate or fide difh filled with the fame ingredients, but had afterwards been brought to fit down to a whole courfe of dishes of that fort, when Mr. Pitt had ferved up his grand entertainment of parlia mentary reform. The object of that reform had been, not to disfranchife a fingle defcription of men merely, but a large number of votes from many different boroughs. Mr. Sheridan acknowledged, that Mr. Dundas had never made an affertion without being ready to fhow his face at the fame time; and he believed that the houfe would agree with him, that there was no argument, however irreconcilable with reafon or logic, upon which he had not been perfectly ready to put a good countenance. He added. however, that, if lord Mulgrave's obfervation were admitted, and if every man who ufed the influence of the crown improperly were to lofe his head, he was apprehenlive that Mr. Dundas would not at this day have had a face to have fhown. The fubject of the borough of. Queenborough was revived in this deorte. Mr. Courtenay ftated, that the economical reterm, which had been propofed in that quarter, had been originally undertaken upon a fuggettion of theduke of Richmond, though the duke had afterwards been the fift to counteract it. In the year 1782 the prefent maftergeneral, glowing with all the zeal of patriotic reform and the hopes of of coming into office, had in one of his declamatory invectives pointed out Queenborough, as a ftriking inftance of the corrupt practices of administration, and of the lavifh expenditure of the public money in the department of the ordnance, On that ground lord Townshend had ordered an enquiry, had re ceived the report of the fuperintendant, and had given exprefs or ders for the execution of the plan in the clofe of the year 1783. The duke of Richmond however, eager as he always was to ferve his country, and to proceed immediately to bulinefs, had after kifling hands, gone immediately down to the board room, and entered a minute upon his own authority, to check the officious zeal of the fuperintendant, and fave the loyal freemen of Queenborough from deftruction. Mr. Courtenay declared his refolution to vote for the bill. Mr. Martin followed him upon the fame fide, and expreffed not a little aftonishment to think how any gentleman, who fupported Mr. Crewe's aft, could reconcile it to his mind not to vote for the prefent bill. The bill was fupported by Mr. Clerk Jervoife, and Mr Sawbridge. It was oppofed by Mr. Grenville, Mr. Pye, Mr. Drake, Mr. Gascoyne, fir Edward Deering, and fir Charles Middleton. Upon a divifion the numbers appeared, ayes for the fecond reading 41, noes 117. We have given fome account in our volume of the two bills of lord Mahon, now earl Stanhope, for the regulations of elections. The former of thefe, which was the moft important, received the fanction of the house of commons in the preceding feflion, and was rejected in the lords at the particular inftigation of lord Thurlow. It was accordingly introduced anew into parliament early in the feffion of 1786; and its author, in the fpeech he made upon the queftion for leave to bring it in, was particularly fevere upon its dignified oppofer in the other houfe. He faid, that it had been treated on that occafion on the part of one person with all the candour, with all the decency and decorum, and with all the ref pect to the house of commons who had adopted it, which that affembly unquestionably deferved; and he ftigmatized the conduct of that perfon, as containing in it fomewhat more, than one would have thought quite fufficient to gratify the most bitter tory spleen. The bill was oppofed upon its fecond reading on the twelfth of May, by Mr. William Grenville. He stated it to the houfe as a system of impracticability and Eutopianifm. A bill fimilar to the prefent had been paffed in the parliament of Ireland in the courfe of the laft feffion, and fuch had appeared likely to have been its operation and effect, that, had any vacancy for a county member happened, there would not have been a fingle freeman qualified to vote for the candidate who of fered to fill up the vacancy. He understood therefore, that the very first act of the Irif parliament in the prefent feffion had been to pafs a bill, to fufpend the operation of their act of the preceding feffion. The bill was farther oppofed by Mr. William Young, Mr. Powys, and Mr. Baftard. It received the fupport of fir Jofeph Mawbey, fir William Dolben, the earl of Surrey, and Mr. Pitt. Upon the quef tion for fending it to a committee, the houfe divided, ayes 98, noes 22. The bill having paffed the commons, at length came under the difcuffion of the house of lords. It was a circumftance favourable to its fue fuccefs, that lord Thurlow was at this time confined to his house by indifpofition. Lord Stanhope, in a fpeech which he delivered on the twentyninth of June upon the motion for the fecond reading, endeavoured to explain and recommend to the houfe the measure of which he was the author. He obferved that the bill had been called a bill of dif. franchisement. Every measure for regulating and reducing with method and order a bufinefs like that of election, muft neceffarily be capable of that operation. His bill however had greatly the preference over that of Mr. Powys, which had been paffed in the year 1780, and which had directed, that the mode in which county voters fhould be afcertained, fhould be by the books of the land-tax affeffors. By that bill any mistake, whether involuntary or by defign, of omitting or even mifpelling a name, difqualified the perfon to whom the error related. By the prefent bill, no man could be disfranchifed but by his own fault. Such was the abfurdity of the exifting law, that at the last general election it was difcovered, that more than one half of the freeholders of the kingdom were under disfranchifement. The duplicates of the land-tax, which ought to be figned and fealed by three commiffioners, had fome of them been figned only by two, fome by one, and others not at all. In a particular election an exprefs had been fent poft hafte to town to an eminent counfel, to know what was to be done. The counfel very ingeniously advifed his client to proceed directly in the teeth of the act of parliament, in order to get over the difficulty, and to give to thofe votes the prima facie appearance of good votes. This was done, and no perfon making an 2 Another objection it fucceeded. The fpeech of earl Stanhope was replied to by lord Sydney. He urged ftrongly the fhortnefs of the period that remained for difcuffion; and, remarking that the bill had been many months in the other houfe, afferted, that it would be indecent not to allow their lordships as many days for its confideration. Earl Stanhope had furnished one exceedingly strong argument in fupport of the motion which lord Sydhey intended to make. That nobleman, who profeffed himself to be converfant with the laws relative to elections, had afferted, that all the laws on the fubject were defective and replete with error and contradiction. Surely the truth of an affertion of fo important and comprehenfive a nature, required inveftigation. It was not his cuftom, added lord Sydney, to addrefs his arguments to any fpeech delivered at another time in another affembly; but, as lord Stanhope had himself been in the house of com mons when the bill was introduced there, |