stitutional as it was unlimited; for what could be easier than to evade its provisions, should contracts for the purpose of corruption be actually bestowed, by holding them in the names of others, and so deriving the emolument without the ineligibility here created? On all these grounds, he was against the Bill going to a committee.

Sir George Yonge said, the noble lord's strongest objections went rather to the clauses than the principle of the Bill, and as they served to shew that the Bill wanted amendment and was too loosely drawn, he could not but consider them as good reasons for suffering it to go to a committee. Earl Nugent argued against the Bill. He said the commission of accounts was the source of salvation to be looked up to, and not such bills as that under consideration: which never had, nor never would produce any good to the country. As a proof of this he instanced the Pension Bill, brought in by Mr. Pulteney merely to recover his popularity, when it was almost lost. That Bill was declared at the time to be the great cleanser of that House, "to purge its gross humours and purify its blood." What had been the consequence? Let the gentlemen on the other side the House answer: they who were every day loud in declaring, that the House was more corrupt than ever. He considered all attempts to disqualify men, and to exclude them from the fair enjoyment of hereditary rights, as exceedingly improper. It was not consistent with the true spirit and principle of our constitution. It was a mean, nibbling policy, extremely different from the broad and liberal basis of the ancient fabric of our liber ties; but there was an itch for reformation prevalent in that House exceedingly reprehensible.

. Mr. Powys attacked the noble lord who began the debate on his mode of argument: his lordship had, he said, reasoned against the commitment on the very ground which evinced its necessity, and had condemned it in one breath for being too efficient, and altogether nugatory. The noble lord surely did not offer such arguments to convince the House, nor could he be convinced by them himself, but had suspended his true ones from some of those motives he had imputed to the last parliament, either wishing to concede to the people by the most ineffectual reformation they desired, or to stop the progress of this Bill in the upper House, as formerly.

Colonel Onslow not only disapproved of the Bill on account of its being calculated to shut the doors of that House against the merchants in general, whom he thought one of the fittest descriptions of people to sit in it, but on the general idea of its introducing a spirit of innovation that might be carried to a dangerous excess. If this Bill to exclude the merchants were passed, he should not wonder to see some other gentleman start up and propose to bring in a Bill to exclude the military. As great a variety of arguments might be used in support of such a proposal, as could be advanced in support of the present Bill. We should then hear violent harangues about the danger and the impropriety of red coats. And then at a future day, a third gentleman would be encouraged to rise and propose the exclusion of every naval officer, then we must have no blue coats; and after that a fourth might attempt to do the same with the lawyers, and then we must have no black coats and great wigs, and to make that House again a Parliamentum Indoctum, an unlearned parliament. Gentlemen might reason upon the latter position thus: "These lawyers come here merely to get preferment, to be made attornies and solicitors general, judges, and chief justices. Nay, sooner than miss the latter object, a lawyer will consent to be a chief justice in air. They only puzzle us country gentlemen. Three or four of them get up, and make speeches of three or four hours long each, till we are so bewildered that we can scarcely tell white from black. Let's out with them, and then we shall be the better able to understand one another." The colonel said, there would be no end to projects and alterations if the present proposal was adopted. He had other reasons also for opposing it. In the first place, he had rather at any time sit down with a gentleman than with his footman. If the Bill passed, all the respectable and wealthy men would stay out of parliament, and they would send their servants and dependents to that House. In fact, if the minister chose to practise corruption, it would be done in a much more underhand manner. Now, every person knew who the contractor was; if the Bill passed, the contract would go through so many hands, that a great deal more of the public money would be wasted; if gentlemen, however, were violently bent on purifying that House, let them begin with turning out all those members that were sent there by

the electors.

Sir P. J. Clerke pointed out the pernicious tendency of contracts to the independency of the House, and called them more dangerous means of influence than any others in the hands of government. He alluded particularly to the favours conferred upon Messrs. Muir and Atkinson, the latter of whom was stated in the list of the subscribers to the loan to have only 200,000l. but all these dependents and connections appeared at the same time considerable subscribers. Similar to this was the case of an eminent banker, whose subscription was given at 60,000l. while every clerk in his house had astonishing large sums to the amount altogether of more than 300,000l. He animadverted on what had been advanced in objection to the Bill, and particularly on the arguments advanced by the noble lord who begun the opposition to it. It was rather singular, that after so long a time, such arguments should be resorted to. It was a strange discovery, that the members of that House were to be prevented by the Bill from selling to government the produce of their estates. No such idea had ever entered into his head: but if a member of that House went into the closet of a first lord of the treasury, and there made a secret bargain, by which he received three times the sum for his timber, his iron, or his copper, that it was worth, the Bill interfered and discharged that member from his seat in that House, because it was evident that he had an interest in maintaining the war in which we are so unfortunately engaged, and that his interest and those of his constituents were different. He ridiculed the affected terrors about innovation and encroachment. To be sure, the fabric of the constitution would receive a dreadful shock by the exclusion of contractors! They were a set of men for whom the constitution ought to entertain' the greatest

honourable distinction between the fair and respectable merchant, who made his contracts at a public bidding, and exe cuted them in an open, responsible manner, and the man who made parliamentary interest the ladder to preference, and who was protected in every peculation for the same cause. He wished to see merchants in that House: he considered them as the most respectable men, when they came there independent, with the virtuous intention of guarding the commercial welfare of the kingdom. But it could be no hardship upon them to be told by an act, that if they preferred a secret to an open contract, they must give up their hereditary eligibility of sitting in that House. They knew the terms, and it was a voluntary surrender of their right on their own part, not a violent disfranchisement by parliament. The argument also, that the Bill would be injurious to the public service, because many contracts would require to be made in private, was idle and silly: it did not prevent government from making private contracts; it only directed them, when they made such contracts, to seek for merchants who were not members of parliament, and it was a libel upon that body of men, to say that there were not a sufficient number of men properly qualified to execute the contracts of government out of that House. It was equally puerile to say, that there would be danger in giving the contract at all times to the lowest bidder. There was no such provision in the Act. It left a degree of discretion in government, sufficient to guard against the evil of intrusting contracts to needy adventurers. The best bidder was not always the lowest bidder, and government by this Bill would still be left in the exercise of their judgment, to give the preference where it was most justly due.

Mr. Rosewarne began with observing, that as this Bill had been repeatedly the topic of parliamentary discussion, he did not rise with any hopes of throwing new light on a subject, which must be considered as nearly exhausted; and yet, as a new member of a new parliament, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote on so important a subject; and as, from his situation, he never could possibly be a contractor, he felt himself more at ease in speaking his mind on this occa, sion. He then observed, that an hon. gentleman had said he by no means wished to exclude merchants, who had a seat

by any of the contract opponents on the other. That on the whole, there did not appear to be either policy or justice in the formation of the Bill, and that he certainly should vote against it. He then reminded the House, that in a former debate he had mentioned his very peculiar situation, and that in the midst of the clamours for the reduction of salaries, his own had been considerably increased; that his enemies had dared to represent it as a vile election job, a secret bargain with the treasury, so that what he had considered as the greatest honour of his life, had been, through the malice of his enemies, endeavoured to be wrested to the ruin of a character, which was before wholly irreproachable. He had called on the noble lord in the blue ribbon to justify him from this scandalous aspersion; but the noble lord had not answered his call; he could not therefore rest satisfied. He called now solemnly on the noble lord to declare, on his honour, if there was the least shadow of foundation for the vile report. If the noble lord hesitated to do him jus tice, he would certainly do justice to him. self, by instantly resigning the office, and paying into the public treasury every farthing he had received in consequence of the additional salary, and then he should at least have the consolation of knowing that he had served his country to the utmost of his abilities, and that his services had been rewarded with the approbation of his countrymen, which he should ever esteem a very great reward. His colleague was not in the House on the former occasion. Let him now declare what he knew of the matter, and whether his conduct on the occasion was not grounded on principles of honour and virtue. He could not rest satisfied, till this matter was fully explained.

in that House, from executing contracts, and that the Bill would not prevent them; it only prevented their doing it improperly. Undoubtedly, there was a salvo in the Bill, that merchants may have contracts, provided it is at a public bidding; but gentlemen must know it was impossible to treat for those things at a public bidding; the consequence would be, that a number of persons, noways responsible, would attend, and beat down the prices of all commodities infinitely below the standard; and if such persons were the contractors, they would not be able to execute them, and the consequence would be, our fleets and armies would be either starved or poisoned. He had heard no answer given to an objection made by an hon. member, which appeared to him unanswerable: to wit, that the Bill was nugatory in itself. He begged leave to pur. sue the argument a little farther. If ministers were really those corrupt creatures the other side of the House painted them to be, and members were equally willing to be corrupted, would this Bill prevent it? Exactly the contrary; it would produce a dark, vile, secret corruption, tenfold worse than that which was pretended to exist at present; and, instead of having men in responsible situations, amenable to the justice of parliament, they would have none for contractors but such as would be totally incapable of performing their contracts, and perhaps, when called on to answer for their conduct, they would not be to be found. But did gentlemen really think it was a necessary consequence of a member having a contract, that in holding a place under govern. ment, he was thereby induced to support government on all occasions, even in case a minister was to attempt to destroy the liberties and constitution of the country? From whence did they draw this conclusion? Was it from their own feelings? No; he would not do them that injustice; they did not really think it themselves. It was the common-place language of every opposition, and increased in violence in proportion to the length of time a minister continued in office, and therefore it was not to be wondered at, that it operated so strongly at present. But if a minister was ever to be hardy enough to attempt to make the experiment, and introduce a Bill into the House really hostile to liberty and our excellent constitution, he did not doubt but he would be as firmly opposed by a great majority on that side the House, as [VOL. XXI.]

Lord North apologized to the hon. gentleman for not having attended to his appeal a few days since; called on in the solemn manner that he had been, he felt it incumbent on him to do justice to the hon. gentleman's character, but imagining he should have had occasion to rise in the course of the day, he had waited for an opportunity; the debate, however, taking a new turn, it so happened, that no occasion had offered. Undoubtedly, the hon. gentleman had a right to expect that he should do him justice in assisting to clear his character from those aspersions which had been thrown out; that assistance he was extremely ready to give. [4 U]

The hon. gentleman held the office of vice warden of the stannaries of the duchy of Cornwall, and two years ago the lord warden presented a petition to the Treasury, signed by almost every nobleman and gentleman in the county, stating, that the vice warden's duty was extremely laborious, that the hon. gentleman discharged it with great ability, fidelity, and very much to his honour; and that he was extremely ill paid for his trouble. As this petition had the most respectable list of subscribers' names annexed to it, that perhaps were ever put upon paper, and as it spoke of the hon. gentleman in terms of the highest respect, the Treasury imme. diately instituted an inquiry, and found every allegation of the petition true; it appeared on examination, that the duty of the vice warden was very laborious indeed; the hon. gentleman having sometimes 80 or 90 causes to try in a year, some of which took up two or three days hearing, and for which he received a salary by no means adequate. Upon this ground it was, and upon no other, that his salary was augmented. With regard to the addition having been granted by way of election job, nothing could be further from the truth than such an insinuation. He had never seen the hon. gentleman but once before he became a member of that House, and so little did he know of his having any interest in a borough, he really could not have told, previous to his election, in what part of Cornwall his interest lay. Mr. Rosewarne's return for Truro, was first announced to him by the public newspapers, and he could with the greatest confidence assert, that the augmentation of his salary was promised long since, in consequence of the petition he had mentioned. His lordship now said a few words on the question before the House. It was absurd to imagine, that if contracts were Fublicly disposed of, the highest bidder would be the most responsible person: on the contrary, it was the adventurer only who would contract on hazardous terms, while the monied man, able to employ his property in other channels, would require an adequate advantage for serving the public. Where the trust was consequential therefore, it was requisite to give a discretionary power for lodging it in

safe hands.

After some further conversation, the question being put, That the Speaker do now leave the chair, the House divided:

ག

Debate on Mr. Crewe's Bill to disable Revenue Officers from Voting at Elections.] The order of the day being read, for the second reading of the Bill" for better securing the freedom of elections of members to serve in parliament, by disabling certain officers employed in the collection or management of his Majesty's revenues, from giving their votes at such elections,"

Earl Nugent opposed it, on the same ground that he had the Contractors' Bill; namely, that these innovations were extremely dangerous and nugatory. He was an enemy to disqualifications of every sort, and had never been in the opinion that they could answer any salutary purpose, either by purifying that House, or rendering the constituent body less corrupt. He had said that Mr. Pulteney's Place Bill, which was a scheme more likely in theory to produce salutary consequences than any of these chimerical notions, had yet proved a mere chimera. It had done nothing, if we believe the daily assertions of gentlemen on the other side of the House, that we were more corrupt than ever, and that the influence of the crown had increased, and was increasing. He declared that he did not think it justifiable in that House to disqualify a great body of their constituents, merely because they were useful and necessary servants of the crown, and valuable members of society. It was an illiberal sentiment to believe, that because they received a small emolument for their services, that therefore they were to prostitute their franchises, and give up their opinion to the disposal of others.

Mr. T. Townshend warmly supported the Bill, and reprobated the vague ideas of the noble lord, that there was either cruelty or injustice in taking from excisemen their right of voting at elections. It was a dis. franchisement only upon certain conditions, and which conditions were fairly pointed out and specified: if the freeholder of any county, or the burgess of any corporation, chose to accept it under the condition of

they might preserve their places. A number of instances of a similar nature might be produced sufficient to convince the House that it would be kindness and not cruelty to relieve them from this disagreeable right.

Mr. Perceval spoke against the Bill, as tending to deprive a great and respectable number of the electors of this kingdom of their ancient and inherent franchise. He disapproved of all such plans of reformation. In all these modern systems of reform, it seemed to be the design to give the right of voting to those who had it not, and to take it from those who had. Admit the propriety of this disqualifying Bill, and the same arguments would go against any description of men in the kingdom.

Mr. Crespigny mentioned an instance of a whole body of excisemen resisting bribes and menaces, when thrown out by government to induce them to vote for a man whom they disapproved. These were his constituents, and he had therefore a right to say that they were not dangerous possessors of the right.

surrendering, while he held it, his franchise of voting. It was therefore a matter of election, and depended totally on himself. If he considered his franchise superior in value to the office, he would reject the one and preserve the other. In short, being a matter of choice, a mere condition annexed to a valuable consideration, it could not be either unjust or severe. On the contrary, it would be a kindness to excisemen to take from them this painful franchise, in the unrestrained exercise of which they were obliged to sacrifice friendship often, and opinion almost always. He mentioned several instances of severity in this particular, and several boroughs, where the independent interest had been totally overborne by this undue influence of the crown. He knew boroughs, where, by the overbearing influence of excise officers, government had it in their power to place what gentlemen they pleased, without consulting the inclinations of the electors, or even taking the decent trouble of informing them who it was that they meant to impose upon them. By this means it frequently happened that so far from giving a preference to the court candidate, from their opinion of his abilities, integrity, or zeal for their interests, they knew not even his person, and never heard of his name till it was declared from the hustings. Nay, to such a length was this system of domination and slavery carried, that even the candidates themselves were unacquainted with one another, and when they met upon the hustings, or afterwards by accident, they would accost one another with a sort of distant civility: "Sir, your name-You have the advantage of me," and so forth. All this unaccountable and slavish system, however, must be maintained, because innovation was dangerous. Whatever errors intruded into the ancient simplicity of our constitution must be cherished because the skill of the physician might be fatal. Such arguments were too idle to bear a moment's reflection. This evil ought to be remedied. It had advanced to an enormous weight of influence, and the disgraceful consequences of it brought obloquy on that House as well as ruin on the country. He mentioned one borough in particular, where the hereditary interest of an ancient family had been totally overthrown by this corrupt power, and where the electors, with tears in their eyes, and with heavy hearts, were compelled to abandon their patron and their friend, to vote for a stranger, that

Mr. Rolle supported the principle of the Bill as a just and necessary measure of reform, by which the, freedom of election would in a great measure be restored. In his own canvas for Devonshire, he had met with many instances of the cruel bondage in which the excise officers were held, and one in particular, which struck him very forcibly. A person who was an intimate friend of his own, was compelled to vote for the other candidate, after having given him his assurance of voting for him, in consequence of a peremptory injunction, accompanied with a menace, that if he did not, he would be turned out of his office; his friend shewed him the letter, and appealed to him for his advice; he was himself determined to vote for him at all hazards, but Mr. Rolle said, he would not be the means of depriving him and his family of support, and insisted on his voting on the other side.

Lord John Cavendish contended for the propriety of the Bill. He said, that this gentle, easy, and practicable reform, was absolutely necessary, for things could not go on as they were; the people would be taught by misfortune first to despise, and afterwards to resist the legislative power.

The question being put, that the Bill be read a second time; the House divided: