one. ever, was, that the petitioners might be ex-mensurate with the evil. Into this, howamined; for as the law now stood, a man he would not enter at present, as had only to sign his name to the Petition, after the Easter recess he intended to proand he could not be prosecuted. He pose a general measure. The present would also propose that the petitioners measure would only be dangerous and should give security, not only for the due mischievous. His hon. friend himself prosecution of the Petition, but for the might be accused of bribery, and the witdefraying of the expence. And, lastly, ness being the only evidence, could not he would recommend that the right of be convicted of perjury. The prevention petition should be thrown open to every of the practice of concealing bribery in There were instances in which the voter, by causing him to petition, was those who had signed petitions to that good as far as it went; but it was a very House did not pay the expences, and to partial benefit. This much he had said remedy this and the presenting of frivo- on this Bill, because he was anxious that lous and vexatious petitions, it was his his constituents should be aware that the intention to provide in another Bill, that subject had not escaped his attention. they should enter into a bond for 500l. But no great good was reasonably to be each. If the House was of opinion, that expected, except from a real, true, and bribery should be kept out of sight, he moderate reform-and for this he was was sorry they had agreed to the act, anxious. He wished his hon. friend not which was passed two years ago; for that to press this to a division, as he must be was a pledge to the country, that they aware that the Bill had a bearing which would investigate and prevent it. They perhaps he himself had not observed when knew, however, what had happened since, he brought it in. and the conclusions that were drawn from the exposure of a traffic from which, as it had been strongly and wisely said, our ancestors would have "startled with indignation." He had been asked in private, whether he really wished to put an end to the sale of seats in Parliament? he had no hesitation to state, that he certainly did; and he thought it wiser to adopt measures which would prevent the recurrence of such acts, than selecting instances for prosecution, which were the more excusable, as the practice was general. He thought the best course for Parliament would be, disclaiming all wild theories, to set about the correction of the abuse; but if they refused to look into it, the number of the discontented, he feared, would be greatly increased. Mr. Brand said that nothing but a plan founded on a comprehensive view of the subject could possibly do any good. He had no hopes from such partial measures as the present. The effect of them would be nothing else than to throw the monopoly of the purchase of seats into the bands of the Treasury. He was convinced his hon. friend would some time feel the difficulty of doing any good by applying partial remedies to a general eyil. To the constitution alone they must look in devising a general remedy com * See the Speech of the right hon. the Speaker, on Mr. Curwen's Reform Bill, vol. 14, p. 837. Mr. Johnstone opposed the Bill, upon the ground that no general or special reasons had been stated to shew the propriety of any legislative measure on the subject. No evidence was produced to prove that seats had been sold since the late act. For many years past the practice had been gradually decreasing; and there was more purity now in election cases, than in the boasted times of our ancestors. He could tell of some of their practices calculated to make their posterity blush for them, whether the conduct of their posterity would have made them start back with horror or not. In the case of Ashburton, in 1707, a motion was made in the House that the right of election was in the holders of land and tenements of the said borough only. An amendment was moved that the word " only" be left out. A ballot was called for-the clerks, with two of the members, went round with a box, into which the rest of the members put their balls. There had been a gradual improvement since. In 1807 no bribery had been proved before any of the committees; and treating was almost at an end. He said that no cases could be produced to shew the necessity of the repeal of the bribery act, and, before the House could proceed to repeal it, it was necessary to state such necessity. With regard to the clause respecting evidence, and which did not allow a witness to protect himself upon self-crimination, he was astonished that the hon. gent. who was bred up to the law E of the land, could ever think of introducing | purity, there was now a great diminution such a clause. Had it been proposed by of cases of bribery. When he heard this those speculative persons, who, in a com- declaration, he could not but call to mind parison between the laws of England and the speech which they had heard delivered the Code Napoleon, were of opinion that, with so much eloquence from the Chair, in matters of evidence, it is impossible to which deservedly endeared him to the say which abounds with the greatest evils, nation and would endear him to posterity. he should not have been so much It was notorious that the House of Comastonished. Why was this fundamental mons was not possessed of that power and alteration to be introduced into the law? that influence which a House of Commons He would ask how it happened that the ough to have, but was stained with spots, law in this country was held in greater which those who were best attached to it, veneration than the law in any other could wish washed away. He confessed he country? And why was every body in was anxious for a considerable reform in the this country anxious to bring criminals to House. Let the House look to the present justice? It was because the law never moment, and the present situation of the placed criminals or witnesses in a situation country, and then say if the greatest victo criminate themselves, or directed the tory which could be obtained would not sympathies of mankind against the court. be a restoration of the purity of that House. This Bill no doubt exempted the witnesses It was well known that the Bribery Act from punishment; but it could not exempt was turned from the purposes for which it them from any disgrace. But why was was intended. The hon. gent. asked for this alteration in the law confined to cases. There were cases with which the minor offences? Why was it not to extend hon. gent. could not be acquainted; but if to greater offences? Why not to treason a single case could be adduced, was it not itself? Surely the sacred life of the sove- necessary to prevent the possibility of reign and the order of society were objects recurrence? It became necessary, thereof equal importance. With respect to fore, to send the Bill to a committee, where petitioning, the expence was such, that it the subject could undergo a complete discould not be expected that any man from cussion.-The hon. gent. asked if they a sense of justice merely, would bring a would permit a man to come before the petition into that House; and it could House who had no interest in the question? only be some speculative reformer, anxious Gracious God! was there a man in the to cast an odium on the higher classes, by country who was not interested in every holding them out as borough-mongers, thing that concerned the purity of the who would think of laying out 1,000l. on House! He asked why the mode of evisuch an object. On the whole, he thought dence on the Bill was not extended to the law sufficient, without the present Bill; treason? The principle of the law of and if they had any suspicion of the insuf- treason was deservedly the subject of adficiency of the bribery acts, they ought to miration. It considered that he who was wait till a general election, when they would have a trial. Mr. Curwen thought that there were sufficient grounds for allowing the present Bill to go into a committee. The declaration of the Bribery Bill established the existence of that, which its enactments were found insufficient to remedy. He gave that Bill his support, differing from every one of his friends in his opinion of it, notwithstanding it was so mutilated and changed in its passage through the House by persons whom he never should have expected to see in the light of reformers, that he was convinced of its inefficacy, from an idea that some of the objections against it, ought to have been pointed out by some of his friends.-The hon. gent. who opposed the Bill, said that he could not see the ne cessity of it, as from our advancement in the presumed enemy of every man, should therefore be entitled to peculiar protection. But here the object was not punishment, but the preservation of the purity of the House, by preventing a man from sitting in it, who shall have committed an act of bribery, an object of much greater importance than the conviction of the offender, and perfectly distinct from it.-Those who were afraid of the advocates of reform out of doors would do well to consider, that the most effectual way to prevent converts to that doctrine elsewhere, was to do every thing themselves that was temperate and just; and if they were to put an extinguisher upon reform by strangling the present Bill, they would take the most effectual nieans of giving currency to the doctrines they dreaded. Let the Bill go through every stage, and let it be discussed with all the patience and all the attention of which the House was capable, and if they should so incline, let it at last be rejected. If it should now be strangled, and not allowed to go into a committee, what would be thought in the country? Not surely what the hon. gent. professed, that there was no corruption to reform, but that there was too much corruption to allow reform. The only way to obviate the dangerous tendency of the opinions which they dreaded, was to go themselves into every moderate plan of reform which was practicable. It was impossible to take a more unwise step at present, when all the attachment and all the exertions of the country were required, than to strangle the present Bill. Every man could wish the declaration which was made in that House blotted out from his remembrance; and as he wished to prevent the possibility of the recurrence of the evil, he earnestly requested the concurrence of the House in allowing the present Bill to go into a committee. Sir John Anstruther said, that he should oppose every alteration of the present constitution of that House, and had he merely heard the speech of the hon. gent. who spoke last, he should have concluded that such was the object of the present Bill. Notwithstanding all the lofty language which they had heard from that hon. gent., almost threatening them with the distrust and condemnation of the people if they did not accede to this measure, he would tell that hon. gent., that a Bill ought to be canvassed in that House on its just principles, and when those principles did not meet with their approbation, they did their duty in rejecting it; and in endeavouring to please the people in opposition to their own sentiments, they would not do their duty, but comunit an act of injustice. He then proceeded to discuss the clause relating to evidence, which went to violate a principle acknowledged in the laws of this and every other country. It was said that the witness was indemnified from punishment. But was it possible to indemnify him from the effect of moral guit, from the loss of cha racter sustained by the compulsive discovery. Another strong objection to this part of the Bill was, that it increased the templation to perjury for the purpose of conviction or acquittal. An informer came into court with all the blackness peculiar to an informer, and his credibility was affected by it. But here he was re lieved from all that odium. Why not introduce this principle to other crimes? He had therefore, great objections to the introduction of a principle of which he could not see the termination.-To the other clauses he had also great objections. From giving a general right to petition, little good could ensue, and a door could be opened to a great deal of mischief. He should therefore oppose the Bill going into a Committee. Sir John Newport thought it very natural that those who opposed every plan of reform which could have any practical effect, on some pretext or other, should also oppose the present Bill. All the reasons, however, which he had heard against committing the Bill, were, in his mind, so many reasons in favour of the measure. If the Bill was liable to the objections which had been specified, the way to purge it from those objections was to go into a Committee. What would be the conse. quence of a refusal? It would convince the people of England, that the former measures of the House were merely resorted to for the sake of tranquillizing the public mind for a moment, and not from any sericus desire of reformation. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. Johnstone,) had asked for a case. Why, the very evil was the secret nature of the act, from which, by the existing law, it would be impossible ever to make a discovery of it. If the offence could be discovered, the present law was sufficient to convict the offender, and there would then be no necessity of coming to the House for an alteration. He concluded with declaring, that he should vote for the Committee. Mr. Morris thought it impossible to look at the subject, without seeing that there, was great room for improvement in the election law. It was not sufficient for the House, however, to be convinced that there was this, that, and the other thing, to censure. They were to look at the question narrowly, and to see that in their desire for improvement they did not introduce an abuse rather than a remedy. He particu larly objected to the clause, by which a person was compelled to make a disclosure of an offence in which he himself was implicated. This was to oblige a jury to give credit to a person so circumstanced, whether he might be swearing true or false; and, at the same time, to leave the party against whom he complained completely at his mercy. He had only to name a time and place when no person else could be present, and in this way, Mr. C. W. Wynn shortly replied, when List of the Minority. Ilussey, W. Adam, W. Adair, R. Aubin, Sir J. St. Moore, P. Abercrombie, J. Newport, Sir J. Burdett, Sir F. Ponsonby, G. Babington, T. Curwen, J. C. Tracey, H. Grattan, H. Thornton, H. Wilberforce, W. convinced that he had fully explained the subject. The Resolution was agreed to. The next sum proposed was the annual grant for Civil Buildings in Ireland. Mr. W. Pole said, that the sum usually voted under the head of Civil Buildings was 25,000l. and the general opinion was, that this sum was expended on a few pubNoes 64.lic buildings, and upon the houses of the lord lieutenant and the chief secretary. The sum expended however amounted very often to double the sum granted. In order to correct this evil, he thought it necessary that the estimates should be framed in a different manner, and he had given directions that they should state distinctly the different services for which the money was required. The papers therefore now before the House, contained a detailed estimate of the probable expenditure of the Board of Works for the year 1811, distinguishing each building in which works were to be performed, viz. the castle, the law courts, public offices, and other public buildings, also the houses of the lord lieutenant and chief secretary, and the improvements in the park. When the Committee heard the various heads of service which he had read, they would not, he was sure, be surprised that the sum of 25,000l. was not sufficient to cover the expenditure, which in fact generally amounted to near 50,000l. Having called upon the Board of Works, as he had before stated, for the most minute and detailed estimate that could be made of the different services for which money was required, these estimates had been submitted to the heads of the different departments in which the work was to be performed, and their opinion taken before the work was ordered. By the adoption of this plan, though the sum which it was proposed to IRISH MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.] In the Committee of Supply, Mr. Foster moved, That a sum of 25,000!. Irish Currency be granted for defraying the expence of Criiminal Prosecutions and Law Expences for Mr. W. Pole was happy to inform the right hon. baronet, that the grant of the preceding year had been 25,000l. of which sum 2,8751. remained on hand as the surplus. The right hon. baronet knew very well what the grant was composed of, and he also knew very well that the expences this year for special commissions, &c. were great. It had, therefore, notwithstanding the surplus remaining, been deemed expedient to take the same sum for the pre-vote was larger than usual, yet the actual sent year. Sir J. Newport expressed himself dissatisfied with the statement of the hon. gentleman. He declared that he was not to be put down in the discharge of his public duty by the tone and manner of the hon. gent., which did not result altogether from his official situation, but was in some degree a family inheritance.(Order, order.) Mr. W. Pole thought it was hard that the hon. baronet should accuse him of arrogance after the attempt which he had made to satisfy his inquiries. He trusted, however, that the Committee would be of expence was reduced from 50,000l. to one on the application of 25,000l. voted in the last session, for defraying the expences of Civil Buildings, from the 5th January 1809, to 5th January 1810, together with the names of all persons receiving salaries or allow ances out of the same; and a statement how much the said sum was deficient to defray the whole expence incurred; specifying also, by whom the bills relating to that sum have been or are to be examined and audited." The second for "An abstract Account of the several particulars of expenditure by the commissioners of the Board of Works, of the sum of 25,000!. granted by parliament, for defraying the expence of civil buildings in Ireland, from 5th January 1809, to 5th January 1810, specifying the several public buildings, to the erection or repair of which the said grant was applied." In the return made to the first of these precepts, the Board of Works gave a detailed account of the whole expenditure, amounting to 50,0141. Is. 6d.; and in the one founded on the second, they gave an exact account of the expenditure of the 25,000l. conformably to the desire of the Committee: and indeed so minutely was it stated, that it appeared there was a balance in the Bank in favour of the public of 16s. 6d. It ap-mittee respecting the sum of 14,000l. expeared to him, that when a board or an individual was called upon for a return of this kind, that nothing could be more satisfactory than that the return should be precisely what it was required to be. To this principle the Board of Works had in these instances most honestly and conscientiously adhered. He now begged to read that part of the report to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee. He was the more anxious to notice this subject, because the persons who composed the Board of Works in Ireland were men of the most respectable character, who had always discharged their public duty in the most exemplary manner; and it was natural therefore that they should feel deeply hurt when any censure was passed upon their conduct, especially from so respectable a quarter.-Mr. Pole then read the following observations of the Committee:- -" Your Committee desire to call the attention of the House to the following paper, containing nominally an account of the expenditure of the same vote for the same, as a curious specimen of of ficial dexterity in manufacturing a statement, by means of which a true return may be rendered as to figures, while the result must lead to a false conclusion. It is undeniable that out of any given sum, no more than the amount of that sum itself can be expended; but it is equally true that a detail made out with the greatest apparent accuracy, exhibiting a part only of the sums actually paid for several heads of service, and suppressing the total charge, without any notice or indication that any further expence was incurred, could not induce the least suspicion that when the Board of Works professed, out of the vote of 25,000l. to have a balance of 16s. 6d. in hand, they had in fact run in debt to the amount of 25,014." He wished to ask the Committee, whether the returns made by the Board of Works deserved this censure? they had stated that the whole expenditure amounted to 50,000l. and afterwards they gave a detailed account of the manner in which the 25,000l. had been expended. They had in fact, done that which they were required by the precept to do, and therefore he could not but think that the observation made upon them in the report contained an unfounded aspersion upon their character. The Board of Works had made a complaint to him upon this subject, and stated, that they had made another return to the Com pended over and above the 25,000l. of which no notice whatever was taken in the report. He would not trouble the Committee any longer, but he hoped it would appear from what he had stated, that the Irish government was anxious to reduce the public expence as much as pos sible, and that they were not disposed to adhere to old forms when upon examination they appeared to be improper. Mr. Bankes said that as the two returns had been received together, he supposed he had taken up one of their first, which led to the censure which appeared in the report of which he avowed himself to be. the author. At the same time he wished to state, that he was not disposed to retract what he had said, because he was of opinion that the returns were made in such a way as if they wished to keep back a part of the truth.' Mr. Pole said, his hon. friend was not aware of the manner in which the Board of Works drew for the money which was necessary for the services which they were required to perform. In the first instance they drew until the 25,000l. the amount of the usual grant, was exhausted, and then they were under the necessity of drawing upon other funds, to cover the whole of |