practice he thought proper and necessary to be followed, and if the noble lord should in this instance attempt to deviate from it, he should certainly feel it his duty to make a motion on the subject.

TREATING ACT.

Mr. Tierney moved the second reading of the treating act. Upon the motion being put,

Mr. Fuller expressed his surprize, that the right hon. gentleman should submit such an important motion without saying one sentence upon the subject. To say much in its favour, he thought quite beyond the power of the right hon. gentleman or any other person. Indeed, it did not appear to his mind that such a measure could at all be sustained, for its tendency would be to disfranchise an immense proportion of the freeholders of the country. In the case even of the county he had the honour to represent (Sussex), what would be the fate of the poor freeholders who lived above eighty miles from the place of polling? Why, that such persons, unable to defray the expence of the journey, would forfeit their votes. The same thing would, no doubt, happen in many, if not all other counties. It was enough that poor freeholders should be subject to the loss of time and the trouble of going to the hustings, without being called upon to submit to the expence of carriage from distant quarters. This expence was no material loss to the candidates, and it was to be recollected that the poor voters were only treated to this jaunt once in seven years. It would be cruel then to dash this trivial cup from the poor man's lips. The House should bear in mind the manner in which our sagacious enemy acted towards his people, particularly towards his soldiery, to every one of whom he occasionally appealed, compli menting them at once as the judge of his conduct, the means of his success, and the partaker of his glory. A similar policy should govern this country. Every Engfishman should be taught to feel a common interest with his country and its legislature, and the best mode to encourage that feeling was by making every, even the poorest freeholder, an arbiter of the conduct of his representative. But the object of this bill would be to deprive the greater part of the poor freeholders of this important right. If such a bill were to pass, the effect would be to injure independent candidates-to exclude distant voters-and to leave

the

the fate of an election generally to the decision of the mob of the town where it might take place. Thus, the inan who could best harangue the mob, would probably be the successful candidate, to the exclusion of those independent men who were most worthy to be members of Parliamentfor those who should not submit to great trouble would have no chance of succeeding. Sir Edward Coke observed, that those men were not fit to be members of parliament who did not care whether they were so or not; and if this bill were to be adopted such men would, in all likelihood, be utterly excluded; for being prevented from paying for the conveyance of voters, being too proud to canvas, and unwilling to court the mere mob at the hustings, they would have but little chance of any voters at all.

Mr. Morris forcibly argued against the measure. His objections, he said, were so radical, that no alteration or amendment could reconcile him to its adoption, and therefore he felt this the proper stage to make his stand against it. If it were meant as a declaratory law, to explain the act of King William, he would resist it as totally annecessary, and if meant to go farther than that act, he would resist it as improper and unjust. The giving meat and drink to voters was already prohibited by the letter of the statute of William, and there, in his judgment, the law went far enough. If it proceeded the length of forbidding the conveyance of voters at the expence of candidates, he should sincerely regret it, and among others, for the reasons stated by the last speaker. But it was urged, he understood, by the right honourable mover of this bill, whose speech he had not the good fortune to hear, that doubts existed with respect to the interpretation of the law apon the subject of treating, and that therefore a declaratory law was necessary. Of the existence of such doubts, he was not at all aware. In the Worcester case, alluded to by the right honourable gentleman, the argument of counsel was evidently mistaken for the decision of the committee. The fact was, that subsequent to that decision, a bill was brought in, as it professed, to remove doubts as to the treating act. That bill found its way into the House of Lords, where it was strongly reprobated by Lord Mansfield, who very properly observed, that the multiplication of statutes, instead of adding to the strength of the law, served to impair and weaken it. Such a remark was always entitled to consideration, but particularly where, as in this case,

there

there was no ground of necessity. To prove the necessity, however, some endeavours had been used, by referring to cases of doubt. Among those cases Ipswich and Barnstaple had been referred to. Now the fact was, that in the former case, the subject had not been at all gone into, the election having been declared void on other grounds; and as to Barnstaple, the only appearance of doubt in the construction of the law was by the petitioners, who stated, that if their opponent had advanced money, merely for the travelling expences of voters, they should not press the committee to come to any decision upon that point. Such a statement, however, could avail nothing in arguing the question before the House. These petitioners might have declined to enter into discussion, as to travelling charges, having probably defrayed the same charges on their own side. But their motive was of little consequence. The question was, whether their misconstruction of the law should be taken as a proof that any doubts existed as to the fair interpretation of that law; whether the mistakes of a few men as to the meaning of a law, should be admitted as evidence that the law was doubtful, and that a.declaratory act was necessary, as was pretended in the case before the House? Whereas, in reality no doubt existed upon, this subject. The last decision upon the Herefordshire case was quite conclusive as to treating. The committee there had before them the proof of travelling charges having been paid by the candidate; but their determination was grounded distinctly upon this, that tickets had been given to the voters for meat and drink, and this it was which they pro nounced to be within the meaning of the treating act. Of course, upon that ground the candidate was disqualified. So far as to the decisions of committees with regard to this law. Now, as to the proceedings in the courts respecting it, there were but a few cases. From the actions, however, which were brought by inn-keepers against candidates, for the expences incurred at elections, coutrary to the treating act, it appeared that such actions could not he maintained. In the action brought against two members of that House, Messrs. Francis and Moore, Lord Kenyon did not, to be sure, direct a nonsuit, because, very properly as a judge of Nisi Prius, perceiving a look of equity in the claim, he referred it; at the same time pronouncing an agreement which appeared to have been entered into by one of the candidates to indemnify the other for his clection ex

pences

pences, to be totally illegal," because it pledged a man to pay those expences which it was contrary to law to incur." There were other cases on the books which served to shew that no doubts prevailed in the courts below, upoa the interpretation of the treating act. The point was, indeed, conclusively determined, by the decision in the court of common pleas, in the case of Ribbons v. Crickett. Upon the whole then, it was obvious to his judgment, that as no doubt existed as to the construction of the treating act, no declaratory law was necessary; and that a new law, such as that before the House, would be highly improper, it required very little consideration to prove. It was im possible to say what mischiefs would result from the adop tion of such a bill. A vast number of freeholders would be disfranchised, not for any improper act, but merely in consequence of their inability to defray the expence of their conveyance to the hustings. The right honourable mover was reported to have said that the removal of a voter from the place where his right of voting lay was a matter of o tion, but that was not the case. For the tradesman and the manufacturer must go where his industry may meet employment, he must shift his residence to follow the market. In many, if not most instances, the change of residence on he part of voters is not a matter of choice but of necessity, oftentimes painful necessity, and yet this bill would ag gravate such pain. In coimtics the right honourable gen. tleman proposed the taking of the poll at different places, in order to obviate one of the most glaring objections to his bill, but such a multiplication of polling places would be productive of confusion and increased expence even to the candidates. Furthermore, he would object to such a proposition, because he liked the publicity in which a fee holder now gave his vote, in the face of the county and of the candidate. With regard to the independence of fortyshillings freeholders, his opinion was, that from the general diffusion of industry and its productive capacity, free holders of that class possessed as much independence of mind as any other description of persons. To deprive a great body of such men, as this bill would tend to, of the exercise of their elective franchise, would serve to produce a disposition of listlessness and languor among the people, than which nothing was more to be dreaded; for nothing would be better calculated to facilitate the subjugation of the country and to lead to despotism. The French scarcely

valued such a thing as the elective franchise; but any man who had ever seen an election in this country must be sensible how different the feeling which prevailed among Englishmen, how eagerly they crowded to the hustings, and how little they were in a state to be reconciled to the relinquishment of a right they so highly prized. He was glad to think on the estimation in which the people held this important privilege, and was always happy to perceive the enthusiasm which prevailed at popular elections. Since such scenes had been freed from the tumult and intoxication which formerly disgraced them, the enthusiasm displayed must be observed with pleasure by every man who loved popular liberty, who felt as an Englishman. The learned gentleman concluded with stating that he could not conceive the least mischief likely to arise to the freedom of election merely from the candidates paying the expence incurred by the carriage of poor voters to the hustings, while very great evils were to be apprehended, if, by disqualifying candidates for merely defraying such expences, a vast number of voters should be precluded from the exercise of their franchise.

Mr. Francis corrected the statement of the learned gentleman with regard to the case in which his name was introduced. He assured the learned gentleman that his information was unfounded, and no such agreement as that alJuded to had ever taken place between himself and his honourable friend Mr. Moore. In that case, indeed, Lord Kenyon did the utmost in his power against the defendants, who had to pay full costs, &c. No objection was taken to the plaintiff's demand, on any other ground, than to its quantity. For whatever the law might be on the subject, he should in foro conscientiæ feel himself bound to discharge the claim if it were not enormous in its amount, as the result proved when the plaintiff was finally settled with. With regard to the bill before the House, he wondered that such an idea as the disfranchisement of any body of the freeholders could enter into the mind of the right honourable mover of this bill. He rather thought his right ho nourable friend did not at all meditate such a thing, although such would be the particular result of his proposition. In conjunction with his right honourable friend be remembered to have fought many battles in the cause of parliamentary reform, and he recollected that one of the strongest admonitions of the society (the Friends of the

People)