Feople) with which they acted was not to forget their principles in prosperity," though to be sure if he (Mr. F.) were to forget his principles, they were not likely to be driven into oblivion by prosperity. But to return to the association lic alluded to, its great object notoriously was to extend the right of voting to every species of property, but farther than that not to go. There were many, no doubt, who would go farther, but he was not one. He was, perhaps, considered too moderate, for he was always adverse to universal suffrage, because the idea of such a change struck him to be extremely absurd, and the danger enormous. To be sure this idea had now grown out of fashion. But even when it was in some degree popular, his opinion uniformly was, that power must attach to property, and therefore that nothing could be gained by the change proposed. For if power were transferred from the men of property to the populace, the property would soon follow the power. He could never, indeed, reconcile to his mind. that any men who walked the street, that chimney-sweepers and coachmen should have a right to vote. In fact, that valuable right was never carried to such an extreme in any nation. Even in the Roman republic there were two classes of meu who were excluded from all civil privileges, excepting only the protection of the law; the one were the capita censi, who were merely reckoned upon for servile work; and the other proletari, who were deemed fit only to get children. Exclusion from the privileges of the people had always existed in all well-regulated communities, and they were extremely proper for the security both of freedom and property. Reverting from the measure now under discussion, the honourable gentleman expressed his surprise that his right honourable friend should bring forward a proposition so contradictory to the principle to which he had alluded, respecting the extension of the right of voting to every species of property. If it were the object of the right honourable gentleman to deprive the forty-shillings freeholders of their right of voting, and to confine that right to all freeholders above thirty pounds, he should at once avow it, and in which he would have a great contradiction to reconcile; this bill was of such a nature as to give some ground for suspicion; and if the right honourable gentleman did not really entertain the intention alluded to, he should not leave himself open to misconstruction. Mr. Morris explained. Mr. Tierney disclaimed the slightest intention of proposing to disfranchise freeholders under thirty pounds. On the contrary, if a proposition of that nature were brought forward he would be among the first to oppose it. Mr. W. Dundas said, that he should find himself under the necessity of opposing the present bill, as its operation would be found very inconvenient in Scotland. Mr. Johnstone could not see that any great benefit was likely to arise from the alteration that this bill proposed. As to the practical part of the constitution, he thought it would be hard to point out any considerable improvement. He might quote the words of Dr. Paley, who would be allowed to be a good authority on the subject. He might, like him, ask, Who is this House composed of? It is of men who come from every class of society, which produces considerable talent and information. In that House there were not only representatives of the landed interests, but of the commercial interests also; there were men, who were the most distinguished in every liberal profession and honourable situation. He could not see what sort of men were fitter to sit in that House, than those who actually had seats under the present mode of representation. As he therefore did not perceive any practical good that was to result from changing either the mode of representation, or the description of persons who were to be representatives, he should oppose the bill. Mr. Leigh expressed his disapprobation of the principle of the bill, which would go to the virtual disfranchisement of a considerable number of electors, and particularly of those who had gained the right of franchise in borough towns. He should suppose the case of an election for Coventry. In that borough, the elective franchise was only gained by an apprenticeship for seven years, and after it had been so gained, the person entitled to it often went to other places for the convenience of following his trade." They could not afford to go to the election at their own expence, and would therefore be disfranchised. No man respected more than he did the landed interest, but there were other interests in the country which were equally entitled to be represented. The commercial men had taken as great a part in the discussions of that House, and had brought as much information with them upon those subjects, as the representatives of the landed interest. To ex 11 amine amine this bill upon principle, he should ask was a man to be disfranchised on account of his poverty? It would be going too far to say, that wealth was always a criterion of independence: it was often found, on the contrary, that very wealthy men were induced, as well as poorer men, by some selfish consideration to act contrary to their duty. He therefore opposed the bill. Sir R. Burton entreated the House not lightly to reject a measure which he thought perfectly congenial with the spirit of the British constitution. According to the principles of that constitution, a man should come into that House free and independent, and the constituent who sent him there should be free and independent also. Now the former could not be so if he were to pay an enormous sum of money for his election, nor could the latter be so if he were to receive money for his vote; and disguise it as gentlemen please, the expence of carriage was a species of payment to the voter. There was a time, when instead of members paying for their election, they were paid for their attendance; and he would be glad to see the same practice again (a laugh). The honourable bart. repeated his wish. Members would be likely to enter that House not with a view to derive any emoluments from the state, but for the benefit of the country. Mr. G. Rose said that he never understood it to be the fixed general opinion of the lawyers, that defraying the travelling charges of voters was not a violation of the treating act. All doubts upon this subject would be removed by the measure under discussion. He trusted that the House would pause before they rejected such a proposition, and begged them to consider that if the expence of carriages were allowed, it was nonsense to suppose that refreshment and treating by the way would not follow; also whether a compensation for loss of time, which would lead to complete bribery, might not be the next propo sition. Mr. Courtenay remarked upon the purity of the principle and the refinement of notion, which the House had witnessed in the speech of the honourable baronet over the way, and the right honourable gentleman who had just followed him. Really those two gentlemen were not only so pure themselves, but they seemed to think they were addressing themselves to an angelic audience. No doubt the honourable 3 L2 honourable baronet came into that House with the purest and most disinterested views, and had nothing in view but the good of his country, and the right honourable gentleman who followed him was inspired with equal purity, and equally discarded every consideration but that of patriotisin. That right honourable gentleman had stated, that it was nonsense to suppose that a voter would go from one place to another to give his vote without receiving something more than the law would allow. No doubt the right, honourable gentleman spoke from his experience. He was, it might be presumed, tolerably competent to judge upon such a subject, and so, perhaps, were others also. If in reality, every candidate were disqualified who paid the travelling expence of poor voters to the hustings, nay, something more, the right honourable gentleman would admit, that the benches on both sides would be rather thinned. For himself, he would say, that he did not like this extreme solicitude to exclude the poor from the gratification usually enjoyed at popular elections. They seldom had such opportunities, and when they offered they ought not to be shut out from them, merely on the pretence of seeking for purity. He could not approve of the use of a filtringstone to clear away all the mud of poverty, vulgar mirth, &c. from popular clections, and Ict nothing but the PURE water of affluence, good order, &c. trickle down to invigorate the members of that House. The right hon mover had said, that he would not introduce a bill to a 'squalify freeholders under thirty pounds. But it would no 'perhaps be amiss to call to mind, that the bill of Henry V th. confining the right of voting to freeholders of forty-shillins, was itself a bill of disqualification; and it was one advantage resulting from the depreciation of money, that the object of that disqualification law had in a great measure been defeated. But to return to the bill before the House, which he felt it his duty to resist, notwithstanding the high degree of regard which he entertained for his right honourable friend with whom it originated: he should get rid of it with a couplet of Dryden's, which was applied in the days of Charles the II. to a measure similarly calculated to interfere with the popular enjoyments at elections. "Where every man enjoys His liberty, his property and noise." Admiral Harvey disapproved of the bill, because it would would have the effect of disfranchising by much the greater portion of the electors of this country, namely, all those who resided at a distance from the place of election. This bill, if passed in its present state, would have the effect, in a great county, of making it the election, not of the county at large, but of the county town, and instead of operating in favour of gentlemen of small fortune getting into that House, as the right honourable mover alleged, would completely defeat that end, if they resided in any remote part of the county, by depriving them of the power of bringing forward their friends. Mr. Fox rese to assure his right honourable friend who brought in the bill, that his voting for the bill's going into a committee, by no means procceded from his objections to the bill being done away, but from his desire to see if it might not be there rendered more palatable, if not entirely agreeable to the wishes of gentlemen on all sides. It was not for him to say, whether it might be possible to do away the objections which had been alluded to by the honourable member who spoke last, and by another honourable member behi him (Mr. Morris). If these should not be removed, he could not ultimately vote for the bill. Mr. Buller thought when they had the high authorities of the lords chief justices of the King's Bench and Common Pleas acting counter to each other, it was but proper that all doubts on the subject should be removed. Mr. Leycester begged to put the House right as to the supposed contrariety of opinion between the judgments of the two courts. The decision in the Common Pleas was the only one which could be calculated on, as that in the King's Bench, which was not a solemn judgment, but merely a verdict at nisi prius, did not at all proceed on the act of King William, but was founded on the statute of George I. imposing penalties, where the judge necessarily left it to the jury to find quo animo the 307. was given. The Attorney General hoped to be forgiven while he in as few words as possible stated the situation in which the law of the case at present stood. The only instance in which a solemn decision on the point had taken place was that before alluded to, in the court of Common Pleas, in which the law was laid down as stated by his right ho nourable |