A

MONG the more interesting of the parliamentary proceedings of this year, were those respecting the election of representatives for the united boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, together returning four members. A select committee of the House of Commons having been appointed to try the merits of a petition complaining of an undue election for these boroughs, Mr. Alderman Atkins, on Feb. 26, informed the House, that only one of the candidates was duly elected, and that the committee had passed the following resolution : "That the right of voting in the said town and borough appears to be, among others, in persons seised of freeholds in the said borough; that gross abuses have of late been practised within the said borough by persons claiming and exercising a right to vote upon nominal reserved rents, arising out of freeholds split and divided into the most minute fractional parts, under wills either real or fictitious; and that it further appears to the committee, that such evils can only be effectually remedied by the interposition of the legislature." He then moved, that the whole of the minutes of the evidence be laid before the House.

the sake of dispatch, only so much of the minutes of the evidence as referred to the above resolution, should be laid before the House; and the motion was modified accordingly.

A conversation ensued, in which some members considered it as a suspicious circumstance that much anxiety was manifested to keep back a part of the evidence; and strongly objected to leaving the minutes of evidence to be selected and garbled by a clerk; and it was hinted, that the cause was, that very improper interference has been exercised by an illustrious personage. After a long discussion on the subject, the Speaker observed, that there were two ways of meeting the apparent wishes of the House: either to get the entire of the minutes and deliver them immediately to the committee, to enable them to amend their report; or to refer the report back to the committee, which should be constituted a committee for that purpose, with power of sending for persons; papers, &c. The latter mode, on a division, was adopted.

On March 30th, Mr. Alderman Atkins having moved the second reading of a bill for regulating the

Weymouth elections, Mr. Wynn made some objections to it; on which Mr. Bathurst observed, that the thing complained of was a novel practice of splitting votes by will. There was an act in existence against the splitting of votes, but it did not anticipate the possibility of doing it by will; according, however, to the spirit of that act, all devices for that purpose ought to be null and void, in the same manner as conveyances were rendered.

Sir John Newport said, he held in his hand a petition from the inhabitants of Weymouth, praying that the House would not inter fere with the independence of the borough. He was advised that the real operation of the bill would be, to lodge the power of returning four members in 30 or 40 persons. He was extremely anxious that the House should do nothing which might produce an impression on the public, that such was the antipathy of parliament to every principle of reform in the representation, that although they had uniformly resisted every extension of the elective franchise, they had no objection to employ every plea of convenience for narrowing it.

Mr. Alderman Atkins said, that it had appeared to the committee, that the only remedy in this case, without disfranchising the inhabitants, was, to designate the value of the rents which in future should be deemed a sufficient qualification. There were now no votes acquired by device which were of a higher value than five shillings annually, some of sixpence, and one witness had been called who enjoyed eight votes, altogether of the value of two-pence VOL. LV.

rent. It was not designed that the bill should deprive those of their franchise who had previously exercised it without dispute, but should provide against the abuse in future. The bill was then read a second time.

On April 1, Lord A. Hamilton rose in pursuance of notice, to move that the remainder of the evidence taken before the Weymouth committee be laid before the House. Much of this evidence applied to a point not hitherto openly noticed, the improper and illegal interference of his royal highness the duke of Cumberland. If the House wished to preserve its own purity, or to maintain the respect in which it was held by the people, it behoved it very seriously to consider the present case. Before he proceeded further, he should desire the clerk to read the part of the petition of the burgesses of Weymouth complaining of the interference of peers of parliament, and likewise the two resolutions entered into by the House at the commencement of each session relative to the illegality of such interference. This being done, the noble lord said, he should call upon the House to give him documents to bring home the fact to the persons charged with the offence. If their resolutions against the interference of peers in elections were never to be acted upon, he could only say that they were calculated to form a snare to himself and others bringing forward similar measures, and to be a subject of derision to the country. He then read from a newspaper a letter from his royal highness to J. F. A. Stewart, and a part of the evidence, in which [E]

it was proved that his royal highness had a private conference on the subject of the election with a candidate. He would state one more fact proving interference, which was, that the duke of Cumberland had got into his possession the writ for the election, and had paid the price for it. After some other observations, he concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the House such parts of the evidence given before the committee of the Weymouth and Melcombe Regis election, as are not included in the special report of the committee to which the report was referred."

Mr. Long treated the motion as a dangerous novelty. When the House referred a petition to an election committee, they referred the whole matter connected with it to its deliberation; and nothing could be more obviously wise than that they ought as seldom as possible to re-investigate the evidence on which a determination had been made by those to whom they had delegated their authority. He then made some observations respecting a charge which had been brought against himself on this occasion; and as that was utterly unfounded, he inferred that there was probably misrepresentation or exaggeration in that brought against the duke of Cumberland. He therefore moved as an amendment to pass to the order of the day.

Mr. Alderman Atkins spoke in justification of the committee for omitting to report on that part of the petition which charged the improper interference of peers. With regard to the possession of the writ by his royal highness, he said it

had been for the convenience of the election; and that it had been forwarded with all possible dispatch.

Mr. Wynn said, that the duty of election committees was, to decide concerning the seat, and with that decision their judicature closed. Any other resolution they might come to, it was not imperative on the House to receive. They had in this instance received a further report, and part of the evidence, and he was of opinion that the whole ought to have been produced. With respect to obtaining possession of the writ, though it was no offence in a commoner, it was such in a peer.

Mr. Bathurst argued against the motion chiefly on the ground of the discredit it would throw upon committees, acting on oath, if the practice were encouraged of reforming their judgments upon their special reports. Even were the committee to be in an error, it would be better that it should be left so, than that by the interference of the House it should be placed in so obnoxious a situation.

Mr. Rose believed that there was no one instance to be found in the records of parliament in which that House had required the production of any thing beyond that which was submitted to them by their committee; and it would be highly inconvenient to have such a precedent established. The splitting of votes was an abuse which called for the interference of the House; but he could not see what that had to do with the concern any peer might have taken in the election.

Mr. Whitbread said, that the whole gist of one right hon. gen

tleman's reasoning was, that by acceding to the motion, the committee would be placed in an awkward situation. But whose fault was that? Had they not done so themselves by overlooking this flagrant invasion of the freedom of election? The royal duke had got the writ into his possession, in breach of one of the annual resolutions of the House. He then informed the electors that he wished them to vote for his friend, and to induce one of them to do so, he wrote to him that he had had some communication with lord Liverpool about a place which that elector wished to procure for a relation. He had also written to another, promising him his inter est with Lord Liverpool to obtain him a place. It further appeared that the duke of Cumberland had got connected with the borough by being trustee under a will, in which trust three commoners were partners with him, but that he took upon himself the sole management. Here was influence and interference of the most palpable kind.

Mr. Macdonald had no hesitation in saying, that if the transaction alluded to had been completed, and it was completed as far as depended on his royal highness, it would have amounted to direct bribery; and he believed there was no doubt in the mind of any member of the committee (of whom he was one) that the conduct of his royal highness was indecent and improper. The question before the House was extremely narrow. When a member of parliament stated that he was able to prove a gross violation of the privileges of the House, and of

the freedom of election, could they be deaf to such a charge?

The Attorney-general opposed the motion, on the ground that it would afford a precedent of the House's entertaining by way of appeal, matters which by an act of parliament were referred to a committee. The act proved, that it was the intention of the legislature to refer all matters concerning the election to the committee. By the method attempted to be introduced by this motion, every individual might be compelled to state his opinions as to the evidence before the committee.

Mr. Ponsonby said, that the act of parliament was elaborate in its distinction between those matters on which the committee were called on their oaths to decide, and those on which it was quite discretionary for them to report or not. As to the evils of an appellant jurisdiction, it should be recollected that such jurisdiction already existed in every case where a committee reported specially. The report was not binding, and it remained with the House to say whether the committee was right or wrong. The present was a question of propriety

"Was it fit that the House should interfere?" He conceived that it was their imperative duty, where any peer meddled with the rights of election; but they were more peculiarly called upon to act when the interference was not merely that of a peer, but of one of the blood royal. He was convinced that unless the House now expressed its sense of the transaction, they would soon have more flagrant instances of such interferences.

The House divided. For the mo

tion, 57; Against it, 105: Majority, 48.

On April 7th, the order of the day standing for receiving the report of the Weymouth election bill, Mr. Macdonald presented a petition from the inhabitants of the borough of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis. The general tenor of it was, to express their regret that none of the clauses introduced to the consideration of the House provided any adequate means to abolish the existing abuses, but rather to perpetuate and strengthen them. It stated the means by which the late sir W. Pulteney had appropriated to himself the majority of freeholds in the borough, and the manner in which they were now fallen into the hands of the four trustees of the will of the late sir J. L. Johnstone, the duke of Cumberland being one, who has ever since nominated members, and supported a system of corruption in the borough; and that it was for the purpose of counteracting this overbearing influence by enlarging the number of voters, that several individuals had devised their property among their relations and friends; and that such increase of voters destroying the power of the patron, an agent of his had avowed, that at the patron's desire, he had made wills upon his own property, and fraudulently manufactured votes to the extent now complained of. They concluded with requesting to be heard by their counsel, and produce evidence at the bar of the House in order to substantiate the above facts.

Mr. Macdonald then moved, that a select committee should be

appointed to take the petition into consideration.

Mr. Bathurst said, that the petition was founded upon a misconception of the measures to be adopted on the subject of the Weymouth election; and he could see no good from complying with the prayer of the petitioners.

Mr. Abercromby supported the petition. He thought it became the House to inquire into the case, lest by the present bill they should make the borough one of the closest in England. The best way to oppose those who called for a reform in that House, would be to show themselves friends to the extension of the elective franchise.

Several other members spoke on each side the question; those against the petition contending, that the bill having no other object than to correct the abuse of splitting votes, it was unnecessary to enter upon any other consideration; while those who supported it held that it would be unjust in parliament to remedy one species of abuse, and refuse to hear evidence respecting another. The House at length divided. For the motion 37; Against it 102: Majority 65.

The report on the Weymouth bill, with its amendments, was brought up on April 8th, when its opposers objected to the novelty in legislation established by it, of subjecting wills to the decision of the House of Commons. Replies were made to this objection, and an order was inade for the third reading of the bill.

It afterwards passed into a law without further discussion.