He was about to expatiate upon the detail of his amendment, when Mr. Secretary Yorke called to order, on the ground that the detail of the meafure fhould not take place until it had been moved. The Speaker decided accordingly. Mr. Pytches opposed the bill. General Loftus approved of the bill; he spoke in terms of high commendation of the Irish foldiery, and said, he thought great advantages would refult from the interchange of the militia of the two countries, After a few words from Lord Eufton, Mr. Whitbread, Colonel Hutchinson, and the Secretary at War, the House divided, For the bill, 100 42-Majority, 58 Mr. Yorke propofed two new claufes; the object of one was, to limit the duration of the bill to the 25th March 1806, and the other, enacting that the fervice of the Irish - militia in England fhould be limited to the duration of the bill; both of which were, after fome conversation, agreed to, and the bill was paffed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in pursuance of his notice, moved for the appointment of a Committee to take into confideration the petition from the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, &c. refpecting the exportation of grain: the object for which he moved this Committee was, to confider whether the price at which wheat was allowed to be exported under the 31ft of George III. was not, under all the circumftances, too low. The motion was agreed to, and the Committee was appointed. The other orders of the day were gone through, and the Houfe adjourned to Monday. HOUSE OF LORDS. MONDAY, APRIL 16. Their Lordships heard counsel in the appeal Fleming v. Abercromby further hearing deferred till next day. The Irish militia voluntary offer bill was brought up from the Commons, and read a firft time. On the motion of Lord Auckland, the volunteer amended bill was ordered to be read a third time the next day, and the Lords to be fummoned.-Adjourned. VOL. II. 1803-4. 3Q HOUSE HOUSE OF COMMONS. MONDAY, APRIL 16. Sir John Newport stated that, about three weeks fince, he had moved for a return to be made by the treasurers of counties in Ireland to that House: he understood no fuch return had been made. He rofe now to give notice, that, on that day fe'nnight, if the return was not produced in the interim, he fhould move an order to enforce it. An officer from the Navy Board prefented an account of the number of artificers now employed in his Majesty's dock-yards. Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. Corry mentioned that a notice which had been given to the Houfe of a motion to be fubmitted to its confideration on the fubject of the filver currency in Ireland, had been poftponed to that day, in expectation of the arrival of fome neceffary documents from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He had now the pleafure to acquaint the House that documents had been received from his Excellency of fuch a nature as to render unneceffary any act of legiflation upon the fubject, and fuch measures had been taken by his Majefty's Minifters, by and with the advice of the Privy Council, upon this fubject, on which they had long continued to deliberate, and of which they had never loft fight, as effectually to provide a remedy amply commenfurate to every exigency of exifting occafions. Sir Robert Buxton obferved, that as it was highly important to the House, and to the country at large, to be acquainted with the names and public deferts of the feveral perfons who were distinguished by the public bounty of the Crown, in those penfions which formed fo confiderable a part of the public charges of the nation, he fhould move, that there be laid before the House a lift of the names of perfons to whom penfions are granted, payable at the Exchequer; the amount of each pension respectively; and the date when granted. Ordered. AYLESBURY ELECTION. Sir George Cornewall moved the order of the day for the fecond reading of the bill for the better prevention of bribery and corruption in the borough of Aylesbury. The queftion being put, The Marquis of Titchfield rofe to oppofe the further proceeding on the bill; firft, becaufe he did not think the advocates of the bill had made out a cafe fufficiently strong to warrant the adoption of fuch a meafure, which went to punifh indifcriminately all the electors of Aylesbury, for the alleged alleged crime of only a portion of them; and fecondly, because the charge was only stated to be substantiated against a few, compared with the number who claimed the right of voting. For the prefent the noble Marquis did not feel it neceffary to state any further arguments upon it, but concluded with moving an amendment, that inftead of the words, "be now read," there be inferted the words, "this day three months." Sir J. Newport warmly fupported the bill. He contended it was a meature abfolutely neceffary to mark the just indignation of that Houfe against the grofs and flagitious delinquency of the borough of Aylesbury, and the infamous inftances of the moft foul and atrocious corruption openly catried on with the electors of that borough at the late election, in defiance of the laws, in the moft flagrant proftitution of electioneering franchifes. It appeared from the reports of their Committee, to whofe confideration the merits of that election had been referred, that three houfes in the town had been opened for the palpable and avowed purposes of bribery and corruption; that upwards of two hundred of the electors had received the bribes, not only of one but of all the candidates; that they figned their names to an addrefs, foliciting a candidate, whom they had never known or feen, to ftand for their borough, for no other purpose than to raise the market, and enhance the price of corruption; that in the public room where thofe men entered for the purpose of receiving their bribes, there was a bowl of punch at one end of the table, and a bowl of guineas at another. Having mentioned a variety of inftances of a like nature, he faid it was impoffible for Parliament to pass unpunished a cafe of fuch foul corruption, fo utterly obnoxious to the fpirit of our conftitution, and the purity of the Commons, without abandoning both, and furnishing new and ftrong arguments for reformers out of doors; when the best and mott whole fome fpecies of reform was already in the power of the House itfelt, by checking in the first inftance, and branding, by the mott exemplary punithment, every fuch flagitious inftance of corruption, as that which marked out the borough of Aylefbury as a fit example to deter other boroughs from acting with fuch bafenefs, and proftituting tobribery the conftitutional trust repofed in the electors; he therefore fupported the bill. Mr. Hurft fully agreed in the fentiments of the hon. Baro net, as to the juftice and neceflity of exemplary punishment to the perfons actually guilty of fuch foul and flagitious cora ruption as that which had been ftated, and to this the law of the land was already competent to the full extent neceffary, 3 Q2 fo fo far as utterly disfranchising, and muleting, by heavy penalties, the perfons who should be proved guilty thereof, and against whom profecutions were at this moment carrying on. But he never could agree to punish the innocent indifcriminately with the guilty, in fubverfion of the mild, just, and conftitutional fpirit of our laws, as would be the inevitable effect of a bill that must eventually disfranchife the innocent. honourable, honeft, and unoffending electors of Aylesbury and their pofterity, merely for the crimes of the guilty. Lord Offulfton understood it was the intention to throw open parithes in the hundreds furrounding the borough of Aylesbury, which, in his mind, fo far from remedying would rather promote the evil complained of, as it would bet in the rights of election to a defcription of perfons without property, and certainly more open tothe temptation of bribery than thofe already charged with it; befide, he did not think that Aylefbury was fo very fingular a cafe, as to call for peculiar disfranchisement for a fpecies of corruption, of which instances were unhappily but too numerous elsewhere. If the hon. Baronet would bring forward any general measure for the more effectual prevention of bribery and corruption, and specifically declare any degree of fuch delinquency which fhould hereafter fubject a borough to disfranchisement, he should have no objection to fupport it. Sir George Cornew.ll was in favour of the bill, and argued that the portion of corrupted votes appeared to be as 271 to 37, and faid he should divide the House against the amend ment. Sir Robert Buxton fupported the bill, and Mr. P. Moore fpoke against it. He contended that the law was already fufficiently ftrong to punish the delinquency. of the parties against whom the charge could be established, againft whom actions were this moment in fuit for penalties to the amount of a million fterling. Mr. Francis difapproved of the measure, as calculated to punish the virtuous for the acts of the guilty, who formed the minority of the electors of this borough, and whom, ftrange to tell, this bill did not propofe to difqualify. Mr. Grenfell stated that it appeared in evidence that above 200 of the voters accepted bribes at the laft election, and that the fyftem of corruption which prevailed in this borough was flagrant, extenfive and uniform. The Mafter of the Rolls reafoned against the bill. The preamble, he observed, contained only this allegation, that bribery was notorious at Ayk fbury. It did not ftate what umber was corrupt. It was not pretended that they formed the the majority of the electors; but even if the majority had actually accepted bribes, it would not, on that ground, be juft to deprive others of thofe rights, which were granted not merely to the prefent poffeffors, but to generations yet to come. If, however, the minority only were implicated in the guilt alleged, this proceeding was ftill more unjuftifiable, for it would be rather a new thing, and one directly contrary to the fpirit of our conftitution, or of univerfal equity, that one man's conduct should forfeit the rights of another, and it would be still more new and iniquitous, that the minority fhould forfeit the rights of the majority. The learned Gentleman contended, that this bill thould, from its nature, be rather entitled an act to encourage bribery and corruption in all other boroughs; for, as it did not propose to disfranchife the guilty, but rather to put them, with many others, in competition with the virtuous majority who had defeated them at the laft election, the inference from the adoption of the measure would be this-that if any bribery fhould take place in any borough, the man who fhould partake of it, and the man who fhould reject it, would, in the event of an appeal to the Houfe of Commons, be put on the fame footing. Thus, contrary to the general policy of legiflation, a man's intereft would be put on the oppofite fide of his duty. He cautioned the Houfe againft holding out fuch a propofition to the public as this bill implied, from its preamble, that the existence of "notorious bribery" in any borough, to whatever extent, would be fufficient to justify the disfranchifement of fuch borough. Of this mode of making legislative regulations, applicable only to particular individuals, he always difapproved. A law fhould be general, defining the nature of the offence, and the punishment to be applied; but in no cafe fhould it have an ex poft facto operation, as the meafure before the Houfe propoled to take. The Secretary at IFar obferved, that all the reafoning of his learned Friend who had juft fat down applied to the prin ciple of the bill, which was precifely the fame as that upon which acts of a fimilar nature with refpe&t to Shoreham and Cricklade were grounded. Of thofe acts he highly approved, and from entirely the fame reafons which induced him to fupport the bill before the Houfe. Mr. Serjeant Beft contended that this bill did not reft on grounds fo ftrong as either of the acts alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke laft, as in the cafe of Shoreham an allegation was made in the preamble, that the majority of the electors were corrupt, and the fyftem which prevailed at Cricklade was notorious to every man acquainted with |