The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-03-11 00:00:00

.

but not to vote. There was another case, when a Bill was brought
forward for the improvement of free trade. On the second reading
an objection was taken to the votes of all Members for Corporations,
it was considered they must be advocates for monopoly, and there-
fore have a private interest in opposirg the Bill; and the important
decision was come to that they be not allowed to vote. The case
occurred on the 211th of April., 108, and every' Member as he
voted protested dm he was no Member of a Corporation—on pro.
tesmt.on his vote was allowed. These were the only cases that pre-
sented themselves to his notice. He was sure the House would
duly consult their own dignity and gain favour in the eyes of the
country, if they adopted some Pleasure to ensure an impartial con-
sideration of alt questions that came before them. After some fur.
ther remarks, the lion. Member moved the following Resolution :
" That no Member shall vote for or against any question in which
he has a direct pecuniary interest."
Mr. LITTLETON opposed the resolution. He had two years
ago brought forwards similar one, and gave it up. He considered
the usage as it now stood infinitely preferable to any alteration that
could be made ; it had the advantage over the proposed measure ;
at present they knew who the persons interested were, and
gave an opportunity of challenging them. If the House passed the
present measure a Member would not himself subscribe,
but would get his attorney to do it for him ; and then would urge
the measures in which he had a private interest ; at the same time
the House had no means of ascertaining the fact. Another evil
would follow front it. Suppose a Member belong to a Corporation,
and that the Corporation petition one way or the other, according
to the doctrine urged the Member could not vote on the question
about which the petition was. The Hon. Member stated at some
length several other objections to the resolutions ; amongst others,
he said, that many Slembers for counties for instance would dia.
qualify themselves from voting, in order to be able to steer clear of
the little jealousies and bickering' so collision to the country. The
Hon. Gentleman thought it far better to leave Parliamentto itself,
and to allow it to cocault its own character, whenever a case came
b.tfore it where it would be necessary to interfere. Because such
was his view he would oppose the resolution, and more the Previous
Question.
Mr. GRENFELL thought every principle of justice required
that it those who were to profit by a Dill he disqualified, those who
on the other hand had an oppusite interest be also subjected to
the same incapacity. The Hon. Member complained that while he
was excluded from voting a few nights back on a question where he
was interested, one of the Members for Drampound had voted,
though the saute Member had that day signed apetition against
the Bill as a Proprietor of the London Docks. He objected to
the Resolution, because he thought hall the time I f the Meuse
would be taken up in determining who had and who bad not an
interest. Still, however, on erety occasion he was determined to
challenge the vote of every Member who had an interest opposed to
a Bill.
Mr. H. SUM NER thought it better to leave it to the honourable
heeling, of eve's, Member whether he voted or not where he was to
gain or lose by any Bill.
Sir 11. W RIDLEY, after • few observations, said he should
prefer that the House come to a resolution marking the impro.
priety of a Member's voting where he had a pecuniary interest
involved ; that he thought would be sufficient to produce the de-
sired Meet. It would then be left to his conscience and honour,
than which lie could not see a stronger tie.
Mr. PEEL then said, he thbught the present was not agitated
until agitation became absolutely necessary. He, bower—. would
not wish to conic to any decision that might preclude 1 ins from
turning his attention to the subject hereafter. At present thee
were three courses, any of .sich the House may adopt :—First, to
agree to the Resolution moved by the Hon. Member for Montrose
(Mr. Hume), which would go positively to disqualify esety 31ern-
ber having the slightest pecuniary :nterest one way or ti • other in
any 11111. Another course open to the House was, to folio* up the
suggestion of the Hon. Baronet, and declare its sense of the im-
propriety any Member would be guilty of in voting where he had
Li interest, and leave it to the honoor of the Member, and to his
feelings, of what was due to his own character as to how be should
act. The third course the House may pursue was going to the
previous question. For his own part he confessed that he felt great
difficulty in agreeing to the original Resolution, and thought Par-
liament taught not to be too hasty in doing any th:ng that went to
disqualify the rote of any Member. (Hear, heat.) They should
use great caution before they agreed to a Resolution that, so far as
in operation went, would disfranchise the Constituents of any
Member. They were sent to that House to represent and promote
the interests of their respective Constituents, and he lever
would consent to a proposition that was to deptiye them of
the services of their Representatives. (Hear, hear.) In his life
he never for a moment entertained a doubt as to the policy of pre-
venting the interference of any Me nber in a measure where he
had a private pecuniary interest; but it was monstrous to suppose
a Member incompetent to vote, merely because he had an interest
concurrent with the rest of the community, or that such an interest
should extend to an utter disqualification. (Hear, hear.) inde-
pendent of the objections before stated, he had • dislike to any
innovation with tho practice of Parliament, and the present mea-
sure was of that ctmntexion. (" No !" from Mr. Hume.) If
there be nothing new in it, why bring it forward? For his pert
he thought it bad some consideration of novelty to recommend it.
(A laugh.) After some further observations, the Right lion.
Gentleman proceeded to arty, that if the House had any thing to
contend with—lf any thing stood in the way of justice—let it be
open, let it be tangible, let it be within its ken. Such a state of
things would be far preferable to having to contend with privacy
and conccahnedt. If they passed a measure disqualifying sub-
scribers from voting, they would drive them to the mean and despi-
cable artifice of subscribing in the names of others; and they would
in the Rouse then be supporting more effectually, and quite out of
the reach of any order of the House, those measures in which their
interest was just the same as if they had subscribed in their own
names. Though such practices were bad, there were others which
he blamed more, far mote—he meant private canvassing. (Hear.)
That he dreaded mote than any thing else, because there was no
way of meeting and checking its corrupt influence. In the case of
perms voting who were directly interested there was a etre for the
disease ; an opportunity was afforded of challenging; so that no
great mischief could arise from them; but he must declare his
conviction that great and glaring injustice was often done
to the country by the system of canvassing (hear, bear.);
and that such a system was practised was notorious. Nothing wiz
more common than for Honourable Members to go about soliciting
the support of others for any Bill in which they had an interest.
Such conduct was resorted to—conduct which could not be ton
highly reprobated. (Hear, hear.) Then as to the proposition of
the lionourable Baronet (Sir M. Ridley), there were strong and he
would add insuperable objections. It was proposed that a resolu-
tion be agreed to declaring it derogatory from the character of any
Member to voce where he had a pecuniary interest involved. lie
(Mr. Peel) did not look on such a measure calculated to answer or
advance the proposed end. Every individual in the House must
already know that to be the case. No resolution of the House
could make its truth more apparent, or its impmptiety more glar-
ing. At the same time, then, that nothing would be gained by it,
much might be loot ; for it would lessen the power of the House in
interfering, inasmuch as there was another tribunal established by
•itself, namely, the conscience and honour of the Members individu-
ally. The !louse then would allow the private honour of the indivi,
dual to supersede its own laws; such must be the evident effect
of it, and he never could consent to the House so disarming itself.
He would prefer that matters :Mould rest as they were to such an
alternative. The Right lion. Gentleman went on to say, that
though he entertained the most profound respect for the law of
Parliament as it then mood, and though he did not mean to im-
pugn its propriety, still if he were to argue the case a priori, and
without reference to precedent or former decision, he must say, that
perhaps lie should not be prepared to go quite so far in
disqualifying Members from voting as the resolution of the
!louse and their exposition by the former lion. Member went.
lie saw, he coofesssed, so many difficulties likely to attend upon
their interference, that he for one must give his vote for their pa sing
to the Order of the Day. There was some injustice, bethought,
in their laying down an inflexible rule from which there was to be
no departure as to the votes of Members interested (0 questions
before the House. It would put a stop to all improveanents, if they
were to declare that no man was to exert any influence in carrying
or opposing any measure to which he might happen to be favour-
able. Since the year 1798, when an attempt was made by some
Members of that House to vote away certain sums to themselves,
under the name of the Loyalty Loan, and which attempt the
House had promptly discouraged, he had not heard of any case in
which this exertion of pr gate favour had proved detrimental to the
public business ; and looking at the extraonlinary extent Prods*.
business at present before them, he thought lie should discharge Ms
duty by not tying himself up to a Resolution which must materially
retard its progress.
Mr. GURNEY said, the practice which prevailed with regard
to the formation and support of new soetulations ought. if possi-
ble. to be checked. Ile knew a Member of that House who bad
applied for some shares in a new Company. The application had
been complied with,but in •postscript it was stated,thst theDirectols
relied upon his best exertions to support the success of the project
on all tcsasions. The lion. Person he alluded to, upon the re-
ceipt of this notice, immediately refused the proffered WOW',
and actually went into the market, and purchased the shares he
wanted at a premium of SO per cent. (Hear. hear.) It was not
to be supposed that this was a singular instance, or that the con-
duct pursued on this occasion had been universal ; and he, for one,
thought an evil so great ought to be visited with severe reFe.
henmon. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. W. IVY NN thought no Member of that House could
have a doubt that suds proceedings as Close detailed by the Hoe.
Member for Norwich should be visited with the severest animad-
versions. If it could be proved to his satisfaction that any such
proceedings had taken place in any measure now before that House,
he should consider it his duty to exert himself to throw out that
measure, and thereby provide an effectual remedy against a re-
currence of the evil; and he tbought the lion. Member would
confer a public benefit, by bringing such a case before the notice of
the Muse. (lkar, hear.) If a direct pecuniary interest could be
proved in any case, so as to leave fair presumption of comipt
motives, he (Mr. Wynne) should consider it a good ground for
inquiry; but until such motives were brought home to any indi-
vidual, he thought it better to abide by the old custom of Parlia-
ment. There were a number of anomalous cases for the direction
both of the !louse and its Members in any question relating to
private interest!, without having recourse to any new regulation.
For instance, in questions relating to a seat in that House, or in
questions connected with its privileges, it was usual for the Mem-
ber to withdraw before a division, although he had been heard in
his place upon the subject before the House. In cases of im-
peachment, too, the Member might be heard in his place before the
House came to a decision upon the question. As the same course
might be pursued by any Member knowing himself to have a
direct pecuniary interest n any measure which might tend to cad
an imputation upon the impartiality of his vote, lie thought it