The Sun.
London, England, 1825-03-11 00:00:00

FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 11, 1825.

of, any -Member (which was the same thing) delicacy prevented
such Member from voting." After this declaration, Mr. Man-
ning, he believed, being interested, withdrew. Two other
Hon. Members remaining, their ,votes were challenged ; but
they declared it was their intention to vote because they had
datermined not to accept of any bonus: Thus having divest-
ed themselves of any pecuniary interest, and not until then,
they did vote. This, -however, was not donerwithout consider-
able objection and discussion. Mr. Ryder stated that he theiught
if the rule laid down by the SPeakzr Was carried to its full
tent, it would prevent Members from voting in question of taxes.
But 'the Speaker drew this distinction, that where the interest
was no more than that which was held by the whole commu-
nity, the vote mighrbe received. Some short time afterwards,
some votes of Honourable Mernbera were questioned on the
Grand Junction Canal Bill ; but it did not appear that they
had any direct interest, :and-their votes were admitted. In
1811, a distinction was drawn between direct and general inte-
rest. A Bill was then brought into this-I-dense, called the Bank
Note Bill, the object of which was, to render. Bank Notes cur-
rent throughout the -.kingdom. Upon the voting for that Bill,
the Hon. Member, now foe Appleby, but then for Thetford,
objected to the votes of nc than 45 Bank Proprietors. lie
held, that every Bank -Proprietor was interested in the passing
of the Bill; and, therefirre, their votes were objectionable on
the ground of direct interest. Mr. Manning,'the then Chair-
man, stated his opinion that the votes were not exceptionable, on
the ground that this was a measure not asked for by the Bank
Proprietors, but was in fact a measure introduced by the Go-
vernment, The Speaker, on being referred to, declared his opi-
' nion. He said; " ifthey opened the Journals, they would find
it established 230 years ago, anti then spoken of as an ancient
practice; that personal interest disqlieNfied a Member from vot-
ing ; but that interest must be a direct pecuniary interest, and
not an interest.in common with the rest of his Majesty's Sub-
jects, on state of State policy." The question was then pUt,
and a challenge negatived without a diiision. So much for the
principle on which the interest proceeded. There were, how.:
ever, one or two more cases which ought to be noticed, as ex-
planatory of what had been the law on the subject. In 1623
the question was discussed bow far a Member could be con-
sidered interested as a member of the community generally.'
An Act was brought in for the reversing and making void a de-
cree made in Chancery, and all orders made against the Master
and fellows of Magd..den College, Cambridge, at the suit of
the Earl of Oxford. The House on that occasion decided, that
Dr. ()ouch, 31aster of the College, should be beard, and should
then withdraw, thereby disqualifying him from voting on a
subject, in which hi's conduct was immediately in question.
Another case upnn the subject was this :.—On the 20th April,
1621, a Bill was introduced for the improvement of free trade.
On the second reading of that Bill an objection, was taken, that
members of Corporations having monopolies, and therefore hav-
ing an interest that free trade should not take place, were dis-
qualified front voting ; after discussion, the decision of the
House was, that...they should not vote. To save the time of

the House, the Hon. Member would not go farther into- the
question. Be thought he had laid sufficient ground for the
Resolution he was about to propos; and he felt confirlmt the

House would consult their own honour and dignity, by slim-
! in,,o the community at large that they entered into an impartial
and fair consideration of every question woic:i was brought
before them. In conclusion, he begged leave to move —" That
no Member shall vote for or
against
any
ygtuhe wasestion in
whichu he
-has a direct or pecuniary interest."
LVT T ' lia ,ETON begged to say,rriehina.
pressed with the necessity of maintaining the individual cha-
racter of Members in this House as the Honourable Member
could be, and he was the more sanguine in his expectation, that
he (Mr. Hurtle) would give him credit for sincerity when he
said so, if he recollected that he (Mr. Lyttleton) had a similar
object to the.present in View, on a former occasion. He had
given notice of a similar motion some tune since ; but be found
the objections so insuperable, that he abandoned it. His object
had been to remedy the evil where it occurred more grievously
thaii immediately iu the House, namely, in the Committees up
stairs, which were only frequented by those Members who had
an interest themselves, or else advocated the particular interests
of others. He could not think the House would gain any thing
by supporting this motion ; for under the present system, every
one knew who those Members :were, who had an interest in a
particular question, as they were heedless as to avowing it, not
knowing they would be objected to on that ground ; and there-.
fore we knew what value to attach to their opinions. But if they
were rendered incapable of voting on the ground of direct and
apparent interest, they would get their friends secretly to sub-
scribe to measures fir them in their (their friends')natnes ; and
thus their interest would be concealed, while the mischief com-
plained of would be the more effectually accomplished. But
if a Resolution, such as this, were to be adopted by the House,
how often would it happen, that :lie only Member who could
throw the most light on, and do the greatest justice to a subject,
would be driven from the House, because his interests were
wrapped up in those of his constituents ? There was, moreover,
another point of view in which it must be considered. It con-
stantly happened that counties, towns, or particular parties,
were divided between two. measures. Members would often
avail themselves adds motion to disqualify their own votes.—
To avoid the bickerings of parties, and to prevent creating ene-
mies among their own constituents, they would subscribe to a
measure, to avoid interfering directly on one side or the other.
The House, in his (Mr. L.'s) conception, could not do better
than by abstaining from expressing any opinion on'this subject.
They would then call upon Members to consult what was due
to their character and honour (Hear, hear !), as the only means
of putting a restraint on that which had brought great discredit
on the House. He concluded by moving, that the previous
question be now put.
_ . _

Mr. GRENFtLI, said, that after his vote had been disal.
lowed the other evening, on a question for promoting an object
of national welfare, he called upon the House, by every prin.
ciple of justice, to disallow the votes of those who had an in-
terest in voting against it. He alluded to the St. Catherine's
Dock Company; and he found one of the Members for Gram-
pound had signed a Petition against that Bill, on the ground
that it would injure his pecuniary interest. The disqualification
on the of interest ought, therefore,_ to he on both sides ;
but he could not vote for this motion; because, if it were car-
ried, one-half the time of the House would be consumed in
fiuding out who bad, and who had not, an interest in any par-
ticular measure. In the interim, however, until the disqualifi-
cation of his vote on the St. Catherine's Dock Bill was recinded,
lie should avail himself of every opportunity to apply the same
principle of disqualification to all Members who might have a
direct interest in opposing any measure brought before the
House.—Hear. hear !)
Mr. HOLM: SUMNER conceived that this subject could
not be better disposed of than by its being left to the honour-
able feelings of Members whether they ought to-vote on ques-
tions in which they had a direct pecuniary interest. He
had intended to have made a motion himself on the sub-
ject, but the amendment that had bcco offered to the atten-
tion of _ the House had, of course, excluded him from that
step.
--
—--

tiir M. W. RIDLEY could not agree with the motion that
had been introduced by the lion. Member for Aberdeen ; it
was a measure calculated to give discontent to the constituents
of Hon. Members, and would bind Honourable Members
themselves. His own wish was, that whatever motion should
be proposed, should be left to the honour of the Members of that
House to act upon.
- Mr. PEEL was aware of the great difficulties that would
arise from the adoption of any one of the measures that Mut been
offered to the consideration of the House, though, for his own
part, he was inclined, upon the whole, to adopt the measure of
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Lyttleton) for passing to the other Orders
of the Day, as that proceeding would.not prevent the House
from taking up the su bjeet on any future occasion. There had been
three courses proposed to the House, either the adoption of the
measure of the Hon. Member for Montrose, whichwenttloeatl:e.
entire disqualification of those who had any direct influence in
Billiang the
; ttibiliengadeoltpntgioentheorfut,htehellpotniv.aßteahrnonnnener of earth individual
Baronet's
proposition,
3ie
li)cOrders o
r : or, l
a stt the i
lf
,tlalthiy. He confessed that h
of hislicoon.e Friend's for
passing to
the otherne saw great
difficulties in adopting the first of those three courses, for, with.
out entering into the question of whether the House of Com-
mons had any right to enact such a measure, it was, at all
events,
toacted 00 with verygreat caution. Hon'
that House to perform their duties to
Members
were
sent e
their constituents, and he, for one, could never consent to any
law for disqualifying seqeintaullidtyi ttg
not h those 31 embers from giving their vote.
Indeed,
priori doubting the authority of
elp a .
Parliament in a such a proceeding, for if the interests of his
constituents required him to vote in a certain way, he could
not see how those interests were to disqualify hits. The Hon.
Member's motion was in fact only an extension of the present
disqulifications. . [The Hon. Member expressed his dissent.'
Then, if it was not, he would ask the louse, in God's name,
to leave the law as it was.— (llear, hea• 1)7. In such il point as