Star.
London, England, 1809-06-08 00:00:00

Had. Gentleman having adverted to the 40th of Olt
present reign, respecting the nature of borough Claims
n
propose as a clause," That
no
phieietworoud
should
l be entitled to compen.
sation, unless he made a declaration to the effect of
i BoroughrIreland,
a said,P r o
not having been influenced in his election vote by ar,
consideration, and that the person convicted of acting
contrary to such declaration should forfeit any title to
compensation for the loss of proprietorship which he
may subsequently incur."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, for
the same reason as the Hon. Gentleman had given.
concerning bid clause, could not perceive the relevancy
of that proposed by the Hon. Gentleman himself. Iu
fact, his (Mr. PercevaPs) clause was not confined to
burghaere tenure purchasers only, but the purchase of
lands, &c. in any other way. The Hon. Gentleman
would do as well to postpone his observations on the
butghage tenure, till its abolition was brought forward
as a legislative measure.
A long conversation took place on the clause origi-
nally proposed by the Chancellor of the Exe.tequer,
in which Mr. Tieltney, Mr. W. Smith, the Attorney.
General, Sir J. Anstruther, the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, Lord Porchester. and Lord Milton, pee
ticipated. Eventually the original clause was agreed
to without a division ; and Mr. Smith withdrew his
proposed clause.
Thee HANCELLO R of the EXCHEQUER pro.
posed a clause, by which those persons who obtained
their returns by an express agreement for the gra ning
of offices should be deprived of their seats, and that
those individuals who procured such returns for others,
by an express agreement for the granting of offices,
should be subject to certain penalties.
Lord H: PETTY contended, that if the present
clause were adopted, the Bill, instead of annihilating
corruption, would concentrate and consolidate it. It
one road alone were left open, by which the posses-
sors of borough influence could turn that influence to
a profitable account, that road would unquestionably
'be frequented by them, and tht whole of that influ-
ence would be thrown into the hands of the Treasury.
The term " express agreement," which alone actor.
dinglY to the proposed clause, would subject an in-
dividual to the penalties of the Bill, was a kind of
proclamation, that a transaction not founded on an
" express" agreement, might be carried on with im-
punity. If the Act were not to be equally applicable
to Offices, and to. money, he thought it would be
infinitely better to have no Act at all. He moved
'an-amendment to the clause, leaving out the wool
" express."
The CHANCELLOR of die EXCHEQUE*
4 repeated his former statement, that in the ease of a
grant cif an office to an individual who had either the
right of voting himself, or the power of influencing
others, a Jury would in most cases declare that such
a grant was in consequence of a vote given, or in eit-
- pectation of a vote to be given. There was a necessity
therefore for the term " express agreement;" or.other-
wise all interchange of good ffices, and all gratitude
for favours, would be at an end
Sir J. ANSTRUTHER declared that it was
libel on the Juries of the country to suppose that they
were not competent to distinguish ,W the cases shpt
might be brought before them. He adverted to, the
circumstance in which the present bill originated,
namely, the conduct of 4 Secretary of State, which
conduct he characterized as most bungling, and con•
tended that it was the intention of the ,:haneellor of
the Exchequer only to prevent the repetition of such
bungling conduct, and alrolutely to legalize every
other description or conduct under similar circum.
stances. By the proposed clause the, Minister would
he at liberty to make as many agreements as he
thought proper, provided he did not allowthe agree.
ment to appear oh the face of the transaction,
!qr. LITTLETON deClared ' that the present
clause was se obnoxious, to him, that if it Were adop-
ted, he should, however reluctantly, f_ eel'
to vote againit the bill.
Mr. ABBOTT (the Speaker) thought the present
an embarrassing case. He thought it right to strike
at a flagrant case, but he thought it right to take care
at the same time not to strike at any thing which it
'h,tis not intended to strike at. He should- vote for
the clause as it originally stood, with the term, "
press agreement ;" but he contended, that the ofe
fences not included within that term, 'were misde-
meanors, and were punishable by the common law.
As the principal offence would meet with the exinci.
pal punishment, and as no offence would go without
punishment, he should except the clause as it stood,
and leave to experience to make• any further enact-
ment* that alright be thought isecessary.
Mr. PONSONBY regretted differing from the
Right Honourable Gentleman. When-the law de-
clared, that a person should be pueished for. an."
presiagreement;" an instruction was distinctly implied
to the courts of law, that an individual was noun be
punished who had not entaredttnto such tin u-express
agreement.". The law thus framed•would favour the
case of an implied
.egreeroent by conteadistinguishing
it from ihe express agreement.; end .at least enhance
the diffieulty of punishing those whose agreement sae. .
implied and not expitssed.
Mr. ABBOTT wished it to .be distinctly under-
stood, that the ground on which, he should vote upon
the present case was, that the offence omitted in the
clause, would nevertheless not , go unpunished, as it
was a misdemeanor by the existing statute.
Mr. PONSONBY . persisted In his former state-

•• 1
Mr. TIERNgY alkared mitla the Right Hon.
Gentleman'opposite.(bit—Abtxstt) that any n-ansac-
tion of the nature alluded .t although no; founded
on an 4, express agreement," was contrary to the law
of Parliament, and to the common law of the :land,
yet contended that it would be most extraordinary to
abstain from including an implied contract or agree-
ment in the purview of the present bill, and declared,
that in his opinion, If it were so omitted the bill would
be worth nothing. The Gentlemen opposite, professed
to assist the Hon. Gentleman by whom the present
bill was introduced. They had assisted him in getting
rid of every part of the bill that could be useful and
satisfactory to the public. If an express agreement
alone were to be within the, purview of the bill, he
‘ld not
The
faces
bill,'.
them,