Star.
London, England, 1804-02-03 00:00:00

DENMARK.

Comeaoew, jaw. to.—lt is affirmed, that the
goods on board the lad Engli(h convoy are to be fold
at any price, on account of the Englifh Government.
The frigate which convoyed there veils failed away
immediately.
We expeil fhortly a great fleet from Hull, which
has been at fea fince the toth of December. An
Englifh armed packet boat, commanded by Captain
Hostizrow, is arrived at Runfwig, in Norway, de-
Rined for Gothenburg.
Jaw. 14.—We ezpeß fhortly the appearance of a
new criminal code, in which only three crimes will
be made spunilhable by death, viz. rebellion, blaf-
plumy, and murder.
The Police of this city has difcnvered a (pecks of
robbery, which has often been pradtiCed in other great
cities—a new grave, in a great church-yard, near the
city, was found to be empty • and upon farther ete-
rnisation. many others were found in the fame condi-
tion. The grave diggers being united, have con-
fided that they have carried on this Ihatneful pro/lice
many years, and not only firipped the dead of their
clothes, but alto burnt the coffins. People are per.
.mitred to ezamine the graves of their relations to fee
in what condition they are. This crime is not men-
tioned in the Danifh law, and the public are, there-
fore, curious to know what puniChment will be ad-
judged to it.
Enstuaust, jaw. to.—ln the year tifoj there ar.
rived from the North Sea 5,654 Ibips in all, of which
,9ot were Danifh, 984 Swedilh, :,065 Englifh. 1,112
l'ruffians, 95 Americans, 56 Dutch, s French, &c.
—from the Baltic 5,975, of which 3,058 Englith.
988 Danilh, r French, dec.—from the Baltic and
North Sea t t,629 in all.

PARLIAMENT:IKr PROCEEDINGS.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, TUESDAY, FEE. 3.

QUINTIN DICK, Efq, took the Oohs and hie Seat far the
Maroagh of Wcft Loe, In Cornwall.

JOHN WILLIAM ANDERSON prefented a Petition from
the Diredors of the Weft India Dock Company, praying for !care
es bring le a Bill enabling them to rade farther fume of Money for
the eopepletien ofitse Works =arty to tuna the Docks.
The Petition was referred to a encomium.

Sr J. NIIWPORT moved for an Account et the Sums of Mo-
w odd kedge Support et Honks of Induftry to Ireland, by the
Onad Jades of that Cosnuy, in the Years slos.a and 3.—Or-
dered.
Mr.-FOX then role, agreeably to his notice of yet.
terdsiy. to call the attention of the Houle to the Pe-
tition of certain perfons. dyling themfelvea Freehold-
ers of Middlefex. complaining of the Return for that
County. The Hon. Member began by lacing, that
the point to be confidered by the Houfe was one fo
Oen, and fo little liable to any poifibitity of diffe
fence of opinion. that he did not conceive it necef-
fary to occupy the time of the Houfe with any de-
tailed arguments. It would not, he conceived, be
attempted to be denied that Alts of Parliament were
in every cafe to be interpreted in a manner as nearly
as poifible agreeable to the precife letter, and if this
was admitted as a general principle, it could not be
denied that fuck a mode of interpretation was more 1,
afpecially proper, when the art Welt- was framed for
the exprefs purpofe of putting an end to vague ideas 1
of the intentions of the Legiflatore. The Hook
had, on the prefent occanon, a very fimple duty to
perform. They had only to lay out of their confide-
ration every idea but the pofitive mandatory injunc•
Lions of the Aft, and then their decifion could not,
even for a moment, become a matter of doubt.—
Gentlemen he was convinced need nut be reminded
of the circumflances which originally gave rile to the
Grenville Aft. It was an Aft expref,ly founded on
the bad opinion entertained of the Houle of Commons
in the exercife of its judicial powers. It was an Aft
originating in conflitutional jcsloofy, and sic tinned
,eforreel an evil, the etillence of which an parties
admitted. Having laid this. it was p►eper for him
go add, that the AA. which originally encountered
the droned opprifition. bad from reperiesiet been
found poclutlive of the molt bt.eficial effeas.—
Thole who had or:gin lily railed it ssi•S I/4
...;rs.a:cit
veal, had fern reafon to 'ter their vs, and
thufe whu were, in the fit i:i.lancc, its me,l ..p.
ponents, had become its ssu.tt flncere :tomirer,. Fie
bad no hefitation in that w ss

i:e Ue.
if

among this number. it t..ic tue%r'ore
Med that the oragin of the :VI v.„ 4 Tir
fom that the 1-la4c veer.: ;

..f law, fo far AS it cor.cetnc.l ti:: •:.11 •h the
fai►ncfs of elcaions wa. 1.1 Ai ter
palling of the Gienvi:lc Ar•. in ;h: fira
the obvious conclu•i•+l Ai: dis.ll,•Z'oll 9. AS
fallen away Iron, the I; .1. 2. at.l that et•iry th;:77
snorseacd ezt.:i.ns 11* .11 C. .4C t.g.tla•cd
by the precife provittot.s Mt. It •••,. qt:;:e
inip.,P.le to clotploc tl•is

.1111(11. iIOWCVCI. WA, !:
ike idca th this
O.Zt it W 4 1.1411 C.! 1.. C. .
U34ttet. it fi‘ .INcos.

-1:r C:r F'.

oloe

le vasty

.11)'

c. c•cr p t I
c.. 1..

't 3 t

L•f;r,

L 4,1;,:

pt.l
. •.1,1

t 11,de
0 'W. 412.

t

11/..1641.Z AZ,I IL Nu kJe;

~ .1

• ;
t Wit

I 11 u

;Ls: it, it

of ptelituinary judgment Ihould be taken away from'
the Houfe. It was declared, that, if petitions were
of firth and loch a nature, they Mould be laid before
a Committee ; but that if they were of a different de-
fcri;tion and chara&tr, they Gould be declared in-
continent with the provifions of the aft, which was
to regulate :ill proceedings rcla'ive to controverted
eledions. 'Mete original provilions might perhaps,
in interprztativn, have been conceived to be
finficLnt ; but len any poftibility of mitlake Should
ari fe, le ft any citeumllancesfhould occur which might
endanger a recurrence to the decition of the Houfe,
which was taken for granted to be highly liable to
error, the aSth of his Majelly had in view the dire&
prevention of any fnch inconvenience. It was meant
to declare all preliminary decifions beyond their
reach. It was to bind the lioufe to teceive petitions
under certain fpecified circundlinces, and to reje!l
others, in which particular allegations were not dif-
tindly laid down. With thistnew of the Cubic& he
felt himfelf called to fate hit:preliminary objetlion
to the Houfe's entertaining the petition. The Houle
was bound by pofitive ftatute ; and if Co, he was not
to be told-of precedents which, even if they did 'es-
, ill, could prove nothing againft a dire& eneament
of the Legiflature. But, with refped to precedents,
he really could not conceive that, in the fhort in.
terval of fixteen years, fine the palling of the aft of
the 28th of his Majefty, fuch precedents could be
found, or attempted to be urged on the prefent oc-
' anion. Admitting, however, that they exit, it
would be monftrous and abfurd to urge them as rea-
fans for contravening a law drawn up in clear, Intel-
ligible, incontrovertible terms. To limit the jurif-
diftion of a Court, anal to dire& the mode in which its
future proceedings were to be regulated, might be
wife, under particular circumfiances. After there re-
gulations were formed, however, they mutt be obli-
ptory. It was needlefs for him to imprefs on the
Houle the abfiirdity of fell forming rules for the di.
re6ion of a particular Court, and then fuffering the
decifions of that Court to go direaly in the face of
the previous rules for the condua of its proceedings.
In this cafe the original ad was rendered totally 6-
dieulous,'and the decifions of • Court defeated the re.
gulation which was meant to prevent its irregulari-
ties or errors. The claufe in thee& on which be reft-
ed his motion, was one fo couched as, in his mind, to
remove all pogbility of doubt. It (truck him as' be-
ing one of the molt fimple and conclufive in the th-
tute book. In the chute of the aa it was difiinaly de.
dared, that the Houfe were not to admit to the con-
,fideration of a Committee, a petition in the body of
which it was not flitted, on behalf of thofe who figned
it, that they had a right. at the time of the eleCtion,
to vote as unexceptionable Freeholders. Now in this
cafe, the perfuns figning the petition in queftion had
done no fuch thing. If they had even claimed their
right indiredly, there might have been tome roam
for confederation, how far the petition could, confill-
ently with the law of Parliament, be received. But
here there was adually nothing alledged which could
at all authorize the Houfe in receiving the peti-
tion. It was, forfooth, figned by Freeholders I— ,
He did not mean to deny, that thole who figned the
Petition were Freeholders, or that the) might not
have had a right to vote. But why had they not
fated this in their Petition ? He himfelf was 1 Free-
holder of Middiefez at the time of the Eledion, but
under circomltances which prevented him from eve-
cifing his eledive franchife. Many others, he believ.
ed, were in a fimilar fituation ; and bow then was
the Houfe to prefume. that thofe who figned the Pe-
tition were not in the fame circumftances, fence they
had not themfelves produced any proofs of their qua.
lificitions at the time of the Eledion ? There were
many perfons Freeholders now, who were not entit-
led to vote when the Eledion took place. It was
the fimpleft procefs in the world for the Petitioners
to have declared, in the body of the Petition, their
right of voting, if they did at the time of the Elec-
tion pollefs it ; but it was too much to call on the
Houfe to prefume their right, in ezprefs contempt of
an Ad of Parliament. A freehold property of forty
fhillings a year was what the law required as a qua-
lification to vote for a county Member ; but in the
tint intlance the Houfe had nothing whatever to do
with thi. qualification, when a Petition was firft laid
on their table. He would, in illufration of his opi-
nion, put a ftrong cafe, which, in proportion as it was
firong, would more clearly illuftrate his idea of the
meaning of the Ad. If a Petition were prefented,
not by the real Freeholders of Middlefez, but by a tu-
multuous crowd ahlembled at the door of that Houfe,
affirming the name of Freeholders ; even if an outrage
of this audacious nature were praaifed, he would af-
firm, that in the fira ;nth= the Petition mull be
received and feat to a Committee. The paper, fuch
as it was, purported to be the Petition of Middlefez
Freeholders, and the Houfe had nn authority to take
cognizance of the fraud in the firft inflame. It was
with the Committee to afeertain and to punifh futh
an attempt to impofe on the Legiflature. Even ad-
mitting that the prefent Petition were figned by ha-
rah or Judah, inked of William and Thomas, fill it
meal go to the Committee, and with them relied the
ultimate decilinn. The Petition contained allega-
tions. and till the Committee had determined on its
merits, the float had nn tight to prefiime that they
were talfe. With the fait the Hoefe could have no
interference. The law required that every Petition
throill contain certain allegations, and the quellir
W4c, whether thufe who finned the Petition had cam•
with its requifitions ? Had they claimed their
; to vote at the lad Eledion ? If they had, then
t..c Argument was At end. If they had nor, then the
,;- c..ion was equal), refnlved, ludas the fl..ufe were
deci,:e in the face of a pofitive law. The'
rni:,,ht be very relpeelable individuals, as
:.c '.ad no doubt they were, and it might appear on
liur.ati,rn that their right to vote was undoubted;
aLI this mirl.t be lately admitted, and hill the rinef-
tii.:, would nand precifely where it did before the
Ma:: Cr was it. The only point was to coat-
ficier I uw far the petition W2i drawn in (itch terms
at emrl.l ;.tin:; the cc.ntidcra•inn ,•1 its merits under
pruv:,i(l. of the Grutviile Aft. There might
.re am., araricc nt c parity in the cafe, but
cI. • molt be permittc,.. 1,. have its force. If
y etc t.. fupcticd. a:Atitte,. the benefi.
.ch tra .:Jrnitted, Lc.
1., avti J rte Tare
which

eti
I

~.' J►J

1.4 I 7-tot

.:41n

:cht

e. ti i:

141':iL a 1.

I: : rf Wtttr

f,:frroiS

ti ; a 4.

never was a cafe Lim down in arty petition of crave
obvious .and Itriking equity thiat,.that petition con-
tained. The majority ot the Houle were convinced
of this, even wink they refilled.the achnillion of the
Petition. They vetted their oppothion inlay on the
ground of the allegations which it contained not be-
ing fuck al the Grenville Ad had fpecified to be ne-
edify, previous to the intruduAinn' of any Petition.
So fentible were the Hattie of the necellity of ri-
gidly adhering to the provitions of the Ad, that a
Petition collided to be equitable in itfelf was re-
jected, and a fhort time afterwards a new Ad was
introduced, to remedy an admitted inconvenience.
As the law now flood, the matter was reduced to the
fimplea principles. Whatever was the matter of
the Petition, the Hone %vete to leave it wholly to
the Committee. They were not to deliberate or to
decide. They were t., admit or reject a Petition,nnt
becaufe the tohniiTion or rejeCtion was wile, or the
contrary ; not beeaufe it vi as or was not founded in
equity, but becaufe the provilions of the Ad were pe-
remptorily mandatory, and were not under any car-
cumflancts to be dithbcyed. The Legiflature was now
aridly bound to the Maier +ranee of a particular mode
of proceeding, and it was quite ahfurd to think of get-
ting rid of it. He had heat d of Petitions of a defcrip-
tion fimilar to the prefent having been admitted, and
afterwards fttbrnitted to a Committee. For his own
part he was ignorant of the exiDence of filch prece-
dents; but even if they did caill, their exigence did
not at all invalidate his argument. It might have hap.
pened accidentally, but was that to be ferioufly urged
as an argument to (hew, that when an error was dif-
covered it was not to be refined ? If the Ad unequi-
vocally pointed out a particular mode of proceeding,
was a precedent directly in the teeth of its provilions
to be brought forward to judify fubfequent irregula-
rity? It would hardly be contended, that if an evil
was found to exia, that nn means fhould be taken to
cornet it, becaufe it had &aped übfervation in a va-
riety of preceding intlances, and when the means of
correction were at once eafy and efficacious. The
proper :node of admindiering the correction in the
prefent inflance was by difcharging the Petition. On
this matter his own mind was completely fatisfied.
He willed, if there floold.be two opinions, which he
hardly expected, that Gentlemen who fhould take a
view of the ruble& different from what he did,'would
explain what other meaning could be attached to the
claufe of the Ad than that which he attached to it.
If the conftruCtion which he had put on the claufe
was not correct, be vas &flouts of being informed
what drfcription of Petition it was to which the claufe
referred. He really was at a lerfs to conceive how the
Ad could exprefs any 'nearing, if the meaning which
he had affixed to it were objcped to. He would put
a cafe in illurtration of his opinion. He would put
the cafe of a Petition figned by perfowt who were
merely copybolders, ligning a Petition, in the body
of which Petition they claimedla right of votin6 at the
Election. It was clear that they had no right of
voting, and perhaps Gentlemen would immediately
contend that fueh a Petition was to be initantly re-
lated as a matter of courfe. He could not, however,
at all accede to this opinion. It was clear that the
Petition would be found to be eventually frivolous ;
but it did not at all follow, that in the fiat inflance it
was not to be fubmitted to a Committee, :a judge of
its merits. There was anti her cafe Dill more impor-
tant, the confederation of which, indeed, would in
all probability form the bafis for the final decifion of
the Committee of the bliddlefex petitions. This was
the cafe of the joint tenants, which was known to
have excited a great deal of interelt. If it had been
the cafe of a body of electors who were in a fituation
to be rated, but had never actually paid the rate,
prefenting a Petition, he was not at all prepared to
fay that the Houfe would be entitled to reject the Pe-
tition, becaufe they entertained an opinion that the
Petitioners would ultimately fail in proving the fair-
nets of their claims. The fame principle he would
apply to a Petition from perfons claiming a right of
voting at the Elation for the County. It would not
be argued for a moment, that a Petition from there
joint tenants was to be rejected, becaufe the Houle
might imagine that their claim to the right of Elec•
Lion was altogether erroneous. Such a decition would
be equally irregular and unjtitl. It would be pre-
judging what was afterwards to come before the
Committee. It would be an attempt to execute that
very office which, by the palling of the Grenville Ad,
the Houle was declared incapable of performing with
fairnefs and impartiality. The Houle could not argue
the qnellion of the competency of any Petitioners
complaining of an undue Election. They had not
the evidence on which any fair decitit n could be
formed. They were not the Court before which the
general queaten was to be tried. It was very clear
that copyholders had ni t a right of voting; but of a
Petition figned by copyliolders the Houle were not
entitled to hold an opinion. Hei mentioned this cafe
from its being In clear, and when he Dated this be
meant to include in the ibb:trvation the incompetency
of the Houle to affume to II -nih.lves that right of de.
termining the mci its of Pe; u.r,s whit:. v. as rcfcr%
for a rpm*, tribunal. Whether liv.'li,ners had or
had not a right to vote, was the id lutme
confideration. The Houk had a lion I. t.dle to .
cote. They were to detettnine v I -.! c: a Peti:h:r.
complied with the the term. o; in

inllxncc he puffed that hal t t!;),
lion was irregular, aid he 11 lit th.r (I) rc ("tick:A
with moving, that the cider of tl e d.y 1... the vol.
fidcration of the Petit.), n r I certain i'crf• its Itali.%
themfelves Freeholders of hliddlcfi,, he ri.ad.
The order was read accordingly.
Mr. FOX then moved that the f..• 3 r.rd:r I.e di(
charged.—The m,.ti.m being put fr .:), tile Ch.):1„
The CHANCELLOR nt the 1..!•_C1 lEQyt
Sir, having litlencd uith the t,,
the Hon. Gentleman, I think it r;•e:, cr
in anfwer, to Rate, that the uhicti I h.lrf
entertained yefletday on this quellii.n, rem.iins )tt
unaltered, or, I may even fay. 1141 I t C:I tail
.r
flrengthened. I cr•ncnr with the H. n.
foam particulars; nod fed all that is t•, this ii-).
portant queltion, which involves one cf r.
tend tights of the fulijeas of this 1,411111 y, it
enables them to reprelent their griev.r•'ecs ••
Cleeit:lls to Padiamert. 1 aytree Milt the I i.,u.
Oman with regard to the of iginal loonda..ion Ut t:.e
Grenville Aar, and viol 1,, with hint. that ihcs

c•riginaicd in a certain degree o: jlalouly .1% I 7 c.•;,.
fining on- difcretionaty IN:wcts in CAICS dein iiin . ;
bct 4..ic I am defirouc of excludin.; that right
the Houk Las dcbaucti Will L 4-1 4a) La hcari,,i;

•
ibis pethion. If we ntonld nfl inhere/Ile, we eflablifh
a precedent dangerous in the highed degree, and we
null interfere with the fundamental mincip:es on
which there Ads are founded. It was not a part of
the principles of :he
petitioners
then% A.N. that the omithon
excludeinalifilitesinrate"iuidedd. (;.rest inconve-
niencefo froftauch reapingwtraisniguthfnedulbetonlese experienced by petitions be-
ing brought forward, which were figned by thofe
who were not entitled to'pefition againn any election ;
and thee Ads were inier&J to rectify thofe evils
The claufe requires, that perfons Mould not be en.
titled to come to this Houk complaining of an undue
elation, unlefs they chains a right of soling at Each
elcition. The Hon. Gentleman has contended that
they man nate their actual poffeffion of a right to
vote at the election; and, for my part, I &mild
argue, there petitioners have dery ibed their grievan-
ces an fuch a way as to ellen thei. &dui ; I fhould
fay, that the mandatory injunaion of the Ad has
been fatiafied. The Hon. Gentleman is extremel4-
unwilling to give any weight to precedents; but
aver, that we mutt look to precedents for the pro'.
per interpretation of the meaning iinpofed by Parlia.
ment on its own Routes. Thele petitioners are cer-
tainly entitled to have a hearing ; but what is the
fad with regard to precedents? Precedents of this
defctiption are fo numerous, that it is har.:ly pollible
to and any cafe which has not been acted up to by
tome limner one on a former occafion. In the cafes
of Stirling, Orkney, and Shetland, in which the pe-
titioners reprefented themfelves as freeholder; of a
county, their petitions were admitted, and ordered
to be confidered by the Committee. The cafe of
Radnor was alto tomewhat similar to the prefent,
though afterwards difchargei by the confent of the
parties. In neither of thaefe cafes did the petitioners
,Itate that they had a right to elation ; but forne de-
feribed thcmfelves as eledors at the time they fumed
the petition, but not at the time the eledion had taken
place. Witk there,' and many others, forming a body
of precedents. I am forprifed that any doubt can be
entertained with regard to the propriety of admitting
the prefeot petisirm. The very defeription of free.
holders eflablifhes a sight to vote; but in cafes where
no fuch title was Bated, ahete was evidently no
doubt entertained of the panics having a right to
vote. 1 underhand that there is no inflance where
perfons calling themfelves freeholders (though not
claiming a right to vote) were e”er excluded from
being heard by this Houle. Are we not to confider
the proceedings of the Houle as a record of the mean-
ing of the Houfe ? It would be laying, that it would
benecefrary to fee elide eletiions which have been
already decided by the Houle, and fe its deci-
nuns. With reference to this particular cafe. it is
obvious that the pasties pretested their petition con-
ceived in the terms in which nomcrous others were
prefentod and armed op.n. The petition had been
renewed, and now, at the very moment whils the
petitioners are about to be heard, it is alledged that
they have no tight to figs, and that the petition
thould not be admitted at all. • But. Sir, I aver,
that there petitioners have drawn their petition ac-
cordieg to the Journals of the Houfe, and to its
eflablinted rules and practice. Lct us look, bethles.
to the practical confequences of the proceedings of
the Hon. Gentleman, and compare them with thole
which mull accrue from a Beady adherence to
what has been adopted by the Houfe. The adop.
Lion of the former would be to affirm, that there
might be grievances complained of by a part of
the people of this country, to which redrefs could
not be afforded ; for if the ender be really difcharged,
it would be doing a manila injunit... to many in-
dividuals. By the adoption of the latter alterna-
tive, the petition will go to a Committee to confi-
der the rights of the patties; and though I do nut
prefume.to contend that the Committee are bound,
on their part, to enter into all the merits of the pe-
tition, yet if thofe parties have fucceedcd in pi.tc-
tiling a fraud, they are not debarred from confider-
ing them as, difqualificd; for the Committee can Wray
object to women, minors, or perluns not poffeffed of
an income of forty thillings. I do ti • k the Han.
Gentleman carries his propofition too far, by laying.
that thcfe petitioners, declaring themfels es only to
be freeholders, mull be (truck rff altogether. I fay.
that the continued practice of the Houfe has rejected
loch an interpretation. The Journals (hew the prac-
tice of the Houfe ; and the con:lmo:lces which would
ultimately refult from adopting the one mode in pre-
ference to the otaer, may eat-ay he appreciated.—
By attending to. and following, the precedents of
the Houle, we will only perferete in rectifying er-
rors or entiffions in out own zlEts of Parliament. 0.
thefe grounds, therefore, I mon (till perfesere in
being of a different opinnin wish the lion. Member
who has faoken at confider:dile iength upon this foh-
jed ; end I entertat: a :tope tF.at the Houfe will take
the matter up in the fame point of iiew in which this
impot tent n appears to me."
Mr. FRANCIS cvnt.nded, that the Houtz WAS
bOI.IIJ, in the ,Illeuro•n nt the cci.:flion, to confider
the teem, rf fiat ore PS they vete. uere
their deci!h.ti to he ;1,4.n...tr.'5: !) .t tAretent cantina--
I titan, and mote;tame:A.4l4 It• • 1:1.1t whim Way. .tt-
*rtepied to toe SIVO Ito 0., V. 1:...y vw.ovlJ redo(
(homy: e. to a

rcl litg to 111.: a::
C•:'

t t i I t

t in

y cttt

Mlde
/U pA,t
t...: Eder tic t.tzr

Ire Lel t•! at:l:etc to t
si

t. ute:-ir •
ip;; but

to; 1 vin.
••• !!.

r.....utt'un.

•.1 I,v tl.c R;1,I
the 1 {mite

!:inJ of ttoistrZt,o;
Y. ,r are n to

1x;u11 !incnt
4/1

.41-1
. ;

.h v.....411L: I

a. crilift,a,

.\.i afi.~t i

Frk.cdents,

:c'icr.

Ti•n du pro-
- d:e motion

C fn

.1 ostattali,n

. no•. aft cr

•1% tip

. ill: Gi.sl

4-7!::•1171..!:

its
rs.
of
Dfc

ly
of
.)n.
ng,

ay.
icd
'2C-
lad
)Tt.

enth

pro.
"ion

:lion

IC4I 1.. 111.411 c!
r f•. v...•niJ rtztty h.tv.:
t.:.....•ei zr of !I a w
L. ..:1 b% t

'
• 1.. t.. tit it IA 441 :tll. t;:r i;:1.11
tLi. ut lt.at kctitivo ivu2t

confederation, and decided on by the Houfe. The
fira was that of the 3d of December, !no, prefented
by freeholders of the county of Stirling ; the fecond,
that of the Bth of December, in the fame year, pre
tented by freeholders of the flewartries of Orkney and
Shetland; and the third. that of the 14th, in the fame
year, prefented by the freeholders of the county of
Radnor. There was alfo another from Worceller,
precifely of a fimilar nature, prefented the zoth of
Oftober. 1796. It farther appeared, that there were
two cafes of the fame kind which had occurred dur
ing the prefent Parliament. The &ft was the peti-
tion of freeholders of the county of Carmarthen, on
'the to of September. tflos ; and the fecond related
to the freeholders of Stirling. It thould not be for-
gotten, in the Committee to which they had
been re . , a quefiion was Ratted, fimilar to the
:4 fear thatielning by the Hon. Gentleman,
. not nand g the difeufficins arifing from the
ueltion. eCo ittees proceeded, and the peti•
inns we nor only taken into confideration, but
That from the fratholders of Stirling was renewed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer concluded with
'obferving, that hecould cite many 'other cafes in
.3790, and 1796.1:: nature precifcly the fame as
thofe which Isa4read, but he felt it his duty I
not to trouble the Houfe with any precedents in
addition to chore mentioned, which, he trotted, would
[prove fatisfadory and decifive.
Mr. T. GRENVILLE laid, that in the remarks
be bad to offer, be fhould confine himfelt as much as
palible to the grounds upon which the two Aas of
Parliament, tbofe nf the loth and zBth of the King,
were framed. He apprehended that every diredion
and precaution ufed by the author of the fira Bill,
was a fircng proof of the jealoufy entertained relative
to the difcretsonary power of the Houfe. Accor-
ding to the rules and orders of Parliament, pre-
vious to the pang of the AQ of the loth, the
Houle was called upon to confider petitions in cafes
of conceited elections, as coming from thole pot cuing
a right to vote, or having an intereft in the elec.'
lion of Members of Parliament. With taped to 1
the alteration which followed on the lubjed of the
claim, it was made in order to mark as dillindly as
poffible, the necellity of limiting the difcretion which
the.Houfe was in the habit of exercifing, and thus it
continued until the Ad of the 28t1i. By that Bill it
appeared, that the former Ad had been produdive of
many material benefits. Yet it Asould not be 'aired
over unnoticed, that the mover of the At of the zBth
was of opinion, thayhe claims let up by petitioners
ought to be the fame as before the Bill of the Rah,
and it was no left evident that the 28th, on which
fo mach ['refs was laid, had for its objet to bring
back the Houle to its former fyfictn, which pre•
wailed previoully to the Bill of the loth. Generally
and equitably (peaking, it appeared to him to h.ve
been :he with of the Houfe to enact what in reality
had been the rule of conduft followed in cafes of con.
tetied elefhons at the period to which he alluded.—
Therefore he had little difficulty in maintaining that
the equity of the cafe required the Houfe to confider
the petition as fit to be received; for in that point of
+view he was borne out by the rule of conclud ob
ferved before the enaciment of the toth, and by the
decifion which, after an experience of 18 years, had
reftored the fyflem which had previoully tallied.—
Having thus confidered the queßion in an equitable
view, lie was perfedly aware that the adual manda-
tory words of the claufe went directly againa the
inference which he drew. Yet thefe teems, impera•
Live as they were. found a counterbalance in the
practice of the Houfe. He was free to confefs, he
had no doubt as to the clear fenfe of the mandatory
words ; and he certainly would have been better
pleated, if the petitioners hid complied with the terms
of the Ad of Parliament. It would hare given him
a fuperior degree of gratification. But the Houfe
-were bound to confider that they were fitting in that
place to interpret a doubtful matter ; and they found
to guide them in their inveitigation what the former
coacm had been, and what the practice of Patna
nicht was at that moment. Another motive had a
fill greater weight with him, and made a much
deeper impreaion on his mind. If ally Gentleman
could not ftate any inconvenience to either party
from fending the cafe to immediate trial, he could
not fee the leall ground for refuting to take the yeti-
Sion into confederation. He was, therefore, fatisfied,
that the motion of the I lonourable Gentleman Ihould
be negatived.
Mr. JEKYL had not the honour to be a Member
of the Committee on the Carmarthen Eleftion, but
he believed the eireumlianees with refpell to the pe-
tition alluded to were, that a hen the objelion was
railed as to the legality of the form of the petition.
it was
.decided, that however that might have been
:I n objeEtion in the Flaife to receiving the petition,
or refuting it to the Committee, the petition having
been retitled, the evanrninee was bound to proceed
en it. 11, ...inridereJ, that to contlitute legal pre-
ited:nr--, r;.ere ihould hare bean doubts an.f quellions
des idc:t ail .1 arguments upon the e ilniiiits ; hilt a
number if ))))) re occorrencts, aiiiered to pals
humbly on, were not legal piece:haat. it fea/ro
8/174 was net to b: fanis:ioned by any number of pre-
ecilents, no. any length of praftice. Proof of this
w is fic•ri:ialv given in the cafes of illegal power
ati-iin:d he 'Corpora:ions ; there illegal powers
. . — _

b•—•e. I•t,t entrto, when trto;ii,ht into thz Court
it:nelt, hi writ uf ;•:7 all/writ^, fi,m•ain:ci
ai:zt an e•,.crcife iii fifty ye. r!. In the prefent in•
inte the !Inure was bounJ by the AA. and it it
sallen ittto an CITOCCOUS it 1110Uld COIN.

Lent A RCHIBALD H.:MILTON thongin it
•-• rn Volk only to the.l.tt of Parliarmnt.—
n r. C of the litipting put:es deviated le vr., the
•• • • pr• fctilic.l. he th,oight the other patty 1.4,1
• i t., I,A itfclt of thy r
: Ir.TIE Li NIX thin9tht th.tt tlivihtc
was tight to incline in livi.or Of the
petition
I Ic w.,. lun:, that if the d •,•r nas thrown open for
t:ic reception will entertaint:-.lit ut the petiti• n. it
would gratify the teelin.tv of the Hon. Gentleman
m• le the ni.ith .1 r. w I.;t-cote the Hnufe. That
e.m h nitut have viiilate.J. if
t liori 4 wart of mere
1 %.t'. 41.01ALd

nut.• Noe/sing he was Pure would lave induced the
Honourable Genileman to bring forward the mo•
lion, but a perfuafion that the words of the Aft were
imperative. The aft, however, prefented no precife
form of words to the petitioners, and they had no
oneans of collei%ng the proper form, but from what
appeared in the fequel or the journals of the Houfe.
If the law was really as the Honourable Gentleman
Itated it, the prefent cafe would jullify a Legilla•
tive interference. The Houfe woulst impofe a dread-
ful hardfbip, by giving no opportunity of amend-
men►, and by 'blowing out the petition, when the
petitioners were bound over to proceed, and when.,
they had gone to filch expence in preparation. He
had no hefitation in giving his decided negative to
the motion.

Mr. Serjeant BEST raid, that the Houfe was
bound to confider, although it was then fitting in its
judicial capacity, it was as fubjeft to the law of the
land as the loweft tribunal. He could not, after an
attentive view of the quellion, entertain any doubt
of the affirmative of the queflion. He felt, in com-
mon with other Gentlemen, for the great hardfhipa
under which the petitioners laboured, yet however'
great there hardfhips were, he was alto bound to
maintain, that the general courfe of the law of the
land ought not to be interrupted, or turned out of its
proper channel. The Aft by which the petitioners
were to regulate their conduft was plain, and fhould
be conflrued fltiftly. lie could not content to
allow any equitable conftration to be introduced,
when the letter of the Aft of Parliament was fo
clear and decifive. It had been well laid by a Right
Honourable Gentleman, who was not then in his
place, that what had been done by Parliament could
not be undone but by Parliament, and in that fenfe
the Houfe could not, in its judicial capacity, deftroy
the AR of the whole Legiflature. With refpeft to
the equitable conftruftion of the chore, he fhould
ray, that when equity was brought forward as the
ground of any proceeding, it was extremely difficult
to afcertain the exalt limits beyond which the Houfe
ought not to lien; and it was no left dangerous to
recognize a principle indefinite in its meaning and
extent, which might totally annihilate the letter
and fpirit of an AR of Parliament. That which
had been called precedent, might be a regular re-
ties of pleadings in a Court of Law, though even no
decifion had taken place upon them. But, as to
the precedents adduced in fupport of the petition,
by the eleftion cafes which had been read, they cer-
tainly did not apply. Precedents were, he was ready
to admit, very valuable, when there appeared no,
other mode of acquiring information or eßablifhing
a rule of conduit ; but, when the Aft of Parliament
WAS fo very clear, they could be of no ufe ; and- to
allow their weight and importance, would be to let
up the judicial power againft the Legiflature of the'
country. The Houle, under every impreffion, was,
in his opinion, bound to decide in the affirmative ;
but, if any doubt exifted, with refpeft to the mean-
ing of the Aft, he begged to refer Gentlemen to the
preamble of the Bill. A Right Hon. Gentleman
below him (Mr. Tierney) had laid, that the Houfe
brought the petitions into the dilemma in which they
were placed. That was by no means a convincing
mode of argument ; for, if the Houfe had afted
wrongly, they could not too fpeedily coerce their
millakes. It alto appeared to him, that the peti-
tioners were not altogether without the means of
redrers ; for as no Aft exifted to limit the period of
prefenting petitions, but merely a rerolution of the
Houfe to that effea, the Houfe might get rid of that
refolution, which would, in every rerped, be more
confiftent with the proceedings of Parliament, and
more advantageous to the parties, than any new Le-
giflative provifion, as alluded to by the Right Hon.
Gentleman.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL replied to the ar-
guments urged by Mr. Jekyll and Mr. Serjeant Bell ;
and, having confidered the'impolicy of the motion,
with the hardthips to which it would neceffatily fub•
jeft the petitioners, who merely wifhcd for that fair
and contiitutional enquiry and decifion to which all
perfons in their fituation were entitled, he concluded
by giving his decided negative to the motion.
Mr. FONBLANQUE laid. that the qtreilion was,
whether the Houk were to ufe their own difcretion in
the face of an AR of Parliament ; and whether they
were entitled ro throw on a Committee a duty clearly
devulvcd on thcmfelves ? As to the precedents al-
luded to, he could not pay any attention to them, if
inconfillent with the enalments of the flatute. He
might lament that Inch proceedings had taken place,
but it was now time to reßify any usiftakes into which
the Hottfc might have fallen.
Mr. JARVIS Paid, that the objea of the Legilla.
lure WAS not, as had been Rated, to prevent proceed.
ings in Petitions labouring under any defeat fimilar
to the ptefent, but to prevent fuch Petitions from
being at all prefented. The Petition had not only
been prefented, but tome proceedings had been had
in it. He therefore apprehended that it was not ccm.
pctent now to (late the objeftion, which ought to have
been made at its original prefentment.
Mr. DALLAS laid, that the Al pointed out no
precife form of expreffion in which the allegation
be made. It wrs confeeptently fuflicient for
the purpofee of the An, if the allegation was neeef-
farily in:plied, which he argued it was, becaufe the
claim ot redrefis implied that they were aggrieved,
and that they could nut have been without having
a ri,tht to vete at the ele.lion.
Mr. StiERIDAN laid that it ever there was a
cafe, upon which the language of an AR of Parlia-
ment was more clear, expl:ett, intelligible, and poll-
tire. than no any other, the prefent was that cafe
If GentleroLn would be at the trouble . is adverting
to Mr. Grenville 's Al. they would there find it
clearly and p-fitively Lod dov a in Inch a way, as it
was impioliule to mirconfirue or mirunderfland,
that all Petitions to he relented to that Houle.
cnmplaining of undue Elation, mull Rate in word,
that the parties fuhretibing Inch Petitions, were
thcmfeivcs entitled to Voee a: inch Ele.4iun, or to
base been duly qualified to (land as Candidates
thereat. In a fubfequcnt clrufe, i; requires that the
• rs,.rfluis cubic, iuing loch ithin four.
teen day, from the Jay of pmctit.tiog the fame, cn
;,.r i..to re.-.gnizances by them:cisea, etad their u:.:•
ties. to toarw up the laid Petition, al.d be alliNtr-
',
lb': tOt the expences thereby inc.:et:o, hr trllto t
•f Kett.- ; arch rerogt.i.talm., to be hotig .e.l 'liti. the
:-:,lker, within the fait' term of 1:4..i;;;:n S.—