Imagens da página
PDF
ePub

but folely to writs. The other words of the act make it equally clear.

Some other learned gentlemen may perhaps think fit to argue, that the faid statute is not confined to writs, because it fpeaks of "the Sheriff, or other officer, having the execution, and return of any fuch writ." But the second section of the ftatute clearly explains who is meant by that other officer, namely, the proper officer of the Cinque Ports, to whom an additional time is allowed to iffue the precepts therein mentioned, and who has the, return of a writ, as well as the Sheriff of a county.

But let it be fuppofed for a moment, folely for the fake of argument, that that Act of Parliament does extend to the return of precepts, as well as to the return of writs. Then it will be answered by the High Bailiff, that a return has been made in due time, viz. a fpecial return; therefore the High Bailiff has complied with the direction of the law, even admitting that the ftatute of the 10th and 11th of William III. to fully extend to the cafe of the High Bailiff of Westminster, the House ought not to cenfure him, but ought to order him to proceed in his fcrutiny, provided the High Bailiff can fhew that he has granted it on good grounds.

The statute enacts, in the first place, that in the case of a general election, a return fhall be made to the Clerk of the Crown" on or before the day that the Parliament fhall be called to meet."

It enacts, in the next place, that, in the cafe of "any new writ," iffued in the middle of a Parliament, a return fhall be made to the Clerk of the Crown "with all convenient expedition, not exceeding fourteen days after the election."

[The Clerk then read the proceedings of the House in the famous cafe of the Westminster election, when Lord Trentham and Sir George Vandeput were the candidates; and which election was in confequence of a new writ in the middle of a Parliament.

L 3

Parliament. See the Journals of the House of Commons of the 22d and 23d days of February, 1749.]

On the 22d of February, "Notice is taken that no return had been made to the writ for the electing a citizen to serve in Parliament for the city of Westminster." Upon this the House ordered the High Bailiff to attend.

The next day the High Bailiff did attend, and was examined.

Did the House commit him? No.-Did the Houfe order him to make a return before he had finished the scrutiny which he had granted? No.-Did the House cenfure him for having difobeyed the ftatute of the roth and 11th of William III. by not having made a return within the first fourteen days after the election? No." The Speaker, by the direction of the Houfe, recommended to him fome particulars of his duty; affured him that the Houfe would fupport him in the difcharge thereof, and hoped that he would use all poffible difpatch."

The House ought therefore, in the prefent inftance, not to prejudge the queftion. They ought to do, in this inftance, what the House wifely did in the year 1749, viz. to order the High Bailiff to attend, and to hear him, before he is condemned. If the Houfe, after having examined the High BaiJiff, fhould be of opinion that he did right to grant a ferutiny, they ought ftrictly to follow the excellent precedent in the cafe of Trentham, by ordering the High Bailiff “ to take care to expedite the election as much as poffible." [Mr. Fox cried out, Hear! Hear!] I now find, fays Lord Mahon, the manner in which the right honourable gentleman, who cries hear! means to argue this queftion. He means to admit, that the cafe of the former Westminster election would, in fubftance, be fimilar to the present, if the ftatute of the 10th and 11th of William III. had enacted, in the cafe of a new writ in the middle of a Parliament, that the return fhall be made not within fourteen days after the end of the election, but

within fourteen days after the end of the poll. The right honourable gentleman means to ground his right to be returned upon the diftinction between the poll and the election. He means to argue, that the return in the former Westminster election was right, because, though it were made months after the poll, it was made previous to the 14th day after the election. Why? Because the right honourable gentleman means to contend, that the fcrutiny was part of the election. That the fcrutiny not being concluded, the election was not concluded; and that therefore no return could be made till the election was over.

[Mr. Fox cried out again, Hear! Hear!] I am happy that Mr. Fox agrees to this way of stating the argument. I cannot, however, fufficiently admire the contradictions between Mr. Fox and Mr. Fox's learned friend (Mr. Lee) whofe words I have just taken down in writing. Mr. Lee laid it down as a principle, " that the end of the poll was the end of the election." That was the law of the learned gentleman. But the law of the right honourable gentleman is, "that the end of the poll is not the end of the election." The right honourable gentleman, having undertaken to defend a bad cause, has got into the most complete dilemma poffible. For, if the ftatute of the 10th and 11th of William III. is not applicable to precepts, that ftatute has nothing to do with the Weftminfter election. If that ftatute is applicable to precepts, and that, according to the learned gentleman, Mr. Lee, the end of the poll is the end of the election, the precedent laid down by the House in the former Westminster election clearly proves that Mr. Fox ought not to be returned, but that the fcrutiny ought to be fuffered to continue. If, on the contrary, the law of the right honourable gentleman (Mr. Fox) is right, namely, that when a scrutiny is granted, the end of the fcrutiny, and not the end of the poll, is the end of the election; then, as the prefent fcrutiny for Weftminfter is not over, the West

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors]

minster election is not yet over; and Mr, Fox cannot be returned as duly elected until the election shall be over.

The right honourable gentleman has, however, the decency, the moderation, and the modefty, to demand of this House, that he (Mr. Fox) fhould be feated for Westminster, though he himself contends, that, according to law, the election is not concluded, inasmuch as the fcrutiny is not over.

Lord Mahon, May 24, 1784.

If it had been for me to have chofen, I fhould have put off the risk of my first attempt in the debates of this Houfe to a much later period; because I fhould have thought it more prudent, as well as more becoming, to mark, by a filent attention, the respect which I entertain for the first abilities of the kingdom, upon both fides of the argument abilities enlightened by political experience, and improved by habits of political reasoning. I can fay too, with equal veracity, that I would have preferred any topic to this, because it is new, of extremę delicacy in its confequences, and of immediate concern to the right honourable petitioner (Mr. Fox) whofe manliness of fpirit I will fo far endeavour to imitate, that I will for ever difdain the furrender of my conviction, even to him; but whofe figure in this country, and ftrenuous oppofition to the Minifter of the day, makes it a very unwelcome task to act, even in a judicial character, against a point which he has made with a declared view to his own political character, though in form hé has made it as party in a fuit.

But I have no choice. Firft principles of the government have been forced into the debate neutrality would be cowardice to the argument, as the public opinion is engaged in it; and a vote unexplained would fubject even me, infignificant as I am, to the odium of that prejudice which has found its way from one fide of the bar to the corresponding fide of the House. I may be called the desperate partifan of a measure to which no ingenious motives can be affigned, which has no principle of

law

law to fuftain it, and which no liberal argument can reconcile to the feelings or the good fense of difpaffionate men. I confefs my ambition to lay afide the advocate here, and stand upon higher ground, in fupport of a Conftitution which I revere, unfettered by technical fubtileties, and speaking with its genuine character, fimplicity.

I am not, Sir, one of thofe grave and authoritative lawyers who have been catechised by an honourable friend of mine, (Mr. Powys) and who have to thank him for a very peculiar compliment. He tells them they speak without party views, or, as he expreffed it, without a fide; as if the rest of the House, including the country gentlemen, (to which rank he belongs) were lefs independent. Whether I have a fide except that of truth, I will not presume to intimate; but throw myself upon the candour of the public for their opinion of my future conduct, without affurances or profeffions.

In a few and plain words, pointed closely to the fubject, I wish to mark those broad principles upon which I act, against the motion first made.

What is called a return has no magic in the found of the word: it is a mode and form by which the electors convey the object of their choice into Parliament-election is the substance, and' it is no election if it is not complete. Before its completion two doubts may arife e; one, as to the number of the voters for each competitor; another, as to the right.-A poll is the method ufed for afcertaining the number; and if, during that poll, the right has been imperfectly canvaffed, what are called fcrutinies, have been received for the purpose of a more accurate fearch into the right. A poll, if demanded, is an effential and continuing part of an election; and while that poll is depending, the election is not more complete than if it never had begun. The fame is true of fcrutinies-once admitted, they suspend the return, because they continue and keep alive the act of election,

That

« AnteriorContinuar »