50] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



it was proved that his royal high- 

 ness had a private conference on 

 the subject of the election with a 

 candidate. He would state one 

 more fact proving interference, 

 which was, that the duke of Cum- 

 berland had got into his possession 

 the writ for the election, and had 

 paid the price for it. After some 

 other observations, he concluded 

 by moving, " That there be laid 

 before the House such parts of the 

 evidence given before the commit- 

 tee of the Weymouth and Mei- 

 combe Regis election, as are not 

 included in the special report of 

 !!&e committee to which the report 

 was referred." 



Mr. Long treated the motion as 

 a dangerous novelty. When the 

 House referred a petition to an 

 election committee, they referred 

 the whole matter connected with 

 it to its deliberation ; and nothing 

 could be more obviously wise than 

 that they ought as seldom as pos- 

 sible to re-investigate the evidence 

 on which a determination had 

 been made by those to whom they 

 had delegated their authority. He 

 then made some observations re- 

 specting a charge which had been 

 brought against himself on this oc- 

 casion ; and as that was utterly 

 unfounded, he inferred that there 

 was probably misrepresentation or 

 exaggeration in that brought 

 against the duke of Cumberland. 

 He therefore moved as an amend- 

 ment to pass to the order of the 

 day. 



Mr. Alderman Athins spoke in 

 justification of the committee for 

 omitting to report on that part of 

 th« petition which charged the im- 

 proper interference of peers. With 

 regard to the possession of the writ 

 by his royal highness, he Jsaitl it 



had been for the convenience of 

 the election ; and that it had been 

 forwarded with all possible dis- 

 patch. 



Mr. Wynn said, that the duty 

 of election committees was, to de- 

 cide concerning the seat, and with 

 that decision theirjudicature closed. 

 Any other resolution they might 

 come to, it was not imperative on 

 the House to receive. They had 

 in this instance received a further 

 report, and part of the evidence, 

 and he was of opinion that the 

 whole ought to have been pro- 

 duced. With respect to obtaining 

 possession of the writ, though it 

 was no offence in a commoner, it 

 was such in a peer. 



Mr. Bathurst argued against the 

 motion chiefly on the ground of 

 the discredit it would throw upon 

 committees, acting on oath, if the 

 practice were encouraged of re- 

 forming their judgments upon 

 their special reports. Even were 

 the committee to be in an error, 

 it would be better that it should be 

 left so, than that by the interfer- 

 ence of the House it should be 

 placed in so obnoxious a situation. 



Mr. Rose believed that there 

 was no one instance to be found in 

 the records of parliament in which 

 that House had required the pro- 

 duction of any thing beyond that 

 which was submitted to them by 

 their committee; and it would be 

 highly inconvenient to have such 

 a precedent established. The split- 

 ting of votes was an abuse which 

 called for the interference of the 

 House; but he could not see what 

 that had to do with the concern 

 any peer might have taken in the 

 election. 



Mr. Whit bread said, that the 

 wholQ gist of one right bon. gen* 



