GENERAL HISTORY. 



t51 



tletwan's reasoning was, that by 

 acceding to tlie motion, the com- 

 mittee would be placed in an awk- 

 ward situation. But whose fault 

 was that ? Had they not done so 

 themselves by overlooking this fla- 

 grant invasion of the freedom of 

 election ? The royal duke had got 

 the writ into his possession, in 

 breach of one of the annual reso- 

 lutions of the House. He then 

 informed the electors that he wish- 

 ed them to vote for his friend, and 

 I to induce one of them to do so, he 

 < wrote to him that he had had some 

 ! communication with lord Liver- 

 pool about a place which that 

 elector wished to procure for a 

 relation. He had also written to 

 another, promising him his inter- 

 est with Lord Liverpool to obtain 

 him a place. It further appeared 

 that the duke of Cumberland had 

 got connected with the borough 

 by being trustee under a will, in 

 which trust three commoners were 

 partners with him, but that he 

 took upon himself the sole ma- 

 nagement. Here was influence and 

 interference of the most palpable 

 kind. 



Mr. Macdonald had no hesita- 

 tion in saying, that if the transac- 

 tion alluded to had been com- 

 pleted, and it was completed as far 

 as depended on his royal high- 

 ness, it would have amounted to 

 direct bribery; and he believed 

 there was no doubt in the mind of 

 any member of the committee (of 

 whom he was one) that the con- 

 duct of his royal highness was 



* I ftidfecent and improper. Theques- 

 ^ j tion before the House was ex- 

 " I l#ef«nely narrow. When a member 



of parliament stated that he was 

 " I able to prove a gross violation of 



* I the privileges of the House, and of 



the freedom of election, could they 

 be deaf to such a charge ? 



The Atlorney-general opposed 

 the motion, on the ground that it 

 would afford a precedent of the 

 House's entertaining by way of ap- 

 peal, matters which by an act of 

 parliament were referred to a com- 

 mittee. The act proved, that it 

 was the intention of the legislature 

 to refer all matters concerning the 

 election to the committee. By the 

 method attempted to be introduced 

 by this motion, every individual 

 might be compelled to state his 

 opinions as to the evidence before 

 the committee. 



Mr. Ponsonby said, that the act 

 of parliament was elaborate in its 

 distinction between those matters 

 on which the committee were call- 

 ed on their oaths to decide, and 

 those on which it was quite discre- 

 tionary for them to report or not. 

 As to the evils of an appellant ju- 

 risdiction, it should be recollected 

 that such jurisdiction already exist- 

 ed in every case where a committee 

 reported specially. The report was 

 not binding, and it remained with 

 the House to say whether the com- 

 mittee was right or wrong. The 

 present was a question of propriety 

 — " Was it fit that the House 

 should interfere ?" He conceived 

 that it was their imperative duly, 

 where any peer meddled with the 

 rights of election ; but they were 

 more peculiarly called upon to act 

 when the interference w'as not 

 merely that of a peer, but of one 

 of the blood royal. He was con- 

 vinced that unless the House now 

 expressed its sense of the transac- 

 tion, they would soon have more 

 flagrant instances of such inter- 

 ferences. 



The House divided. For the mo- 

 [E2] . 



