52] ANNUAL REGISTER, 1813. 



tion, 51 ; Against it, 105 : Majo- 

 rity, 48. 



On April 7tii, the order of tiie 

 day standing for receiving the re- 

 port of the Weymouth election 

 bill, Mr. Macdonald presented a 

 petition from the inhabitants of the 

 borough of Weymouth and Mel- 

 combe Regis. The general tenor 

 of it was, to express their regret 

 that none of the clauses introduced 

 to the consideration of the House 

 provided any adequate means to 

 abolish the existing abuses, but 

 rather to perpetuate and strengthen 

 them. It stated the means by 

 which the late sir W. Pulteney 

 had appropriated to himself the 

 majority of freeholds in the bo- 

 rough, and the manner in which 

 they were now fallen into the 

 hands of the four trustees of the 

 will of the late sir J. L. Johnstone, 

 the duke of Cumberland being 

 one, who has ever since nominated 

 members, and supported a system 

 of corruption in the borough ; and 

 tliat it was for the purpose of coun- 

 teracting this overbearing influence 

 by enlarging the number of voters, 

 tiiat several individuals had devised 

 their property among their rela- 

 tions and friends; and that Such 

 increase of voters destroying the 

 power of the patron, an agent of 

 his had avowed, that at the pa- 

 Iron's desire, he had made wills 

 upon his own property, and frau- 

 dulently manufactured votes to the 

 extent now complained of. They 

 concluded with requesting to be 

 heard by their counsel, and pro- 

 duce evidence at the bar of the 

 House in order to substantiate the 

 above facts. 



Mr. Macdonald then moved, 

 that a select committee should be 



appointed to take the petition into 

 consideration. 



Mr. Bathurst said, that the pe- 

 tition was founded upon a miscon- 

 ception of the measures to be 

 adopted on the subject of the Wey- 

 mouth election ; and he could see 

 no good from complying with the 

 prayer of the petitioners. 



Mr. Abercromhy supported the 

 petition. He thought it became 

 tlie House to inquire into the case, 

 lest by the present bill they should 

 make the borough one of the closest 

 in England. The best way to op- 

 pose those who called for a reform 

 in that House, would be to show 

 themselves friends to the exten- 

 sion of the elective franchise. 



Several other members spoke on 

 each side the question ; those 

 against the petition contending, 

 that the bill having no other object 

 than to correct the abuse of split- 

 ting votes, it was unnecessary to 

 enter upon any other considera- 

 tion ; while those who supported 

 it held that it would be unjust in 

 parliament to remedy one species 

 of abuse, and refuse to hear evi- 

 dence respecting another. The^ 

 House at length divided. For the 

 motions?; Against it 102: Ma- 

 jority Qi5. 



The report on the Weymouth 

 bill, with its amendments, was 

 brought up on April 8th, when its 

 opposers objected to the novelty in 

 legislation established by it, of 

 subjecting wills to the decision of 

 the House of Commons. Replies 

 were made to this objection, and 

 an order was made for the third 

 reading of the bill. 



It afterwards passed into a law | 

 without further discussion. i 



