112 ANNUAL REGISTEn, 1804. 



drcds. He, tlicrcforo, moved for 

 leave to bring in a bill for (jrcvciit- 

 ing bribery and corruption, at the 

 elections for the borough of Ayles- 

 bury. 



The Marquis of Titclifield opposed 

 it. He had no objection to punish- 

 ing the guilty, but he thought it un- 

 fair to infcinge upon the riglits of 

 300 electors, because 50 of them 

 Lad been guiUy of bribery. 



Mr. C. Wynne begged to set his 

 noble friend rislit. Although but 

 50 names had been mentioned, at 

 least 200 had taken bribes. It was 

 a case of tlic most open profligacy 

 that he had ever heard. 



Air. Rose stated the fact to be, 

 that above 200 voters had been col- 

 lected in one room ; that at one end 

 of the room there was a bowl of 

 puiftrh, and at the other a bow I of 

 ;juineas, and that every man was 

 gisv'ii his douceur. 



Sir John iS'ewport confirmed that 

 statement, and thought it was a very 

 favourable moment to throw open 

 tiie borough ; and he thought, that, 

 for the purity of our representa- 

 tion, the house shoidd be glad to 

 avail itself of such opportunities. 



Sir George Cornwall then ob- 

 tained leave to bring in the bill. — 

 On its Rocond reading, the marquis 

 of Titchfield renewed his objections, 

 and moved, that the second reading 

 should be postponed till that day 

 three months. 



Sir John Newport, and the secre- 

 tary at war, opposed the motion, 

 and supported the bill. 



Mr. Hurst, Mr. P. Moore, lord 

 Ossulstonc, the master of the rolls, 

 and Mr. ¥o\, opposed the bill, as 

 quite unnecessary, and that the case 

 Avhich liad been made out was not 

 stronger than the common cases of 

 bribery and corruption, which were 



punished in the ordinary manner. — 

 The house then divided, and the se- 

 cond reading of the bill was carried 

 by a majority of 19, the noes being 

 49. 



Every step of the bill produced 

 fresh discussions, on nearly the 

 grounds as have already been stated. 

 On the question, that the bill shoidd 

 be engrossed, the ayes were 154, 

 the noes 126, being a majority of 

 28 in favour of the bill. 



When the bill was introduced in 

 the house of lords, the lord chan- 

 cellor said, the bill appeared to him 

 unfair and unjust. If the measure 

 Avas right to be adopted, he thjught 

 if; should be a general measure, ex- 

 tending to the whole of our repre- 

 sentation : and he disapproved of 

 picking and choosing particular bo- 

 roughs, to try exj)crinients on, of a 

 partial reform. The common law 

 of the country afforded a sufficient 

 and severe punishment against bri- 

 bery at elections, and he thought 

 this case should be left to that re- 

 medy. 



Lord Grosvcnor supported the 

 bill, conceiving the case to be one of 

 such ilagrant corruption, that it was 

 necessary to make a striking exam- 

 ple. 



Lord Grenrille strongly support- 

 ed the jus-tice and necessity of the 

 bill. He thought, the interference 

 of the legislature, at present, would 

 be precisely on the same principles 

 as in the Shorehara case. He con- 

 sidered it one of the greatest excel- 

 lencies in the constitution, that any 

 striking evil could be remedied, 

 without recurring to wild theories; 

 and thought, that when a case of fla- 

 grant corruption was proved, there 

 should be an example and a warning 

 given to the other boroughs of the 

 kinjjdom. 



Lords 



