96 
terations in the committee, was fi- 
nally rejected by the house. This 
bill was introduced upon the ground 
that the expositions of the treating 
act by the courts of law and com. 
mittees of the house of commons 
were at variance, and that a decla- 
ratory act was therefore necessary, 
to remove the uncertainty to which 
such different constructions of the 
law had given rise. It was proposed 
by this bill to include in treating 
the conveyance of clectors to and 
from the place of election at the ex- 
pence of the candidates ; the inten- 
tion of which was, to enable men’ 
of moderate fortunes to embark in| 
contests for parliament, without the 
ruinous expences usually attending 
contested elections ; and as resident 
voters are commonly decided by mo- 
tives of local influence in giving their 
suffrages, while non-resident electors 
are ready to engage their votes to 
any one who will convey them to 
the place of election, this measure 
was «so expected to increase the 
weight of the natural aristocracy of 
the country, and to diminish the in- 
fluence of mere monied men in bo- 
rough elections. Some of the argu- 
ments for the bill were not destitute 
of plausibility, but the objection fa- 
tal to it was, that it disfranchised 
nine-tenths of the freeholders in the 
large counties, and all the non-resi- 
dent electors of cities and boroughs, 
by taking from them the means of 
conveyance to the place of election, 
which candidates at present afford’ 
them, and without which they can- 
not possibly exercise the elective 
franchise. According to a just re. 
mark of Mr. Fox, in his speech up- 
on the bill, ** it was a bill in favour 
ef candidates against the electors.” 
Another bill, which shared the 
ANNUAL REGISTER, 1806. 
same fate with the preceding, 
the stipendiary curate’s bill, tha 
which one more unjust in its prins 
ciple, or more absurd in its provi~ 
sions, was never obtruded upon pars 
liament. This bill proceeded on the 
false and dangerous principle, that 
the legislature has a right to take 
the stipends of church incumbents 
and expend them according to its 
notions of expediency. That church 
incumbents, as servants of the state, 
are compellable to perform any du-_ 
ties connected with their sacred func. 
tions, which the legislature may 
chuse to impose upon them, is a 
position that will not be controvert- 
ed; nor will it be denied, that the 
legislature is lawfully competent, 
prospectively, and with due regard 
to the interests of patrons, to take 
the patrimony of the church, and 
apply it to other uses than those tor 
which it is applicable at present. 
But, to proceed with respect to in- 
cumbents actually possessed of liv- 
ings, as. if the legislature hada right, 
not merely to regulate their duties’ 
and services, but to interfere with 
their property, and assign.a portion. 
of it to other persons, on the prem 
tence of public expediency, is to 
shake the foundations of all pros 
perty, and to tread in the exact foot- 
steps of the French revolutionists, 
who took from the church its pa- 
trinony, and without regard to the’ 
rights of the incumbents, applied it 
to other purposes, which were. ale 
ledged te be more: conducive to the! 
general welfare. Yet such were the 
principles on which the stipendiar 
curate’s bill proceeded; Its object 
was, to fix by law the:sum to be 
paid by clergymen to their curates, 
and most absurdly it regulated the 
stipend of the curate, net by the: 
‘duty’ 
