right hon. gentleman. It might, at a proper time, possibly become a question, whether the advantages gained by ordering a scrutiny outweighed the disadvantages that attended it. That would be a question that might fairly be considered and discussed; but let gentlemen have the goodness to wait till the time of discussing it arrived, and not bring it into debate before it was ripe for their consideration. Mr. Dundas concluded with moving, "That Mr. Murphy be again = called in."

Mr. Murphy, as soon as he came to the bar, declared he should feel himself extremely unhappy if he had given of fence to any member of that House, most especially to the right hon. gentleman who had put the question; extremely sorry should he be also, if any hon. gentleman - should think him unwilling to answer any 1 question whatever; he was extremely willing to answer all that should be put to him in the plainest and readiest manner possible. After this apology, Mr. Murphy's examination continued, till at - length

Lord Beauchamp put a question relative to Mr. Murphy's opinion, whether the object of the scrutiny would not have been more effectually and speedily obtained, had the whole case of the Westminster election been referred to a committee of that House.-This called up

Lord Mulgrave, who complained of the question, as one wholly unprecedented, and at the same time disrespectful to the House. He argued, that it was appealing to a witness to know his opinion what that House would do in any cause submitted to their adjudication. This he thought a most extraordinary proceeding. Lord Beauchamp defended his question as perfectly regular, and apposite to the subject of inquiry. He animadverted upon the disgrace that House had already brought upon itself in the eyes of the whole kingdom, by ordering a court of inquiry so nugatory, inefficacious, absurd, and vexatious as the high bailiff's court of scrutiny; and he pursued this idea by declaring that nothing could add to the disgrace and manifest injustice of the proceeding, but for the House to go a step farther, and order the scrutiny, proved so palpably to be of no use whatever but to create delay, expense, and to aggravate the irreparable injury done to de constitution in the instance of the past year, still to be continued.

Mr. Dundas spoke to order, and reprobated the noble lord's argument as irregular and inflammatory. The noble lord had put a question in his mind by no means fit to be put; but to the question he meant not to object, as he would rather suffer an irrelevant question to be put, than countenance a more mischievous irregularity, viz. the prematurely debating upon important matters not yet before the House.

Mr. Pitt said, he felt as his learned friend had felt, and though he hoped it would not be established into a precedent, declared he should not object to the question, notwithstanding he thought it a very improper one, merely because he wished to prevent the greater evil, and thus by partial and interlocutory debates artfully introduced in the course of an inquiry, suffering topics to be discussed irregularly and prematurely. When the day arrived to agitate the question, he should be ready to state the grounds upon which he should give his vote, and his wish was, that the questions might be fully and fairly gone into; but in the mean time, neither the eloquent invective of the noble lord on the one hand, nor the harsh and ill-justified reflections of angry and disappointed men on the other, should draw him aside from his duty, or betray him into irregularity and disorder.

Lord North said, he had taken no part in any of the interlocutory debates of the day; he begged leave, therefore, to say a few words.

The question of his noble friend, so far from its having been improper or irrelevant, appeared to him to be peculiarly applicable to the subject, and fit to be answered. He was sure he ought to approve of it, for he had it at the tip of his tongue fifty times in the course of Mr. Murphy's examination. When they had heard of that gentleman's idea, that something nearer to a committee of that House was more fit for the object than the scrutiny as it stood now, what could be more fair than a direct question, whether Mr. Murphy, from the experience he had lately had, was of opinion that the whole business of the scrutiny would have been more speedily and more effectually decided by a committee of that House, than by the high bailiff's court. With regard to the interlocutory debates which the right hon. gentleman had complained of, it was a little extraordinary that he, of all men, should be the first to find fault with them, since every one of them, that

Mr. Welbore Ellis rose and remarked, that having first taken up the important business which was now under the consideration of the House, he thought it incumbent on him to explain the purpose for which his original motion was intended, and the motives on which the motion he now intended to submit to them was founded. He then proceeded to relate the progress of the Westminster scrutiny, and went through the leading points of the depositions given by the high bailiff and his assessors at the bar of the House. He dwelt on the circumstance of the high bailiff considering himself to act under the authority of the House, which being removed, he could have no other to proceed under. On the face of this single declaration, there appeared sufficient proof of the illegality of the system in general, and the absurdity and manifest impropriety of that sanction under which he was authorized to continue so execrated a conduct. If he confessed, that by removing the authority of parliament he had now no other to proceed upon, need there any arguments to prove that appointing a time for the scrutiny, in the very day when the term of his writ expired, was an act beyond the extent of authority, as being beyond the date of his precept. In granting the request of a scrutiny, according to the doctrines generally held out, he was perhaps justifiable, as his power did not expire till the expiration of the date of his precept; but appointing the proceedings of the scrutiny for a time long after the date of his precept, was overleaping not only the powers granted to a returning officer, but exceeding any power our constitution would suffer to be vested in any individual; it was the doctrine as well of the statute as of the common law of this country, as well as the intention manifest, prima facie, on the writ itself, that the parliament shall not only meet on a certain day, but shall also be full, which after gave rise to the arrest and punishment of members who neglected the duty of attendance; and the forms of election were particularly adapted with a view to this grand object. Was the city of Westminster alone, then, to be the melancholy exemption? Was it reserved for that city to experience the delay of a scrutiny, which not only extended beyond the time appointed for the meeting of parliament, but was, according to the best evidence given on the occasion, likely to continue for two years to come? If this [VOL. XXV.]

was like any thing in the spirit of the British constitution, or any thing like the usual course of elections, he knew nothing to which it would not assimilate. In the ancient meetings of parliament, when the session lasted generally no more than six weeks, how would such a measure as this be treated? Would it not effectually destroy every purpose of representation? Should, then, these principles, that spirit and that constitution transmitted from the most distant period of our history, be destroyed without even the pretext of a statute to give it sanction? From the description given by the high bailiff himself of the imbecility of his court, what could be more vain, impotent, and inadequate? He did not expect, till within these two days, that there was any person in the House who could have any other opinion of it. He expected, that sensible of having done wrong, they would cheerfully set about correcting their misconduct, and not by an obstinate perseverance continue those abuses, of which there were such loud and such general complaint. There was scarce a man out of the House who did not reprobate the measure: for, were the high bailiff to proceed upon this scrutiny till it was entirely concluded, was he not yet liable to the same errors as on taking the poll? having no authority to enforce the attendance of witnesses, or punish such as were detected in prevarication or falsehood. Nothing could invite every man more forcibly to become a convert to Mr. Grenville's Bill, than the absurdities of this preposterous measure. Of this, the testimony of one of the persons principally concerned in the conduct of the scrutiny (Mr. Murphy) was sufficient confirmation; for he thought that, notwithstanding the plans offered for expediting the business, the best mode in which the subject could be decided, was by a committee of the House of Commons. Considering, then, the illegality as well as the impolicy of the scrutiny, the impracti cability of bringing the business to a final issue in any moderate time, the heavy expense with which it was attended to the parties, the just and severe complaints of an injured city, and according sentiments of the nation at large, added to the insufficiency of the miserable court to which it was referred, he would conclude by moving, "That it appearing to this House, that Thomas Corbett, esq. high bailiff of the city of Westminster, having received a precept from the sheriff of Middlesex, [D]

for electing two citizens to serve in parliament for the said city, and having taken and finally closed the poll on the 17th day of May last, being the day next before the day of the return of the said writ, be now directed forthwith to make a return of his precept of members chosen in pursuance thereof."

Mr. Pelham seconded the motion. On a decision, in which the several interests of the country, and the very existence of the constitution were involved, he could not content himself with giving a silent vote. From the earliest stage of this business, he regarded it in an unconstitutional light, and every subsequent proceeding went only to confirm his opinion; when the highest spirit of party reigned, and in the most violent rage of faction in this country, there was never found, antecedent to this, any instance of an officer bold enough to omit that return which the terms of his writ demanded. It was an invariable rule, and a rule founded on duty, for sheriffs to make return of such members as at the close of the poll possessed the greatest number of suffrages; for the majority on their books was alone the criterion by which they were to judge of the members who should be returned: and any paltry distinction between a sheriff and a high bailiff, in this respect, he should treat with contempt, being equally returning officers, and their duties the same. Were this scrutinizing system to be drawn into precedent, a consequence much to be apprehended, it would be in the power of a minister to decide how many members should appear in parliament. He concluded, by apologizing to the House for taking up so much of their attention; saying, he was totally incapable of doing justice to his own feelings, and less to the subject on which he spoke, but felt so strong a conviction of the folly of this measure, that he could not suppress the remarks which then suggested themselves. Lord Mulgrave confessed, that he had great respect for the integrity and prudence of his hon. friend who had spoken last. Although they differed sometimes in political principles, he presumed he might, notwithstanding, consider him as his friend: but with all deference to the opinions of those gentlemen who had preceded him, he must beg leave to dissent from the general positions which they had advanced. They had reprobated the conduct of the high bailiff as highly injudi

cious. For his part, he should like to abide by the law of the land. There was no law which strictly enjoined the high bailiff to make a return immediately on the meeting of a new parliament. It had always been an established maxim, founded in justice and equity, that on a demand of any party for a scrutiny, the returning officer should satisfy his own conscience, and either grant or reject a scrutiny, according as he thought he was led by the tenor of his oath. Gentlemen talked much of common law, and made a comparison on that ground; but he hoped they would listen to common sense. The high bailiff was not free, according to the injunctions of his oath, to make a return. A scrutiny having been demanded by one of the candidates, it was therefore, agreeably to custom, commenced; and he was convinced there was no law which could make his conduct culpable. Formerly, in law parliaments, when a member was not returned, his seat was declared vacant, and a new writ issued; but that had no analogy to the present parliamentary regulations. To say that the high bailiff should act contrary to the dictates of his conscience, was the most uncandid and preposterous doctrine that could possibly be advanced. Justice ought to be done, but the high bailiff must attend to the tenor of his oath; and this, in his opinion, was an exact discrimination of the high bailiff's conduct, and the preposterous doctrine advanced by the hon. gentleman. In early times, the attendance of parliament was not considered as a pecuniary benefit, but as a burthen on those who were delegated; but from the apparent conduct of some gentlemen, the times were considerably altered. We were told by some, that the grievance-he meant the neglect of making a return on the appointed day-ought to be remedied; but he wished gentlemen would recollect, that last year there had passed some statutes to correct the imperfection complained of. He called the attention of the House to the case of the Middlesex election, as bearing an affinity to the subject now under discussion. Some gentlemen had expatiated, at considerable length, on Mr. Grenville's Bill. He had a great respect for Mr. Grenville's Bill; but he was of opinion that there were imperfections in that excellent law, as well as most other acts of parliament. He remembered very well the time when Mr. Grenville's Bill was brought into parliament. It received