1751. PROCEEDINGS of the to know, and what it is our duty to inquire into. As this, I fay, was our duty, the high-bailiff, no doubt, expected fuch a motion, and thought that it would have been a little too forward in him, to have come here with any complaint, before fuch a motion was made. B POLITICAL CLUB, &c. 395 that the returning officer had been guilty of manifeft injuftice, we ought and certainly would punish him for that injustice. This, Sir, I take to be the regu lar method of proceeding in all fuck A cafes; and in the prefent it is the more neceffary, because of our having last feffion interpofed, and given express directions with regard to this election; for if after that, any perfon dared to interrupt or infult our officer in the discharge of his duty, it was a higher contempt of our authority, than it could have been, had we never interpofed, but left it to the common law of parliament, Shall we in such a cafe delay vindicating our authority, till the merits of an election be determined? Efpecially fuch an election as this of Weftminster, which may take up the whole time we have to fpare in this feffion; and if the petitioners fhould protract the decifion, as well as they did the election, by an affected de. lay, it may never be determined; confequently, we fhall never have an opportunity to vindicate our authority, or to punish those who have been guilty of fo high a contempt. C For this reafon, I think, Sir, we are much obliged to the noble lord for putting us in mind of our duty; and this every gentleman was fo fenfible of, that no one stood up to oppofe his motion; but now, when they fee a danger, that our purfuing this motion, by doing what we ought to do in confequence of it, may affect fome of their friends, they object against the motion; for it is impoffible to fuggeft an argument against our proceeding, that will not militate as ftrongly against our having begun. But as we have already be gun: As we have the high-bailiff now before us, and as he has already told us in part, that he was obftructed by fome perfons, and prevented from purfuing the directions of this D houfe, what would the world think of us, fhould we now ftop fhort, and make no inquiry into the perfons that had been guilty of a breach of our orders, fo folemnly and fo lately iffued? Sir, if the high bailiff, who is E our officer, met with any interruptions or infults in the execution of his office, our inquiring into and punishing them has nothing to do with the merits either of the election or return. Suppofe that he had been guilty of manifeft injuftice with re. F fpect to both, are we to allow any perfon, or any number of perfons without doors, to judge of that injuftice, and to interrupt or infult him on that account? No, Sir, in all fuch cases we are first to vindicate our own authority, by punishing the G perfons who had taken our jurifdiction upon them without our leave ; and then, if upon hearing the merits of the election, it fhould appear, The high-bailiff has already informed us of one fort of contempt, and may, perhaps, inform us of leveral others, if we fhew that we are refolved to do what we ought to do upon the occafion. The contempt he has informed us of muft, it is true, have been committed by the agents or managers for one or other of the candidates, but he has not as yet told us by whom; and whatever reason the noble lord may have for judging, that he will charge it upon the agents of the petitioning candidate, I am fure the house has no reason to fuppofe with any certainty, that he will not charge it upon the agents of the candidate returned. But fuppofe he fhould charge it upon the agents of the petitioning candidate, can this any way affect the merits of the election ? If the Ddd 2 petitioning 396 PROCEEDINGS of the POLITICAL CLUB, &c. Sept. petitioning candidate has the right D E But this of protracting the election by an affected delay, may not, perhaps, Sir, be the only contempt of our authority that has been committed: In fuch a popular election there may have been other forts of contempt, and contempts of a more heinous nature; and for the fake of preferving the freedom of elections, we are in duty bound to inquire into and punish every kind of contempt that may any way incroach upon that freedom; but can we expect any farther information from this gentleman, if after the information he has given, we should appear fo very F indifferent about vindicating our own authority, as not to ask who were the perfons that were guilty of the offence he has already informed us of? Do not we all know, that the moft effectual way for preventing the execution of any law, is to itiffe, or not profecute the informations brought against perfons that have been guilty of a breach of it? And is not every magiftrate that does fo, G moft juftly charged with a connivance at the crime? What then may be faid of us, if after being told of a breach of our orders, we fhould wave being at the pains to afk who the perfons were, that were guilty of that breach? For this reafon, Sir, the queftion now propofed to be put to the highbailiff, is a queftion, in my opinion, that we are obliged to put, not only for the fake of preferving the freedom and regularity of elections, but for the fake of preferving the dignity and character of this houfe; therefore, I hope, the noble lord will withdraw the motion he has made, in order that our putting this queftion to the high-bailiff may be unanimously agreed to. The next that Spoke was C. Livius Mr. Prefident, T HE noble lord who spoke laft has most ingeniously shewn, what plaufible arguments may be made ufe of in favour even of the worst of caufes; but notwithstanding all he has faid, no gentleman that will make ufe of an impartial judgment, can be mifled with refpect to the question now under confideration. The affair now before us is plainly and in fhort this: By the petitions, which we have just ordered to be heard on fo fhort a day as to-morrow fe'night, the highbailiff ftands accufed, among other things, of having protracted the late Westminster election for gain: What did you call him for? What would you examine him for? To prove that he did, or to prove that he did not? For my part, I wonder that in fuch circumftances he agreed to anfwer at all, to any question put to him relating to the crime of which he ftands accufed; for furely, he is D-L not 1751. PROCEEDINGS of the POLITICAL CLUB, &c. 397 tions obliged to apply immediately, and as often as it happened, to this houfe, for the protection of himself, and the punishment of offenders; and as the offence he now complains of, must have been committed during the fitting of laft parliament, his not applying for our protection before the recefs, muft difcredit the information he has now been pleased to give, and ought to be a prevailing reafon with us, not to make any ufe of his information, till we have B firft difcuffed the accufation before brought against him. not obliged to confefs, or condemn But it is faid, we are in duty bound to inquire how the directions we gave laft feffion have been complied with. Sir, they have been complied with: We have our member now in the houfe; and no complaint has been made of any breach of our orders then iffued, but what is contained in the petitions now prefented to us. Will any gentleman fay, that we are bound to fet ourselves up as a court of inquifition, and to inquire from time to time whether any breach of our orders, or any breach of privilege, has been committed? No gentleman who has a regard to our conftitution, or to the exiftence of this affembly, will feriously fay fo. If no member had been yet returned for Westminster, we fhould then have been obliged, the very first day of the feffion, to have fent for the returning officer, in order to know from him, why he had not made a return; but as a return was made, we had nothing further to do with the order or directions given laft feffion, nor could we regularly enter into any inquiry about what was done in purfuance of thofe directions, until fome complaint was made of a breach. Therefore the high-bailiff had no ground to expect any motion for his attendance, in order to give the house an account of what he did in pursuance of thofe directions. On the contrary, if any one interrupted or molested him in the discharge of his duty, he was by thofe very direc As to any other informations he may be pleased to give, Sir, for that we shall have abundance of them, if we encourage him, I make not the leaft doubt, but of whatever kind Cthey may be, I can fay nothing of them till I hear them, nor can they have the leaft influence upon the queftion now before us, which is properly and only this, Whether we fhould ask him, by whom, and by what means the election was protractDed? To what purpose should we ask him fuch a queftion? He may tell us by whom, and by what means it was, in his opinion, protracted; but is it poffible for us to judge, whether his opinion be right, till we have the whole merits laid before us? And the house will not, I hope, implicitly yield to what he pretends to be his opinion. If we do, I am fure, it will most nearly affect the election; for the petitioners would be mad to proceed in their petition, fhould they find the house inclined to believe implicitly, whatever this worthy gentleman delivered as his opinion. E F G The question now propofed to be afked him can therefore answer no end, Sir, but that of precipitately and unjustly defeating any inquiry into the merits of the election; confequently, to ask him fuch a queftion, muft either be ridiculous or unjust. But it is faid, Sir, that if we do not afk him this question, we shall difcourage him from giving us any fur ther A 398 PROCEEDINGS of the POLITICAL CLUB, &c. Sept. other malverfations during the late election for Weftminster, we cannot inquire into them, or inflict proper punishments, till we have entered into the merits of the election; and confequently our defiring any prefent A information from him, can anfwer no good purpose. In short, Sir, it is really making him a witnefs in his own caufe; and fhould we proceed to give judgment upon any information he may be pleafed to give us, it would be a hearing ex parte; for tho' we should appoint a day for the attendance of thofe that may be accufed by him, we could not have all parties concerned before us, because the petitioners are now parties concerned in every thing relating to the election; and to proceed to judgment upon any point without them, is a method of proceeding that never was, nor ever will, I hope, be practifed in this affembly; for in the moft riotous election that was ever controverted, I defy any gentleman to fhew, that we ever proceeded to D inquire into and punish the rioters, before the day appointed for hearing the election; and in the prefent cafe there is lefs reafon for fuch a precipitate method of proceeding, than can well be in any other, because of the fhort day appointed for our hearing the merits of this election. C ther information. I have faid before, Sir, that this houfe ought not to fet itself up as a court of inquifition; and none but fuch a court will ever fish for crimes or informations: Informers are a race of men, that never were encouraged but under ty. rannical governments; and to fet up an accufed criminal as an informer at large, is a practice that never will, I hope, be introduced in this country. I fay, Sir, an accufed criminal; for if the high-bailiff protracted the election for gain, it was criminal; and B fhould it be fully proved, which I hope it will not, he will deferve a moft fevere punishment. Had he come before the end of last feffion, or at the beginning of this, and before any accufation was lodged against him, to have informed us of his having been interrupted or infulted in the execution of his office, hẹ ought to have met with encouragement; but now, fo far from encou raging him, I think, we ought not to receive any information he can give ; nor can the authority of this houfe fuffer, or the fafety of our officers be expofed, by laying this down as a rule in the cafe now before us, because if he met with any material interruptions or heinous infults, they will be made appear in the course of our examining the merits of the elec. E tion, when we may inflict fuch punishments as we then think proper upon the offenders; nor can we till then determine what punishments may be proper; for tho we are not to allow the mob, or any perfon without doors, to judge of the behaviour of our officers, yet if it fhould appear, that any one of our officers had been guilty of flagrant injuftice, and had thereby provoked people to infult him, it would very much extenuate the guilt, and confequently ought to leffen the pu- G nifhment, of the offenders. From this confideration alone, Sir, it is evident, that fhould the highbailiff proceed, and inform us of F The noble lord was pleased to fay, that the most effectual way to prevent the execution of a law, is to ftifle the informations brought for a breach of it; but, Sir, I believe, even his lordship will admit, that the moft effectual way to prevent any future informations or profecutions, would be to encourage perfons accufed to become informers against their accufers. Would it be just in any court to fend for a perfon indicted before them, and ask him whether he could bring an information against the profecutor or any of his witneffes? Would it not be adding to that injuftice, to proceed to trial upon his information against the pro fecutor 1751. PROCEEDINGS of the POLITICAL CLUB, &c. 399 fecutor or his witneffes, before pro- The next Speaker in this Debate was Mr. Prefident, W A B C directed to expedite the election as much as poffible, and to apply to this houfe, if he met with any thing to obftruct him in the discharge of his duty, which he could not prevent, Having thus, Sir, received our exprefs orders to expedite the election, and being armed with the whole power of this house, one would have thought, that he might foon have made a return; but tho' we continued fitting to the 12th of April, no return was made, to the furprife of every gentleman who knew any thing of the nature of elections, and the neceffity of making every return as foon as poffible. 'Tis true, Sir, a return is now made; but is this a fufficient excufe for such an unheard-of delay? Ought this to prevent our inquiring into an affair, that may in future times be of fuch HEN I confider the whole dangerous confequence to our confticircumstances of the election tution? The petitions prefented ato which the affair now before us has gainst the election and return have fome fort of relation, I am furprised nothing to do with this affair; behow any gentleman can object to cause it is an affair, which we ought, what is now propofed. The writ D and certainly would have inquired for a new election for the city of into, if no petition had been preWestminster was ordered the 16th of fented. But can we, or ought we November was a twelvemonth, and to enter into fuch an inquiry without was presently iffued accordingly, on first examining the returning officer, which the precept from the fheriff who must be fuppofed criminal, or was forthwith iffued, and delivered at least negligent, unless he can fhew to the high-bailiff, who is the return- E us fome reafon for fuch a long deing officer for that city. It was na- lay in an affair, which required the tural to expect, that before the 22d quickeft difpatch? of February following, he would have made a return; but as he did not, a motion was then made for an inquiry why he had not, and he with the other officers concerned F were ordered to attend next day, when he informed us, that he was then in the execution of the faid precept, that he had all along endeavoured to avoid all unneceflary delay therein, and that if fome delay had happened in the fcrutiny of the poll, G which he was then proceeding upon, it had been fuch only, as he did not think he had sufficient powers to prevent or remove; whereupon he was HF: The method we are now in is therefore, Sir, the most proper, and indeed the only method we could take for inquiring into this affair. It is an affair in which our own honour is concerned; and shall we allow fuch an affair to lie at the option of the petitioners, whether they will proceed in their petition or no? We have called the high-bailiff before us, not to ask him whether he has made a right return, or whether he did juftice to the electors in every part of the election, but why he fo long delayed making a return, why he did not fooner yield obedience to the directions |