it as the death and funeral of the constitution; and it was indifferent to him whether it was buried in linen or woollen, whether it had sixteen or sixty more pallbearers. Censuring the speech for omitting all mention of India, he drew an alarming picture of its condition, and moved an amendment referring to the state of that country. СНАР. LVIII. 1785. Mr. Fox recommended ministers to keep a wary Mr. Fox. eye on the conduct of the house of Bourbon, and to guard the balance of power in Europe, which had ever been thought material to the interests of this country. Mr. Pitt bantered Lord North by referring to his Mr. Pitt. expressions on former occasions, and, with respect to reform, treated him as a bigot. Such a fear of innovation as he professed would, if entertained at all times, have prevented improvement and left mankind in ignorance and barbarism. To Mr. Burke he observed, that, of all men, he was perhaps best qualified to judge of the comparison between a very short and a very long speech. For several years past, it had been the practice to recommend to the consideration of both Houses the state of Indian affairs; and it had been also the uniform practice of Parliament to pay no attention to those recommendations. During the last session, however, the business had undergone minute discussion, and the regulations adopted had produced most salutary effects. He answered other objections, and explained the different points in the speech so satisfactorily, that the amendment was abandoned, and the address carried without a division. The Westminster scrutiny engaged the early atten- Westminster tion of the House. Mr. Welbore Ellis introduced the scrutiny. subject, by inquiring whether a certificate, pursuant to Feb. 1st. the resolution of the last session, had been returned; and, being answered in the negative, he moved that Mr. Corbett, the High Bailiff, with Mr. Hargrave and Mr. Murphy, his assessor, should attend the House; and, the following day, Colonel Fitzpatrick presented 2nd. the petition of certain electors of Westminster, complaining that they were not legally and duly represented. CHAP. 1785. The High Bai liff and his assessors ex amined at the bar. 8th. After a short delay, occasioned by a slight indisposition of Mr. Fox*, the parties were examined at the bar. It appeared that the whole number polled was 12,200; of these, 906 voted for tenements in the parish of St. Anne; 2,268 in that of St. Martin. The High Bailiff said that one of his chief inducements for granting a scrutiny was the great excess of voters at the late election over that between Trentham and Vandeput in 1750, when no more than 9400 voters appeared, of whom only 710 claimed residence in St. Anne's; and he knew of no increase of dwelling houses which could occasion such a difference. After a few days spent in making arrangements and fixing rules of proceeding, the scrutiny began. The agents of Sir Cecil Wray had proposed to investigate the united parishes of St. Margaret and St. John, supposed to be the principal seat of bad votes; and which inquiry, it was suggested, would have given a majority on the whole poll to Sir Cecil Wray: but this course was objected to by the agents of Mr. Fox; the precedent of a former scrutiny was followed, and, upon a ballot being taken, St. Anne's had the priority. In that parish Sir Cecil Wray objected to seventy-one votes, of whom twenty-five were declared unqualified; while, out of thirty-two litigated on the part of Mr. Fox, twenty were rejected. The scrutiny in St. Martin's was still proceeding; there Mr. Fox had lost eighty, and Sir Cecil Wray sixty, votes. Eight months of laborious sitting had already been consumed; and as only one fourth of the voters had been proceeded on, it was shewn that two years' further exertion would be requisite before the whole inquiry could be completed. In explanation of this tardy progress, Mr. Corbett, while he allowed that his regulations had been generally attended to, said that the long examinations, cross examinations, and arguments on every point, occasioned great delay; and Mr. Murphy stated that each vote was tried with as much form and prolixity as a cause in Westminster Hall; that counsel claimed a He had strained the tendo Achilles. right, in some cases, to make five speeches on one vote. This censure was not exclusively applied to the advocates on either side; but the effect was incontestible. The authority of the High Bailiff too was insufficient; he could not administer an oath; he could not compel the attendance either of voter, witness, or even of constables, to maintain order; consequently he had been annoyed by much misbehaviour; but he had no officer to whose custody he could deliver offenders, nor did he know that any gaoler would have received them. Propositions in writing for shortening the proceedings had been put in on behalf of Sir Cecil Wray, but rejected on that of Mr. Fox. СНАР. LVIII. 1785. W. Ellis. Such was the sum of the evidence given on this unparalleled case. Many warm, though short, debates were maintained on the propriety of questions and the effect of answers, and the House did not rise till three 9th. in the morning. On the following day, Mr. Welbore Motion of Mr. Ellis moved that the High Bailiff should forthwith make a return. The debate was extremely spirited, and characterized by one remarkable circumstance. Mr. Windham, whose talents, learning, and brilliant First Speech eloquence were afterward so often to inform and de- ham. light his hearers, made, on that night, his first speech; and Mr. Fox immediately congratulated the House on the accession of such abilities*. of Mr. Wind An alteration was proposed, declaring that the Amendment High Bailiff was not precluded by the order of the carried. House from making a return when he should feel satified, and that it did not appear that any unnecessary delay had occurred. The motion, thus framed, was carried on a divisiont. A petition was then presented from certain elec- 18th. tors: they were allowed to be heard by counsel; but, Counsel refuse the House having resolved that the legality of the House. Another circumstance which occurred was somewhat ludicrous. Mr. Michael Angelo Taylor, declaring that he could not reconcile his ideas of law to the scrutiny, deprecated all censure for arrogance and presumption, by stating that he advanced his opinion with the humility which became him; he was a very young man; he might call himself a chicken in the profession. This phrase af forded, at the time, much food for pleasantry; but the honourable member lived very long after it, honoured in society, useful to his country, and independent in his mind as in his fortune. + 174 to 135. to address the March 3rd. Sir Cecil Wray. Termination 4th. scrutiny should not be questioned, Mr. Erskine and Mr. Pigott declined addressing them. A motion was again made for an immediate return according to the state of the poll; but lost, on a division, by a majority of nine only*. It was now obvious that, with a majority so small, the opponents of Mr. Fox could not much longer maintain the conflict. In fact, the general feeling, in Parliament and without, was adverse to further investigation. They who most strongly disputed Mr. Fox's real majority could hardly avow the intention of keeping such a city as Westminster unrepresented during nearly half the probable duration of Parliament; they who were less sanguine experienced all the effects of weariness and uncertainty; while their opponents gained daily strength from all these and other causes. The investigation, so far as it had proceeded, had not justified the reasons on which it was granted. The representations of means used to gain a numerical majority for Mr. Fox, unsupported by new facts, were constantly diminishing in their effect; and it was not impossible that he, like Mr. Wilkes, might be regarded as a persecuted individual, against whom the whole strength of government was exerted, and for whom, in consequence, a sympathy, more generous than that of mere vulgar popularity, would be engendered. arose. The next debate was occasioned by a petition from some electors in the interest of Sir Cecil Wray, praying the friends of for a continuance of the scrutiny. Little discussion Alderman Sawbridge again moved for an immediate return, putting his proposition on sensible, of the scrutiny practical grounds. It was well known, he said, that Sir Cecil Wray wished to be rid of the scrutiny; and although the pride of his committee might have stimulated them to sign the present petition, yet even they would be glad of an order of the House, as a good excuse for discontinuing the contest. There were not ten men in Parliament, he was convinced, who did not wish it was over, for reasons which he would not in 145 to 136. There had been a division on the question for hearing counsel with a restriction, in which the numbers were 203 to 145. quire into, because he wished not to provoke illhumour, or say any thing invidious. Mr. Pitt, declining to argue a question already exhausted, moved that the House should adjourn; and on this amendment he was in a minority of thirty-eight*. The original motion was carried without a division, and on the following day the return was made, which seated Lord Hood and Mr. Fox as members for Westminster. 9th. СНАР. LVIII. 1785. Mr. Fox made a motion that the former proceed- Mr. Fox's ings should be expunged from the Journals, which motion. produced a most angry debate. Several members, uttering strong personalities, were called to order; and although the law was ably argued, the general tone of the discussion was such, as must have made its termination a subject of satisfaction to all. The division was decisively against the motiont. Such was the termination of this extraordinary contest, in which the minister had embarked without due consideration, and in the course of which he had the mortification to see his majority deserting him, and popular opinion strongly pronounced against him. Much more wise, regular, and legal it would have been to oblige the High Bailiff to make a return, leaving the parties to maintain their contest as individuals, on a petition, under the Grenville act. When the contest was ended, so little interest attached to the matter, that the scrutiny would only afford a theme for a newspaper paragraph, a tavern song, or a joke at the theatre; in a few months, it was justly pronounced that "the "scrutiny was dead and gone for ever." Bill for regula At the close of this debate, Mr. Fox urged the necessity of preventing the recurrence of such proceed- tion of returns. ings; and Mr. Pitt announced his intention to bring in a bill for that purpose; but it would be opposed by the right honourable gentleman, for it would be an enacting and not merely a declaratory law. The Attorneygeneral did accordingly introduce a statute for limiting the duration of polls and scrutinies, and for other pur June 21st. |