BILL IN BEHALF OF CHELSEA PENSIONERS.

Mr. Pitt, the paymaster-general of the forces, brought in a bill, which will ever remain a standing monument of his humanity. The poor disabled veterans who enjoyed the pension of Chelsea hospital, were so iniquitously oppressed by a set of miscreants, who supplied them with money per advance, at the most exorbitant rates of usury, that many of them, with their families, were in danger of starving; and the intention of government in granting such a comfortable subsistence, was in a great measure defeated. Mr. Pitt, perceiving that this evil originally flowed from the delay of the first payment, which the pensioner could not touch till the expiration of a whole year after he had been put upon the list, removed this necessity of borrowing, by providing in the bill, that half a year’s pension should be advanced half a year before it is due; and the practice of usury was effectually prevented by a clause, enacting, that all contracts should be void by which any pension might be mortgaged. This humane regulation was unanimously approved, and having passed through both houses with uncommon expedition, received the royal assent.

Notwithstanding the unanimity manifested by the commons, in every thing relating to the measures for acting vigorously against the common enemy of the nation, they were remarkably disturbed and divided by a contested election of members for Oxfordshire. In the course of this dispute, the strength and influence of what they called the old and new interest, or, to speak more intelligibly, of the tories and whigs in that county, were fully displayed. The candidates sustained on the shoulders of the old interest, were lord viscount Wenman and sir James Dashwood: their competitors, whom the new interest supported, and of consequence the ministry countenanced, were lord Parker and sir Edward Turner. Never was any contention of this kind maintained with more spirit and animosity, or carried on at a greater expense. One would have imagined that each side considered it as a dispute which must have determined whether the nation should enjoy its ancient liberty, or tamely submit to the fetters of corruption. Noblemen and gentlemen, clergymen and ladies, employed all their talents and industry in canvassing for either side, throughout every township and village in the county. Scandal emptied her whole quiver of insinuation, calumny, and lampoon; corruption was not remiss in promises and presents: houses of entertainment were opened; and nothing was for some time to be seen but scenes of tumult, riot, and intoxication. The revenue of many an independent prince on the continent, would not have been sufficient to afford such sums of money as were expended in the course of this dispute. At length they proceeded to election, and the sheriff made a double return of all the four candidates, so that not one of them could sit, and the county remained without a representative until this ambiguous affair could be decided in the house of commons. About the middle of November, petitions being presented by the four candidates, as well as by the gentlemen, clergy, and other freeholders of the county, complaining of an undue election, and double return, the matter of these petitions was heard at the bar of the house on the third day of December. The counsel for lord Wenman and sir James Dashwood alleged that they had the majority of votes upon the poll, and this circumstance was admitted by the counsel on the other side; then they proceeded to prove by evidence, that, after closing the poll, the sheriff declared the majority of votes to be in favour of these two candidates, and adjourned the court from the twenty-third day of April to the eighth of May; so that the scrutiny demanded and granted on the behalf of lord Parker and sir Edward Turner could not be discussed before the last day of the month, when the writ was returnable; that the scrutiny did not begin till the ninth day of May, when the time was protracted by disputes about the manner in which it should be carried on; that lord Parker and sir Edward Turner were allowed to object, through the whole poll, to the votes on the other side, on pretence that their competitors should be permitted to answer these objections, and, in their turn, object through the whole poll to the voters for lord Parker and sir Edward Turner, who should, in the last place, have leave to answer: that lord Wenman and sir James Dashwood had disapproved of this method, because they apprehended it might induce their competitors to make such a number of frivolous objections, that they should not have time to answer one half of them, much less to make objections of their own before the writ should be returned: that they foresaw such a number of frivolous objections were made, as engrossed the attention of the court till the twenty-seventh day of May; so that they could not begin to answer any of these objections till the twenty-eighth; and on the thirtieth, the sheriff, having closed the scrutiny, made the double return. The proof being exhibited, the counsel insisted, that as they had established a majority on the poll, and demonstrated that this majority neither was nor could be overthrown by such an unfinished scrutiny, it was incumbent on the other side to proceed upon the merits of the election, by endeavouring to overthrow that majority of which their clients were in possession. A question in the house being carried to the same purpose, lord Wenman and sir James Dashwood objected to five hundred and thirty voters on the other side, whom they proposed to disqualify. Their counsel examined several witnesses, to prove the partiality of the sheriff in favour of lord Parker and sir Edward Turner, and to detect these candidates in the practice of bribery; for which purpose they produced a letter in their own handwriting.

1755

They afterwards proceeded to disqualify particular voters, and summed up their evidence on the twenty-first day of January. Then the counsel for the other side began to refute the charge of partiality and corruption; and to answer the objections that had been made to particular voters. They produced evidence to prove, that customary freeholds, or customary holdings, had voted in elections in the counties at Glamorgan, Monmouth, Gloucester, Wells, and Hereford; and that the customary tenants of the manor of Woodstock, in Oxfordshire, had been reputed capable of voting, and even voted at elections for that county. In a word, they continued to examine evidences, argue and refute, prove and disprove, until the twenty-third day of April, when, after some warm debates and divisions in the house, lord Parker and sir Edward Turner were declared duly elected; and the clerk of the crown was ordered to amend the return, by erasing the names of lord Wenman and sir James Dashwood. Many, who presumed to think for themselves, without recollecting the power and influence of the administration, were astonished at the issue of this dispute, which, however, might have easily been foreseen; inasmuch, as, during the course of the proceedings, most if not all of the many questions debated in the house, were determined by a great majority in favour of the new interest. A great number of copyholders had been admitted to vote at this election, and the sheriff incurred no censure for allowing them to take the oath appointed by law to be taken by freeholders: nevertheless, the commons carefully avoided determining the question, whether copyholders possessed of the yearly value of forty shillings, clear of all deductions, have not a right to vote for knights to represent the shire within which their copyhold estates are situated? This point being left doubtful by the legislature, puts it often in the power of the sheriff to return which of the candidates he pleases to support; for if the majority of the voting copyholders adheres to the interest of his favourite, he will admit their votes both on the poll and the scrutiny; whereas, should they be otherwise disposed, he will reject them as unqualified What effect this practice may have upon the independency of parliament, every person must perceive who reflects, that, in almost all the counties of England, the high sheriffs are annually appointed by the minister for the time being.

GEORGE II. 1727-1760