Page images
PDF
EPUB

which that which was so necessary for their Penryn DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.] instruction was supplied to them, narrow- Lord J. Russell moved the second reading ed the means enjoyed by surgeons in the of this bill. pursuit of their studies. Notwithstanding Mr. Manning opposed the further prothat, the profession was daily becoming gress of the bill; and, after referring to the more numerous, and a considerable number evidence taken by the House upon the subof young students were compelled to pursue ject, contended that it was not sufficient their studies in other countries, and parti- to warrant the severe course now recomcularly in France, where great facilities mended. James, the petitioner upon whose were afforded to them in procuring the recognizance the inquiry took place, had necessary instruction. The present was admitted, that the whole was a base connot the proper opportunity to point out spiracy. He also complained, that the the means by which relief might be given bill contained only ten lines referring to to the profession ; but he did not think Penryn, and seventeen pages relating to that parliament would find it impossible to Manchester; to which place, without the provide, without injuring those feelings previous sanction of the House, it was prowhich existed in the public mind, if not a posed at once to transfer the right of complete, yet a much more adequate election. supply of human subjects than that which Mr. Stewart contended, that the bill now existed. He thought the best way was contrary to the first principles of justo proceed, in the first place, would be to tice, and confounded the innocent with the repeal the existing law.

guilty. The present generation was to be Ordered to lie on the table.

visited for the sins of the last, and offences

of twenty years' standing were raked up HOUSE OF COMMONS.

to afford a pretext for disfranchisement.

If the noble lord would bring in a bill to Friday, March 14.

inflict an equal punishment upon the giver CORPORATION AND Test Acts RE- and the taker of a bribe, it should have his PEAL Bill.] Lord J. Russell having hearty support : at present the visitation moved the order of the day for the second was quite unequal, or rather the most reading of this bill,

guilty part was allowed to escape. At all Sir J. Shelley opposed the bill, because events, before the second reading of the he thought if this concession were granted, bill

, it was extremely improper to introduce it would pave the way for the admission the name of Manchester. of the Catholic claims. His right hon. Mr. D. Barclay expressed his desire to friend near him had come to the same say a few words in defence of the borough conclusion

upon

somewhat different he represented. He argued, that it would grounds. He (sir John) would not make be preposterous to act upon the evidence a stepping-stone for Catholic emancipa- already taken, especially after the proof tion; and if this bill were passed, the since afforded that the petition against his Catholics would be sure to complain that hon. colleague originated in a conspiracy. they were the only persons excluded on New facts had come out since the last sesaccount of conscience. He had always sion, which not only justified, but imperaopposed their applications because he tively required, every member, as an act of thought them dangerous ; and so did his justice, to change the opinion he had preconstituents.

viously formed against the borough of Mr. Huskisson wished to set himself Penryn. A most unfair prejudice had right with the House. What he had said been excited against the character of the was, that he believed there were a great borough; and in a petition recently prenumber of the Dissenters opposed to the sented from the burgesses, they were wilCatholic claims, and that they would con- ling to place the disfranchisement of tinue so if the present bill was conceded to Penryn upon the issue of the proof that a them. So far from thinking that this bill conspiracy had existed, founded upon would be a stepping-stone to the Catholic | falsehood, and that out of it arose the petiquestion, he thought, on the contrary, that tion against his hon. colleague. The it would damnify it, and on that ground hon. member (Mr. Manning) had read a his opposition had been formed.

letter from one of six conspirators, acknowThe bill was read a second time. ledging the fact, and that the object was

to extort money from the two members.

a

He was persuaded, therefore, that hon. Mr. Secretary Peel said I rise at this members would reconsider the subject, be- period of the debate, partly because I before they decided against the elective lieve I am already in possession of the franchise of Penryn. The fact was, that various views entertained on this subject, Penryn formerly was a close borough-as and partly because it is not impossible the close as Knaresborough, Old Sarum, Ap-line I am about to suggest may meet with pleby, and a hundred others; the two the acquiescence of the noble lord, and members were returned by two baronets, thus preclude the necessity of a protracted each elector regularly receiving twelve discussion. The bill introduced by the guineas for his vote. In 1807, an attempt noble lord proposes to declare the absolute was made to open the borough, and it then disfranchisement of Penryn, and the transran considerable risk of disfranchisement fer of that franchise to Manchester. My In 1818, the same danger was incurred; hon. friend behind me (Mr. Manning), and but at the present moment it was a reformed the hon. gentleman who spoke last, conplace, and the House would hardly disfran- tend, not only against that course, but chise it because a few only out of four against the whole of the bill. They deny hundred and fifty voters were corrupt. A that there is any ground for the disfranmember who had canvassed the borough chisement of this borough, and consehad sworn, that out of the whole number quently they oppose the transfer of the not ten would have accepted a bribe. elective franchise to any other place. On It was repugnant to every principle of the present occasion I shall speak with justice to adopt the course of proceed reference to that part of the question only. ing now recommended. It would be I am for taking an intermediate course. scouted in the lower courts, and he hoped I am prepared to vote in concurrence with that in that House it would receive so much of the noble lord's proposal as no countenance. If this borough were to goes to disfranchise the borough of be disfranchised on the ground of the no- Penryn ; but I am not prepared to affirm toriety of its corruption, why were not the proposition of the transfer of that other boroughs to be similarly punished franchise to the town of Manchester. The which were known to be guilty of the bill the noble lord has introduced in the grossest corruption? Why was not this present year differs from that affirmed by argument of notoriety to be applied to the House of Commons last year, and sent the close boroughs; such as Gatton for up to the House of Lords. "This bill emexample? If notoriety was to be an argu- braces two distinct objects-one in which ment good only against open boroughs, the execution of justice is concerned, and would not the public conclude that the which inflicts a penalty on a borough House had some reason of its own for its assumed to be delinquent; the other, partiality to close boroughs? Would it " which involves a consideration of mere not recal the memory of that famous peti- policy, namely, the place to which the tion, in which it was offered to be proved, franchise shall be transferred. In making that one hundred and forty-four peers re- these observations, I propose to keep the turned three hundred members to that consideration of these two objects as disHouse ; that one hundred and eighty- tinct from each other as they really are in seven other members were returned by themselves. I shall consider first, what commoners, and the remaining one hun- justice requires to be done with regard to dred and seventy-one were all that were the borough of Penryn; and next, what returned by the independent boroughs policy suggests we should do with the forand cities. What had been the effect of feited franchise, if we should decide that the disfranchisement of Grampound? It it is to be transferred. I am not prepared had only given two seats more to the aris- to concur with the two hon. gentlemen tocracy? He had been told that the ex- who have preceded me, in denying the pense of the mere preparations for the necessity of the disfranchisement of this contest at the last election for the county borough. The question has been already of York, amounted to 150,0001. Such an decided by this House; and if we mean expense must prevent any private gentle to put an end to litigation, we must adhere man from offering himself as a candidate. to the decisions of the House. This subHe would conclude with protesting againstject was under consideration last year ; the the disfranchisement of Penryn, as an act bill did not pass tacitly through the House, most harsh, oppressive, and unjust, nor without attention being called to it in

a

its various stages. We must now con- ciples of equity. I agree that these priclude, that the sense of the House was vileges are not to be treated as the prothen declared. There was a question, I perty of the electors. They do involve remember, in the committee, as to whether considerations of public trust; and if they the franchise should be transferred to the are abused by the majority of the electors, adjoining hundreds. It is impossible to the innocent parties must take the consedeny, that, owing to accidental circum- quence of their association with the guilty. stances, the sense of the House was not - It was said in the debate last year, that taken on that point so fully as it was de- we must confine our deliberations to the sirable it should have been. Still it was proofs of delinquency at the last election, taken ; and, on the third reading of the But I never could acquiesce in the justice bill, which went to the disfranchisement of that observation. I do think that the of the borough, on the ground of the long- long continuance of these practices of continued prevalence of notorious corrup-bribery and corruption in the traffic of tion, the sense of the House was deliber- votes, is a material point in the case of ately taken. There was a division, and any borough, which the legislature never the numbers were one hundred and forty- can exclude from its consideration, There five in favour of the bill, and thirty-one is one fact which I cannot conceal—that against it, giving a majority of one hundred on three successive occasions this borough and fourteen, or more than four to one has been brought under the consideration against the borough. If, then, the de- of the House. On the first occasion, I cisions of this House are to be deemed was not in parliament, but I must have final, unless new facts can be presented to confidence in the decisions of former parus, let us not consent to waste our time, liaments. I cannot disregard them when but proceed with the duty we have to per- I am called to sit in judgment on similar form, lest we induce the country to distrust delinquencies. I do not say this fact is of our judgment by shewing that we distrust itself conclusive; but it is a material eleit ourselves. The House has decided on ment, by which the judgment should be this question, after hearing evidence at the influenced. The election of 1826 was not bar; and am I now to be called on, when the only occasion on which this borough the material facts have passed out of my was accused of corruption. In 1807, a memory, to reconsider that decision? Is committee of this House, which sat on the it not quite evident, that I must be less contested election of that year, resolved, able to come to a fair and just decision that sir C. Hawkins, one of the sitting than I was last session, when the evidence members, had been guilty of bribery and was fresh in my mind? I consider the other corrupt practices. The same comjudgment of the House with respect to the mittee reported, that three persons, whom disfranchisement final, so far as the House they named, and other electors, had been is able to pronounce a final judgment. I engaged in these corrupt practices. In acquiesce in it on the ground that there 1819, the return for this borough was must be some termination to matters of again contested, and the Report of the this kind. Those who are opposed to that Election Committee stated,' that Mr. decision have a perfect right, if they think Henry Swann, one of the sitting members, fit, to divide the House on the third read- had been guilty of bribery, and that three ing of the bill. But as they were originally other persons had been concerned in coronly thirty-one in number, I think they rupt practices, in order to influence the have but a slight chance of success. I, for previous election. It appeared, also, that one, feel perfectly justified in considering eight electors had received bribes to induce that as a final and deliberate judgment. them to vote. In 1827, we again find this Having listened attentively to the evidence borough of Penryn under the notice of the given at the bar on this subject, and read House. Former warnings did not succeed the Reports of the Committee with refer- in extirpating their corrupt practices, and ence to it, I feel myself bound to adhere another comunittee had occasion to report, to the decision of the House, that there that gross bribery and treating had prewas such an improper exercise of the elec- vailed during the last election, though the tive franchise as warranted the House in committee entirely acquitted my hon. taking that franchise away from the bo- friend and his colleague of any participarough. I think the judgment of the tion in the corruption.- When I am called House was strictly consonant to the prin- I upon to consider whether we shall now

source.

deprive this borough of its elective fran- evening; but I was prepared, if he had chise, is it possible to exclude the import-persevered, to have gone into the consiant fact of its former delinquency? If it deration of the question. As, however, had been only found delinquent in 1827, he postponed it, on reasons with which I the propriety of disfranchisement would do not quarrel, to Friday night, I abstained be less apparent than when it is pro- from interfering. Now, I propose, before nounced after a long series of similar we determine whether or not we should practices. My hon. friend is of opinion, transfer the franchise hitherto exercised ihat the evidence against this borough is by the electors of Penryn, to the Hundreds, founded in conspiracy. I hold the parties to Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, or any in the greatest disgust and reprobation, other place, we should be enabled to de who are capable of entering into a con- termine whether we have one or two spiracy to extort money from the sitting boroughs to disfranchise. No disadvanmembers ; but it does not follow that the tage can result from postponing this part evidence should be disbelieved on account of the question, until that very important of the conspiracy, if there was one. I fact is known. This bill provides not only place in a different point of view the con- that Penryn shall be disfranchised, but duct of the parties who produced the that the franchise shall be transferred to evidence for the purpose of extorting Manchester. I know the noble lord is money, and the credit due to the evidence, warranted by precedent in following this from whatever motives it may have been course; but I must consider it unjust. I produced. I view these motives with the will not say what opinion I entertain as to greatest reprobation, but it is another the place to which the transfer is proposed; question whether the House should refuse but I do think it more consonant with the credit to the evidence, even if it be derived practice that prevails in courts of justice, from so impure a

On these that before we appropriate the spoil, we grounds, I cannot deny my consent to should decide whether the party is delinso much of this bill as goes to take away quent. I do not advise the House to send the privilege of the borough of Penryn to the bill to the Lords, merely forfeiting the return representatives to this House. I franchise of Penryn, because that would should also be prepared to give my opinion make them the arbiters of our privileges ; on the other part of the bill, which in- but I do say, that we ought to postpone volves considerations of policy, if this was all consideration of the place to which we the single question of this nature presented should transfer the franchise, until we to the House in the course of the present have determined whether there is ground session; I mean that part which deter- to forfeit the franchise. The naming of mines to what place the elective privileges the place enlists new feelings, new hopes, should be transferred. I will not, on this and new expectations, which may possibly occasion, pronounce any opinion on that influence the judgment, as it would not part of the bill. I will not say whether I have been influenced if it had remained a think the transfer should be made to the mere question of abstract justice. It Hundreds, or to any populous town. The would have been better in the case of East House will understand me, when I say, it Retford, also, if the bill had named no is possible we may have this session to place to which the franchise is to be transdeal with two places in this manner. Be- ferred. When the bill had passed through fore, then, we determine to appropriate the the committee, after the guilt of the defranchise of one of them, let us know linquent borough had been proved, so as whether we shall have one or two to deal to leave us at liberty to transfer the franwith. That is an important consideration chise elsewhere, we might have named the in deciding on the policy of this question. place to which it was to be transferred This very night, the hon. gentleman (Mr. without telling a powerful party out of Tennyson) had a motion for concluding doors, and perhaps in this House, that a case of a similar nature. It seems to they have an interest in pronouncing the me that it would be quite unfitting to de- penalty on the accused borough. If the cide this point, while there is another case noble lord should consent to the course I in which we shall have to act judicially; propose, he will postpone the second readas we shall have to do with regard to the ing until the case of East Retford is disborough of East Retford. The hon. gen- posed of, or, at least, until it is decided tleman deprecated any discussion this whether that borough shall be disfran

a

chised. I concur in the disfranchisement main to be filled up, in point of form, by of Penryn, but I give no opinion as to the the Crown, acting by the advice of ministransfer of the franchise to Manchester. ters, instead of the advice of that House, If the noble lord would rather not take the which was the course their privileges sense of the House on the second reading, seemed to require them to follow. He was but on the committal of the bill, I am not prepared to say that the different willing to agree to that course, if he will course suggested by the right hon. gentlepostpone the committal until we know the man was not wiser or safer than either of determination of the House as to East the former, but he confessed it had not Retford. On that understanding, I am occurred to him. He could not agree prepared to give my formal acquiescence that the naming of the place created a sort to the whole bill.

of interest by which members might be Lord John Russell said, he was ready to induced to condemn the borough. He consent to the course suggested by the was ready to fix the committal at any time right hon. gentleman. Certainly he did the right hon. gentleman might please. not wish to pledge the right hon. gentle- Mr. A. O'Neill asked, with what conman, to the proposition that the franchise sistency the members of that House could should be transferred from Penryn to vote for the disfranchisement of this Manchester. Perhaps the right hon. gen. borough on the ground of its corruption ? tleman would have no objection to the bill who of them could lay his hand on his being committed pro forma, reserving the heart, and say, he had never directly or discussion of the clauses until after the indirectly, induced those who had not the decision of the House on the case of East benefit of his education, to commit these Retford. As he wished to stand well with crimes for the sake of political power ? the House, he would shortly explain why Such members alone could vote for this he had followed the course to which the bill without impugning their consistency. right hon. gentleman objected. In the Of the one hundred and forty-five members case of Grampound, the bill, in the first who had voted for it last session, two-thirds place, disfranchised that borough, and at least had obtained their seats by the same transferred the representation to Leeds. means. This was not his sentiment, indiWhen it was committed, various proposi- vidually, but that of all England, which tions were made as to the place to which looked with indignation on the very

subthe transfer should be made. It was orners of this perjury sitting in judgment considered perfectly an open question as on the perjurers. No member could to what should be done with the forfeited honestly vote for that bill, unless he could franchise. It was suggested to him in lay his hand on his heart, and declare this case, that it would be better to keep that he had not expended a single shilling the two questions separate ; that by one to purchase his return. He would himself bill the offending borough should be dis- vote for the bill, provided he was assured franchised, and the representation disposed that every member would come forward of by another. Acting on these suggestions and state as he divided : "1, for one, have last session, he had brought in a bill merely not been guilty of bribery or corruption ; to disfranchise the borough of Penryn, I have never induced a single individual without mentioning any transfer whatever. to commit crimes similar to those of which But, as it often happened, he found the electors of Penryn have been guilty.' the inconvenience of this course only after But as long as such men sat as the judges, he had entered upon it. It reduced him he would vote for the acquittal of the to this difficulty: the bill might have gone borough. What must be thought of the through that House and the House of consistency of the members of the British Lords, by which means the number of the House of Commons, who made their way members of that House would have been into it with agents, bribing right and left? diminished, and it would have been out of He was not the advocate of bribery, nor the power of that House, without the consent against the punishment of corrupt voters; of the House of Lords, to fill up the vacancy. but he would not countenance the inconThat struck him as a serious objection, sistency and injustice of suborning men to and he thought it more advisable to join commit perjury and afterwards punishing the two bills together. If a bill of pure them for it. disfranchisement only was passed, the The bill was read a second time, vacancy in the representation would re

« PreviousContinue »