§ Mr. Otway Caverose, to move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the application of Corporate Funds to Electioneering Purposes, and began by stating that his measure would resemble that which an hon. and gallant colonel (Maberly) had introduced last year. He rested his motion solely on the ground, that for a corporation to apply part of its funds to promote the return of a particular candidate, was an illegal interference with the privileges of the House. It was scarcely necessary for him to do more than to recal the attention of members to the leading facts detailed by his hon. and gallant friend; one of the main features of the case being the resolution of the corporation of Leicester to devote 1,000l. of the money with which they were intrusted to procure the return of a candidate, who, partaking of their political opinions, would represent their interests. He would not enter into the history and origin of corporations, but he apprehended that no man would aver, that they were instituted for such a purpose as that which 1298 now brought the case of Leicester particularly before the House. His hon. and gallant friend had shewn, that one part of the funds of the corporation was granted for charitable, and another part for general, purposes: he had quoted the opinion of sir S. Romilly in reference to the latter, and had argued, that if the minority, consisting of the members of the corporation of a borough, could thus dispose of the money belonging to the majority, there was no earthly reason why the corporation should not vest in themselves and their heirs for ever all the property of the borough. This case last year had been put hypothetically, but it had actually occurred at Rye; and the hon. member read from a newspaper the instrument by which about six corporators had invested themselves, in the year 1759, with the funds and lucrative offices of the borough, which they and their successors had ever since enjoyed. His hon. and gallant friend had likewise shown, from the indisputable authority of sir W. Blackstone, what were the corporate purposes to which the monies intrusted to corporations were applicable. He would not now go further into that point than to state, that this species of perversion was not cognizable, not punishable in a court of law. There was no forum competent to punish and to prevent the repetition of the offence. Such had been the statement of his hon. and gallant friend, and he firmly believed he was right, because the corporation of Northampton, whose conduct had given rise to the proceeding of last year, had consulted three counsel, who had given their opinion that, under such circumstances, a corporation could not be brought to account. Supposing, however, that the misapplication was cognizable in the court of Chancery, where could be found the individual, from his own resources, to contend with a corporate body? And if such a public-spirited man were found, where was the hope, in the present constitution of the court of Chancery, that the cause would be terminated in the life of the person who began it?—As he had already remarked, he put it both on the instance of Northampton and of Leicester, upon the ground that the expenditure of a large amount of the corporate funds, for the purpose of securing the return of a particular candidate, was an infringement upon the privileges of the House of Commons, and sufficient to warrant its interference. In the case of North- 1299 ampton the fault was double; first, the corporation had been guilty of a breach of duty as corporators, and next, of the privileges of parliament. It was, he contended, the business of the House to interpose for the assertion of its own privileges, even if there had been any court of concurrent jurisdiction where the offence was cognizable. The House might, for instance, direct the Attorney-general to file a bill, without, in its paramount jurisdiction, interfering with its own right to punish the offence against its privileges.—He would take the liberty of drawing the attention of members to the Limerick case, which was first before the Irish House of Commons. It appeared that 800l. had been expended to promote the return of colonel Vereker, and the facts afterwards came before the House of Lords. A demurrer was entered to the right of that House to interfere, but the objection was over-ruled, and a declaratory bill was passed, that the lord Chancellor had jurisdiction over the charitable funds of corporations.—He begged the House to consider, that the bill for which he now moved would be by no means unimportant in its general results. First, as to Northampton, the returning officer was a member of the corporation: and what impartiality could be expected in his decision, when he had already committed himself, as far as his opinion was concerned, in voting for the illegal expenditure of the corporate funds? What a slur it cast upon the whole election, and how much it must lower the corporation in the eyes of the public! But a much larger consideration was also involved; it raised a question, whether electioneering dealers and borough-jobbers were to have the uncontrolled direction of sending members to parliament, and thus rule the destinies of the nation? By being allowed, by means of their money, to send to parliament representatives of their own political notions, corporations might, in fact, govern all the rest. He agreed in the maxim of the constitution, that rank, wealth, and respectability, ought to have their due influence; but what chance had a man of rank, wealth, and of unquestionable respectability, against a corporation expending the funds of a public body? Whether his opinions were ministerial or otherwise, was of no consequence to the argument: he must give way before such a body, exercising these unparalleled powers, not 1300 recognised either by the letter or spirit of the constitution, or of their own charters.—Having disposed of the cases of Rye and Northampton, he now came to that of the borough of Leicester. Nearly a year after the last election, a charge was brought by the borough against a candidate—and he was himself that candidate—through their official organ, the town-clerk, that he should contribute his share of the expenditure of 27,000l.; for that was the sum devoted to procure the return of a member at Leicester, and not merely 1,000l. as at Northampton. Whether, fortified by that example, they improved upon the original, it was not for him to determine; but certain it was, that the claim was made. It was, perhaps, neither delicate nor proper, that he should enter into that point: he might leave it to his hon. colleague, more intimately connected with the corporation, who might give the House the information. For his part, he only knew that the charge had been made. The corporation allowed that he (Mr. O. Cave) had spent 16,000l. on the election; but, altogether, they calculated that 41,000l. had been laid out, and they came upon him for 4,000l., calculated to be his proportion of the difference. In what these consisted he could not say, perhaps his hon. colleague could. The I inhabitants complained of a grievous borough-rate, and perhaps that demand involved the solution of the mystery. Whether this odious and oppressive tax was meant to be levied for the purpose of reimbursing the corporation for the expenses of the last election, or of providing a fund for future misapplication, he could not say; but his colleague, who was more connected with them than he was, might be able to give the House some interesting information on this point. While upon this part of the subject, he could not help complaining of the want of courtesy of his hon. colleague, in presenting a petition affecting him (Mr. Cave) personally, in such a manner that the Speaker interfered to prevent the allusions from being read, without giving him the slightest notice of his intention; and he had the same complaint against the hon. member for the county of Leicester, for the course he had taken on that occasion—a course utterly inconsistent with those frank and honourable feelings, which he had so pompously professed on a late occasion, and with the obligations, of even more than a political 1301 nature, which he had privately and publicly acknowledged. As he presumed the House had not altered its opinion since last year, the present bill was exactly a copy of the former. The only objection he had heard to that bill was, that it was not sufficiently strong; but he conceived the object of the House was, not to inflict punishment on any particular corporation for what they had, perhaps, done inadvertently; but to prevent the recurrence of similar malversation of corporate funds. There were two objections to his bringing forward the motion at the present moment. There was another branch of the legislature to which it would be unparliamentary to allude more particularly, who had lately thrown out almost all the bills sent up to them. The fate suffered by the Game-bill, the Corn-bill, and the Penryn-bill, had been shared also by the Northampton bill; and, therefore, in the present tone and temper of that House, it was the opinion of some of the zealous supporters of this bill that this was not the right time to press it. He had no hesitation in saying, that this argument weighed with him directly the reverse way. This was a question peculiarly concerning the privileges of that House; and he was sure, if they had any sense of pride—if they were not prepared to abandon their privileges and prostrate them at the feet of another branch of the legislature, less connected than that must necessarily be with the feelings and rights of the people—that dignified assembly of hereditary legislators would find it necessary to yield. That, he was convinced, would be the result, if that House persisted temperately and calmly to bring forward this case of crying grievance; involving a flagrant violation of the rights and privileges of the House. He was satisfied that the other branch of the legislature would not deny all hope of redress for a grievance which affected the independence of the House. If that other blanch of the legislature, which it was not proper for him to name, was not prepared to act merely as a drag on the wheels of the State-machine, but was disposed to erect itself into an insuperable barrier against every measure of constitutional improvement, and not only against every measure of constitutional improvement, but even against every other institution in the State, the sooner the people knew that the crisis was come the better—the sooner they were aware 1302 what they had to expect from the other branch of the legislature the better. It was peculiarly unfortunate that this should happen at the very moment when a trial was making by a certain party in the State to give "one cheer more," in honour of their expected return to power, and of the expulsion of those liberal, disinterested, and patriotic ministers, to whom the country looked for the continuance of that line of policy which was essential to its prosperity.
§ Mr. Legh Kecksaid, he was not acquainted with the contents of the petition which had been presented on a former occasion, and withdrawn on account of informality. He had further to say, that he was not acquainted with the merits of this particular case at that time, and that he still remained ignorant of them.
Sir C. Hastingssaid, his hon. colleague had complained of his conduct in presenting a petition the other day from the corporation of Leicester, without informing his hon. colleague of his intention. But the hon. gentleman should remember, that his charge against the corporation was of a severe nature, and that the House had no documents before it to enable it to judge of its propriety. Therefore the corporation had intrusted him with the petition to present in their defence; but, as it turned out, on reading it, that there was an irregularity in it, he had withdrawn it. The charge related to the expenditure of money in the last contest for the representation of the city; and he understood that the corporation had called on his hon. colleague for a certain sum, to defray his proportion of the expense; but his hon. colleague had not thought fit to answer the call made upon him. He would not object to the introduction of the bill; but he would give it his decided opposition, as an infringement of the rights and privileges of corporations, not justified by any necessity.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, he would support the bill, not on account of the particular cases of Leicester or Northampton, but Upon the great constitutional principle which had been always asserted in that, and in the other House of Parliament. A bill founded 1303 upon that principle had been passed last session through that House. That bill was read a second time in the Lords, and was only lost there on the third reading. The principle, then, that corporations should not be allowed to divert their funds to electioneering purposes had been already sanctioned by this portion of the legislature. There were at that moment two great corporations in this country—the Bank of England and the East-India Company—whose charters would expire in the course of a few years. Now, if these corporations were permitted to employ their funds for electioneering purposes, was it not possible that at the next general election they might employ them so as to influence the decision of that House, regarding the renewal of their respective charters? Corporations, in many cases, held their funds in trust for public purposes; there were some cases where they held them for private and individual purposes; but, if they were allowed to employ them for electioneering purposes, it would be difficult to decide whether it was the one species of funds or the other which they employed for such objects. Public opinion afforded some security against a private individual employing funds for corrupt or improper purposes; but that security did not exist in the case of corporations. He should support the bill as a very necessary measure.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that a bill of this description having, last session, passed that House, was a sufficient reason why the motion should be received. He should not, however, pledge himself not to oppose this bill in its future stages. Whatever had been done with the former bill in the other House, should not enter into their consideration now. Last session, a charge had been preferred against a corporation, of having diverted charitable funds intrusted to their care, to the purposes of an election. A more serious charge could not be preferred; but he believed it was satisfactorily refuted.
§ Leave was given to bring in the bill.