The Marquess of Clanricarde, in rising to move the second reading of the Bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, assured their Lordships, that he would trespass upon their time but a very few minutes. It was now a matter of the greatest notoriety, that that borough was identified with the most unparalleled corruption, not only with reference to past offences, but also as to the particular instances which had more immediately led to the 1064 introduction of the present Bill into the Houses of Parliament. It was generally hoped and believed, that the passing of the Reform Bill would tend greatly to abolish the practice of bribery and corruption at elections, but that great measure had entirely failed in having any salutary effect whatever upon the borough of Stafford. It appeared, on the contrary, from evidence upon their Lordships' Table, that that borough possessed even less political virtue since the Reform Bill had become the law of the land than before. Petitions were presented to the House of Commons, on the 7th and 18th of February, 1833, complaining of the last election for Stafford, and that House appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the truth of the allegations contained in them. The result of that inquiry, as contained in the report of the Committee, was, that they stated "their unanimous opinion, that corrupt practices prevailed throughout the whole course of the last election for the borough of Stafford; and that the bad character for bribery and corruption, which common report had for a series of years imputed to the constituency of that borough was, on the last occasion, amply and consistently supported; that it appeared to the Committee, that the evidence taken before them, established a case of such open, general, and systematic bribery and corruption, that it was expedient, that the borough of Stafford should cease to return Members to Parliament; and that the Chairman should be requested to move for leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise it." Such a report as that ought of itself to be sufficient authority for the Bill now before their Lordships. But that was not the sole evidence of the necessity for the present measure, for their Lordships had appointed a Committee up stairs, before passing the Stafford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, before whom several witnesses had been examined upon oath. The Committee unanimously reported that bribery prevailed to a great extent in the borough of Stafford. With respect to the last election, he would not admit, that there prevailed no bribery, but he was willing to allow, that corrupt practices were not so general as at former periods. With the evidence which their Lordships had already within their reach, he could not imagine what object would be attained by healing witnesses at their Lordships' 1065 bar, except that of defeating, by delay and expense, the Bill, which he now proposed might be read a second time.
§ Lord Lyndhurstsaid, if the allegations of the Bill could be sustained, he should be as willing as the noble Marquess himself to disfranchise the borough of Stafford; but he must request their Lordships not to depart, on the present occasion, from that course of proceeding which they had adopted in all similar cases. If they did, they would be establishing a precedent which might be applied to proceedings differing very materially from that to which their Lordships' attention was now called. It had never been their Lordships' practice to disfranchise any borough, except upon evidence given on oath at the Bar of that House; and he begged to remind their Lordships of the fact, that in the present instance the corporation of Stafford had caused a petition to be presented, praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill, and in opposition to the allegations made by the noble Marquess opposite. He objected to their Lordships receiving the evidence of a Committee of the House of Commons, and for this reason, that it had not been given on oath, and because he knew instances of cases made out, and reports founded on such evidence, which could not be sustained before their Lordships, when the witnesses were examined on oath. The Warwick Disfranchisement Bill was a case of that kind; and so completely did it fail, that not a single Member of their Lordships' House could be found to oppose the rejection of that measure. He would mention another and more recent case of a similar description. Last year a Committee of the House of Commons, after hearing evidence, were so satisfied that bribery had been committed by certain parties, that his Majesty's Attorney General was directed to institute prosecutions against the guilty persons. Those prosecutions had lately been heard at the last Assizes for the county of Norfolk, and those against whom the charges had been proved before the Committee, were tried in the presence of a Jury of their countrymen, and that Jury was completely satisfied, even without calling upon them for defence, that they were wholly guiltless of the offences of which they were accused. And yet their Lordships were called upon to vote for a Bill for the dis- 1066 franchisement of a borough upon evidence such as that. Again, he could not proceed to pass that Bill unless bribery and corruption were fully made out at the last election, for what was the course pursued in the case of Warwick, as in other cases? Positive directions were given by the House to confine the evidence taken upon the case to the last election, evidently implying, that unless bribery were proved at the last election they would not pass the Bill. After the observations which he had made, their Lordships must be satisfied, that the evidence was not sufficient to enable them to pass the present Bill; that it was not sufficient, first, because it was not upon oath; secondly, because the oldest as well as most recent experience proved that such evidence was not to be trusted. But the noble Marquess had stated, that there was further evidence, evidence before a Committee of that House. Upon that point he could only say, that the evidence was liable to the same objection as the other evidence, because it had never been the practice of their Lordships to proceed to the disfranchisement of any borough except upon evidence heard at the Bar upon oath. If he was sitting there judicially, upon a question of depriving certain persons of any civil rights, he, for one, should first of all wish personally to hear the evidence upon which that deprivation was to be made, because circumstances might arise which would induce him to put questions, the answers to which might alter materially his view of the case; and, as a Judge then, he would not proceed to pass this Bill unless upon further evidence. In alluding; to the evidence that had been produced, the noble Marquess appeared to forget that the whole was an ex-parte proceeding—that the parties who were accused were never called upon, never had an opportunity of meeting the charge, or of cross-examining the witnesses. Had their Lordships ever heard of a criminal proceeding against persons who had not the means of defence, with no opportunity of cross-examining witnesses—a criminal proceeding upon mere ex-parte evidence? Was that the idea of justice entertained by the noble Marquess—an hereditary Judge and Legislator? But further, who were the witnesses upon whose evidence the charge rested? Their Lordships would be astonished when they learnt that he had 1067 looked at the report, and bad not been able to find the name of a single witness—it was all anonymous. He could never then bring himself to consent to the disfranchisement of any borough upon evidence of that nature. But what was the evidence itself? It contained some statements so incredible in themselves, of a character so extraordinary, that he, for one, must withhold his belief of them until at least they had been more completely established. Why, in that evidence a case of the grossest bribery and corruption was made out against his Majesty's present Attorney General. Would he then assume that charge, that accusation, to be completely established without affording to Mr. Attorney General the opportunity of appearing at the Bar of that House to defend himself from a charge so grave? He was making no rash and unfounded assertion. He would read to their Lordships that part of the evidence to which he had alluded. It was described in the report as the evidence of a solicitor, no name whatever being given. The extract was to the following effect:—
Have you any knowledge of any bribery or corrupt practices having taken place at the last election, or at any previous election for Stafford?—Not at the last; but at Sir John Campbell's, in 1831. Do you live in Stafford?—I live within the new borough. What are you?—I am a solicitor by profession. Do you know of voters being paid?—I paid them myself at Sir John Campbell's election. In what interest were you?—In Sir John Campbell's. How many did you pay?—531 out of 556. What was the sum of money paid?—3l. 10s. for a single vote, and 6l. for a plumper. Did you pay every voter?—There were 556 voters, and 531 were paid. I paid them directly after they voted a part of the money. Was it promised them beforehand?—Yes.That solicitor, then, clearly imputed to the Attorney General the infamous crime of bribery and corruption. He would now-read to the House part of the evidence of another anonymous witness, described as a banker, long resident at Stafford. The evidence of this witness was to the effect that at Sir John Campbell's election he (Sir J. Campbell) had drawn largely upon their bank, in small notes and coin, and especially in silver, altogether to the amount of between 2,000l. and 3,000l., and that there had been at the time no entertainment to account for it. So far, then, as related to the evidence itself, it was impossible for their Lordships to pro- 1068 ceed, upon it alone, to the disfranchisement of this borough. It would be contrary to every principle of justice to deprive persons of their civil rights upon charges from which they had had no means of defence, and upon the testimony of witnesses whom they had had no opportunity of cross-examining. Upon those grounds, then, whatever might be his opinion with respect to the facts of the case, he protested strongly against proceeding with that measure contrary to their Lordships usual practice, and contrary to all justice. Upon those grounds, he could not consent to the second reading of the Bill, unless evidence were first heard at the bar of that House. The noble Lord opposite had, in a manner, suggested that there existed bribery and corruption to a certain extent at the last election. It was not necessary for him (Lord Lyndhurst) to say that there was no evidence of such being the fact. But if that was true, the noble Lord's course was short and clear. Witnesses might be called to the bar, the case proved, and all opposition must then fall. Until, however, that course had been pursued, he could not feel it his duty to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He could assure their Lordships that he had no disposition, no wish, no interest, either personal or political, to screen the borough of Stafford from the effects of its delinquency; but he had an interest in supporting the rules and usages of that House, and preventing the establishment of unjust and dangerous precedents.
§ The Duke of Wellingtonsaid: having been distinctly referred to by the noble Lord for the part which I took with respect to a Bill introduced on a former occasion, having reference to the borough of Stafford, I feel it to be my duty now to offer to your Lordships a few observations. A Bill was sent up to your Lordships from the other House of Parliament, to enable a Committee of the House of Commons to administer oaths to certain witnesses examined before the Committee of the other House of Parliament, appointed to inquire into a matter of bribery in the borough of Stafford. Your Lordships thought fit to send that Bill to a Committee above stairs, and I was one of the members appointed upon that Committee. Your Committee, my Lords, examined witnesses in order to see whether it was fitting that they should recommend the House to pass that Bill, 1069 which was no more than a Bill to enable the Committee of the House of Commons to examine on oath. [A noble Lord: To indemnify witnesses.] Yes, to indemnify witnesses—that was the object of the Bill; I had mistaken. Your Committee, my Lords, having heard evidence upon the matter before them, agreed to the proposition made to them, and the Bill was then sent down to the House of Commons. That House, however, proceeded no further upon the Bill, and there the matter dropped. All I have to say, then, on that point is, that I consented to that Bill, founded upon the evidence which I heard given before that Committee; but if that had been a Bill of pains and penalties against the borough of Stafford, I should have required evidence to prove the guilt of the borough of Stafford at the bar of this House, evidence quite different from that which was given before the Committee. Subsequent to that transaction the House of Commons sent to your Lordships another Bill, having for its object the prevention of bribery and corruption; that Bill was likewise referred to a Committee up stairs, of which I had the honour to be a member. The Committee entered deeply and anxiously into the question before it. The noble Lord then on the Woolsack, the noble Viscount opposite, the noble Lord, the President of the Council, and many other noble Lords, were attached to that Committee, and they framed a Bill, by which a method was pointed out for trying the question of bribery in future, and which contained a clause to enable the Commissioners appointed under the Bill to try the particular case of Stafford. I mention the fact, my Lords, to prove to the House that that second Committee never considered the case of Stafford concluded by the former Bill, for they inserted a clause to give the Commission formed under the new Bill, to which I have adverted, power to try this very case of the borough of Stafford. The House of Commons did not think proper to pass that measure, but not having thought proper to pass it, it cannot be argued, that this House, and above all, that I am bound by the evidence which was taken before the Committee, and must now vote for the second reading of this Bill. I entirely agree with my noble Friend who has just addressed the House. I have attended many Committees and inquiries before this House, but I never 1070 feel more pain than in attending these inquiries. The House is aware that they are inquiries upon Bills of pains and penalties, and grievous it will be for the subjects of this country if Bills of pains and penalties are to be allowed to pass this House before evidence has been heard at your bar, to prove the guilt of the party against whom the Bill is directed. For these reasons, my Lords, I cannot agree to pass this Bill unless evidence is produced at the bar of your Lordships' Mouse to substantiate the charges upon which it is grounded.
Lord Hollandsaid, it was not his intention to follow the noble Duke through his speech, but there was one point to which he would call the attention of the House, and upon which he entirely differed from the noble Duke. The noble Duke had | contended that this was a Bill of pains and penalties, and, proceeding upon that assumption, had argued with great fairness and justice; but he (Lord Holland) contended, that in no sense was the Bill a judicial proceeding—in no sense a Bill of pains and penalties. With the original Committee, undoubtedly, as the noble Duke had rightly argued, the present matter was not concluded; but then there was no reason for further evidence. This was not a question of private interest, but of vast public importance. If then they would save the House of Commons from becoming a repository of bribery, corruption, and contamination, they would pass this Bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford, against which such flagrant delinquency had been proved. He thought he could show to their Lord-ships that the custom which prevailed of hearing evidence at the bar had originated in a mistake, by the first Bill of this nature having been mixed up with a real Bill of pains and penalties, viz., a Bill which charged certain persons with a crime, named the persons so charged, and allotted the punishment, not only by the loss of franchise, [Hear.] Noble Lords cry out "Hear,"—they would do well to hear me out. The loss of franchise, the noble Lord continued, might be a punishment, though it was not the loss of property. He never would allow that the franchise was property, and the argument which maintained it to be property would be the greater inducement for the adoption of universal suffrage and vote by ballot. It was not property, but a trust; and, without re- 1071 ferring to the Reform Bill, but referring to the Crown itself—referring to the House of Commons—it was clearly proved that a trust was revocable upon gross and frequent violation. The forms of that House as a Legislature, were different from its judicial usages. There were undoubtedly some Bills which partook of a judicial nature, as Bills of pains and penalties and private Bills; and the House had laid down for itself two different modes of proceeding. In those of a judicial nature the House was bound by those strict rules of evidence and law which had been found necessary for eliciting the truth; but in legislative measures such was not the case. He did not mean to say, that there were not cases of legislative enactments, upon which evidence was heard at the bar; but then they were those in which private and individual interests were concerned. If this measure had been a Bill of pains and penalties it would have been in this, as in all other cases, the undoubted right of the subject to defend his property; but it was not one of that nature, and fortunately not so, because, had that been the case, that House might have been held out as the great obstacle to getting rid of bribery and corruption. Those Bills were, however, not such as to place them in that condition. The nature of the evidence which was before the House would, he contended, justify that House in passing this Bill; and, looking upon the proceeding as a legislative, and not a judicial one, he could have no hesitation in voting for the second reading.
§ Lord Ashburtonwas desirous of troubling the House with only a few observations upon the present question. The noble Lord who had just sat down was quite ready to pass the present Bill, with no further evidence than that taken before the Committee, and the general notoriety. That was a conclusion to which he (Lord Ashburton) at least could not come, and to which, likewise their Lordships, he was sure, would not assent. The noble Lord had argued that this Bill was not a Bill of pains and penalties, not a Bill to deprive a subject of his property. If it were not that, it was a measure which would deprive many individuals of what was of much more value than property, in its more vulgar meaning, as connected with the pocket. If a Bill were brought into Parliament to divest their Lordships of their titles and dignities, with what reason 1072 could it be argued that it did not take away any of their property, that it was no Bill of pains and penalties? Their Lordships well knew that in many countries the deprivation of civil rights was a legal and ordinary punishment; and if that was the case with individuals, it was equally so with towns; for every one was influenced by a sort of attachment to the place of their residence, and felt a lively interest in its dignity and importance, and would be sensibly affected by the disgrace and slur thrown upon it by the loss of any of its privileges. When, then, a constituency were deprived of any of their civil rights, was it enough that they should be told that the ground of their deprivation was the general notoriety of their delinquency? But he did not rise for the purpose of meeting the noble Lord's argument; for, before that House, it was useless to occupy time upon the subject. His main object in rising was to learn what precisely was the state of the town as respected its inhabitancy, and the possibility of framing a proper constituent body—to learn, supposing the delinquency to have been proved, whether that was the proper remedy which was proposed by the present Bill. Under the old state of Parliamentary Representation, whenever cases of bribery in the close boroughs were brought before the House, he almost invariably voted for the disfranchisement, which he thought then a remedy applicable to the evil; but he entertained now, under the new system, very great doubts as to the propriety of such a course; because the Irishman, who took down into the country 3,000l. or 4,000l., would then have it in his power to place any town in England in the same predicament as the borough of Stafford. The legislature dare not deal with cases of large towns as Liverpool and Manchester; to them it could not apply the principle of disfranchisement. If, then, all those towns thus open to every rich tempter, were to be disfranchised, the House of Commons would be left composed of the Members of counties, and of large manufacturing towns, without that exceedingly useful part of the representation, the Members for moderate sized towns. He (Lord Ashburton) had no doubt that there had been great bribery in the borough of Stafford. He would not say that his feeling was one of such strong conviction as to render further evidence unnecessary; but he did entertain very serious 1073 doubts as to the fitness of the remedy proposed. He was anxious to know the actual state of the borough, to know whether it was possible to provide a pure and proper constituency; he did not mean that, if it could be proved that the borough continued in a course of bribery, so as to become hopelessly corrupt, and the very walls and stones be contaminated, it should not be disfranchised; but the rich man was the one who ought to suffer; and when those tempters and bribers had been taught a severe lesson it was likely that the towns would become less corrupt. He had been extensively concerned in electioneering proceedings; and in the western counties of England, where great corruption had prevailed, he had seen towns entirely converted, and become afterwards as pure as any in England—towns which, if they had been proceeded against, as it was desired to proceed against the borough of Stafford, would have been now locked out from any share in the representation of the country. He thought the House ought not to proceed without further information. It was well known that in the case of a common Railroad Bill they would not proceed without hearing evidence upon oath; and why, then, should they proceed in a case of disfranchisement without equally strong evidence? This was the only way in which substantial justice could be done.
Lord Hollandexplained, and to prove the former state of the borough of Stafford, adverted to an anecdote which he had frequently heard from Mr. Sheridan himself. Mr. Sheridan, as was well known, had represented the borough of Stafford. On one occasion, when the election was over, he and a party of his friends and supporters, met a body of the electors at dinner. After dinner the toast of "Parliamentary Reform" was proposed—a toast at which, as Mr. Sheridan used to observe, he trembled, fearing it would not be popular in such a place. His astonishment and delight were very great, however, to find it received with the utmost enthusiasm. When it had been drunk, a gentleman of Stafford rose and said, that it had afforded him the highest gratification to hear that toast proposed, for, under the existing system, there were in the House of Commons some men so mean, so base, so lost to all sense of decency, as to suffer themselves to be elected without putting in the 1074 pockets of their voters even a single half-crown.
The Earl of Winchilseacould not consent to deprive a large body of his fellow-countrymen of their rights, unless the guilt alleged against them were proved and substantiated beyond the possibility of doubt. Notwithstanding the assurance of the noble Baron, the present measure did seem to him to be a Bill, and a very severe Bill, of pains and penalties. It was many years since the evidence had been first taken, and he was not yet sure but that an entirely new constituency might have since arisen in Stafford; in which case, if they proceeded without additional information, they would actually be punishing the present generation for the sins committed by their fathers.
§ The Lord Chancellorobserved, that although many noble Lords had objected to the second reading of this Bill, yet not one noble Lord had proposed any other course of proceeding.
§ Lord Lyndhurstthought he had given notice of his intention to move that counsel should be permitted to attend at their Lordships' bar to examine witnesses in support of the preamble of the Bill, and that the petitioners should be heard before the second reading.
§ The Lord Chancellorcontinued: this was a most unfortunate case, certainly, for those who contended that the elective franchise was not to be considered in the nature of property; for, judging from the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons, it clearly appeared that those who enjoyed the elective franchise at Stafford had taken great care to convert it into property. The evidence supported this conclusion. One witness was asked to name any individuals who had given their votes without having been bribed; and after a great deal of hesitation and difficulty, he mentioned the names of five persons who, as he believed, had not been bribed; but he could only name those five. Now that representation might be false; still their Lordships could not avoid taking one of two courses. They must either agree to the second reading of this Bill, or else they must take some steps to acertain whether that statement were true or not. Another witness was asked whether he thought that a large portion of the electors had been bribed, and his answer was, that a large majority of them had been so. He was then asked, "To 1075 what extent—from seventy-five out of 100?—Answer: No doubt of that.' Question: Ninety-five out of 100?—Answer: Not quite so many as that; but I have not come prepared with an arithmetical statement, and therefore cannot say whether the proportion is seventy-five or ninety-five out of 100." Surely evidence of such a description called for some measure on the part of the Legislature, But whatever course their Lordships might pursue, he was most anxious that there should be no misapprehension as to the principle on which this Bill was brought forward, or the terms which had been applied. Some of their Lordships had designated it as a Bill of pains and penalties. He denied that it was so, if he understood those terms. It was true such bills had, to a certain extent, been so dealt with on former occasions, when the parties who would be affected by their provisions were allowed to be heard at their Lordships' bar; but it was impossible for any noble Lord constitutionally to contend, that a Bill to disfranchise a whole borough, on a general principle of Reform, was such a bill of pains and penalties as to require a case of individual delinquency to be established upon oath, before the Legislature could justifiably pass it. If, for instance, Parliament should think that, in a particular part of the United Kingdom, certain individuals who were called forty-shilling freeholders were persons who ought not to be intrusted with the elective franchise, because they were too much exposed to be corrupted by bribery and undue influence, would a Bill depriving those persons of the franchise be a Bill of pains and penalties? If so, what were their Lordships in that case to do?—were they to have all those individuals brought to their Lordships' bar for examination? That was a course for which no one would contend, and yet where was the distinction between a Bill of such a description and the Bill now before their Lordships? The forty-shilling freeholders, no doubt, appreciated both the honour and the advantage of exercising the elective franchise, and yet their disfranchisement was never called a Bill of pains and penalties. Why, then, was a Bill applicable to a particular town only to be considered so? The elective franchise was not to be considered as property in any other light; for beyond all question, it was a public trust. It was a trust reposed in a certain class of individuals to 1076 be exercised for the benefit of the public. If they ceased to use it for the public benefit, then the Parliament had a right to deprive them of the power confided to them. It was in this light that Bills of disfranchisement had always been considered, and he did not think it would be wise, or just, or expedient, after the length of time which had elapsed, and the various instances that had occurred, during which Bills of this description had been so considered, for Parliament now to depart from that course. There was nothing contained in the evidence relating to the case of the borough of Stafford so peculiar in its nature as to justify any departure from the course which Parliament had hitherto invariably pursued.
§ Lord Abingerobserved, that almost all former Bills of this kind had been considered in the nature of a punishment for misconduct on the part of the voters. Now, men ought not to be punished for an offence without having a fair trial. In this case the electors of Stafford had not had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced before the Committee of the House of Commons. There was something rather mysterious in the proceedings of the parties who promoted the inquiry before that Committee. They first petitioned against the return of the sitting Members; they afterwards abandoned that petition, and then instituted a Parliamentary inquiry into the corruption that took place at the election of the sitting Members. He never could understand why those parties allowed the sitting Members to retain their seats, which they affirmed were obtained by corruption, and yet afterwards made application for a Committee to inquire into that corruption.
§ Lord Lyndhurstbegged to move, by way of an amendment, that all the words in the motion after the word "that" be left out, and the following words added:—"This House do proceed with the examination of witnesses to prove the preamble of the Bill; and that, before the second reading of the Bill, the petitioners, being electors of the borough of Stafford, be heard by themselves, counsel or agents, on the matters contained in the said petition."
The Marquess of Clanricardewas not disposed to agree to the proposition of the noble and learned Baron who had just sat down. The noble and learned Baron had observed, that the Bill was a Bill of pains and penalties; but be looked upon it as a 1077 necessary measure of reform, called for by misconduct on the part of the electors of the borough of Stafford. It had been proved to his satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of many noble Lords, that bribery, to a great extent, prevailed two or three years ago in the election for that borough; and, therefore, the borough ought to be reformed, and the right to return Members be taken away from it, for the purpose of improving the constituency of England. If the Bill were a Bill of pains and penalties, the parties would never have the right of voting again in England, let them reside in what part of it they might; but if the franchise of Stafford were taken away, any one of the electors possessing property in Yorkshire, or Middlesex, or any other part, would have the elective franchise, and exercise it accordingly. What principle would their Lordships establish, if they said that evidence, given before a Select Committee, was not entitled to the same credit as if it was delivered on oath at the Bar of this House? Why give those Committees power to examine witnesses upon oath, if not to legislate upon the evidence taken before them? He thought the evidence was of such a nature as to satisfy; every person, of whatever party he might: be, that the case of Stafford was not of a judicial nature. The franchise was a trust, as the privileges of their Lordships were a trust, and they were liable to reform. [Lord Lyndhurst: not without being: heard.] He was not sure of that. How were the Irish and Scotch Peers heard at the time of passing the Act of Succession? Did any one think of calling the Duke of Savoy to the Bar of the House? Indeed, he had been informed that the Duke applied to be heard, and was refused. In instituting this comparison, he had an authority, always admitted of great weight with this House, that of the late Lord Liverpool, who was no rash reformer. Lord Liverpool said, he considered the right of election to be held, not for private benefit, but as a public trust, he admitted that it was an advantageous privilege to the individual who enjoyed it, and for that reason he would never vote for the disfranchisement of any borough on the ground of expediency alone, although, if a case of corruption should be proved, he would have no hesitation in giving his vote for disfranchisement. It was the same with the rights of their Lordships; as Peers, they held their seats, not for their own 1078 benefit, but for the benefit of the public; and if they abused that privilege, they were liable to be deprived of the privilege, the same as the electors of a borough, if they abused the elective franchise. That was the question at issue between the noble and learned Baron and himself. He was sorry to see any disposition on the part of the House to agree with the noble and learned Baron in calling for evidence. His opinion was, that sufficient evidence had already been given, and that both time and money might be saved in proceeding at once to pass this Bill. The noble and learned Baron said, he wanted to know whether a new and good constituency might not now be obtained in the borough? The course proposed by the noble and learned Baron was rather an expensive mode of obtaining that information. But, should there be no evidence of corruption at the last election, a sufficient case had already been made out against the borough, and a death-bed repentance ought not to entitle the parties to an amnesty for former crimes.
§ The original motion negatived; and amendment agreed to.