§ Sir Charles Burrell moved the order of the day, for receiving the report on the Penryn Bribery bill, with the view of postponing it to the 21st February next. This he did at the suggestion of several members, who wished him to wait till the Grampound bill came under the consideration of the House. He was not prepared to say that he had renounced his original intention with respect to Penryn; for in his opinion this case differed materially from that of Grampound. The district to which franchise was extended in the Penryn bill, contained a population of 20,000 souls. At the same time, however, he felt it his duty to comply with the request. He concluded with moving, that the report be received on Monday the 21 st of February next.
Mr. Wynnagreed that an advantage would be derived from delaying the consideration of this case till after the discussion on the Grampound bill. The present bill was free from one material objection to the Grampound bill; namely, the proposition for giving to the unconvicted voters of Grampound votes for the county. If there was one part of our representation which ought to be more sacred than another, it was that of the representation of counties. The principle of the Grampound bill went to put another class of voters on an equality with freeholders. There were now three bills in the House relating to boroughs in the same county. In Wales, four or five boroughs all contributed (not by delegation, as in Scotland) to return one member. It might be possible, in like manner, to class together the unconvicted voters of the different boroughs of which the district would not be greater than one of those in Wales.
Sir C. Monckwas happy, that in the projected alteration of the Penryn bill, the right to elect would be given to a district including such populous places as Falmouth and Penzance. There was no necessity for adhering rigorously to the same precedent, when the adherence would not be productive of the same be- 1298 nefit. He thought nothing could be more advisable than to deal with Penryn as boroughs under the same circumstances had been dealt with before. The imperfection in the manner in which they had hitherto proceeded with boroughs such as Penryn was, that in the hundred to which the franchise was extended, there were sometimes other boroughs, which by this means obtained a share in returning a number of members. Thus, for instance, Wooton Basset, in the county of Wilts, was in the hundred to which the franchise of Cricklade was extended. A person inhabiting a freehold house in Wooton Basset, had a vote for the two members of that borough, the two members for Cricklade, and the two members for the county, in all six members.
Mr. D. Gilbertobserved, that in many of the boroughs the right of returning the members was vested in the corporation, which could take no part in returning members for the hundred.
§ Mr. Sergeant Onslowobserved, that the circumstance of a person possessing a freehold in a town having a right to vote for both the town and county was by no means uncommon. If they acted, therefore, on the principle of excluding persons from a county vote, because he had already a vote in the hundred, the next step would be, to deprive those who had a vote in a town of their vote for the county. He protested against depriving any man of his franchise on speculative grounds. He was friendly to the principle adopted in the case of Shoreham.
§ The report was ordered to be received on Monday, the 21st February next, till which time the writ for the borough was. suspended.