HC Deb 18 February 1820 vol 41 cc1612-4
Lord John Russell

said, that in bringing forward his motion with regard to those boroughs in which bribery had been proved to exist, he should not detain the House more than a few minutes. Provision was, he understood, to be made for the civil list, and also for the further continuance of those acts which would otherwise expire with the present parliament; he thought, therefore, it was necessary that parliament should also provide for the preservation of its own dignity and character. They ought to look with a jealous eye at any attempt to invade their privileges. In furtherance of this he intended to propose, that the writs for the boroughs of Grampound, Penryn and Camelford should be postponed to the meeting of the next parliament. For this there was a precedent in 15 Geo. 3, chap. 20. The borough of Shaftesbury having been convicted of bribery and corruption, the writ had been postponed from time to time, and at length it was postponed to the meeting of parliament after a prorogation. He proposed that this principle should extend to the dissolution, which, in his opinion, was analogous to a prorogation. In the case of an impeachment, Mr. Fox was of opinion that a dissolution did not operate otherwise than a prorogation of parliament did; with this difference only, that the former gave men a better opportunity of reviewing their opinions. Viewing the case in this light, he felt that there was no impropriety in bringing the present bill before the House. There was one borough (Barn-staple) which he wished to exclude, as proceedings had already been instituted with respect to it. He should, therefore, move for leave to bring in a bill to prevent the issuing of writs for the boroughs of Grampound, Penryn and Camelford, until the meeting of the next parliament.

Lord Castlereagh

agreed in the principle of the bill, but suggested that it was likely, in the event of the bill going to the Lords, they would call for the information upon which the Commons had acted.

Mr. Wynn

was of opinion, that Barnstaple ought to be included in this bill. Ample evidence had been given at the bar, of the existence of bribery in that borough, and the other House was proceeding upon a similar inquiry, when their proceedings were put an end to by the prorogation of parliament. No one could deny the plenitude of the authority of parliament, on this as on other subjects. But it would certainly embarrass the proceedings if members were returned for these boroughs at the ensuing elections. It might then be objected, that though they had once fallen into acts of corruption, they had, in this instance, elected members without having been guilty of similar practices, and that therefore it was no more rational for the House to recall the former offences of these boroughs than of any others. However corrupt in principle and practice these boroughs might be, it could not be doubted, that under the peculiar circumstances in which they were placed, they would abstain from open corruption. It would also afford an instance of practical inconsistency, if, while they in a future parliament proceeded to disfranchise these boroughs as radically corrupt, they allowed the individuals who might have been elected for the boroughs to sit to the end of that parliament. He allowed that the case of the borough of Shaftesbury was different in form, but it was equally an interference with the common course of law with the bill which was now proposed. It was as imperative in any case of vacancy during a prorogation, on the Speaker to issue his writ, as on the lord chancellor to issue his writ to the sheriff to direct his precept to the boroughs after a dissolution. If bribery had been practised in these boroughs to the extent to which they had reason to believe it had, it was imperative on the House to take such measures that the dissolution of the present parliament would not prejudice its inquiries, and to refuse to concur in certain bills till they had a reasonable security on a matter so closely affecting its privileges. The noble lord had very properly alluded to the case of impeachment as a parallel case; and as a dissolution was held not to affect a measure of that kind, so it should not affect proceedings of equal constitutional importance. He should therefore give his hearty support to the bill. It was advisable to show by such a measure, that there was a power in the constitution to meet any emergency.

Lord J. Russell

said, that he had no objection to include Barnstaple in the bill.

Leave was given.