§ Lord J. 1616 Russel moved the order of the day for the second reading of the bill for suspending the issuing of writs for Grampound, Penryn, Barnstaple, and Camelford.
Sir C. Burrellthanked lord Castlereagh for his liberal conduct hitherto on this Bill, and hoped that he would endeavour to secure its final success by using his influence with his friends in another place [Order! and Hear!] so that it might not fall to the ground after it had passed that House.
§ Mr. Calcraftsaid, he had never heard any thing much more disorderly than the allusion of the hon. baronet; but even if that suggestion, were attended to, he thought it quite impossible that the bill could pass into a law. It was because he was in earnest, in support of the measures which this bill professedly furthered, that he did not wish the House to be so misled, as to suppose that any assembly could pass a bill condemning four boroughs, while in the case of one only they had any evidence. It was only in the case of Barnstaple that the House of Lords had any evidence. He wished to see the writs suspended till the circumstances which had appeared to criminate these boroughs could be inquired into, and he therefore wished the House to proceed by address, which was, in his opinion, the true parliamentary course. According to the present mode of proceeding, the House was at the mercy, not only of the Crown, but of the other House of Parliament. He contended, that the issuing and suspending of writs should depend on the House alone, and upon this doctrine the House had hitherto acted.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that the proceeding by way of address would go to the overthrow of the constitution, by putting the whole elective franchise into the hands of the Crown. The address of the House could not confer on the Crown a power not before possessed; it could only call on the Crown to exercise a power already existing. It would, therefore, recognise that the Crown could, at its own will and pleasure, put an end to the elective rights of any portion of the electors of the kingdom. This proposal was not, indeed, without precedent, for he had heard of a plan of reform, promulgated under the high authority of the Hampden Club, by which the king was to be begged, as the simplest and best plan of reform, to abstain from sending writs to certain boroughs, and to send writs to other places. 1617 It was extraordinary, indeed, that this doctrine should have been promulgated under the name of Hampden. Such a power was, indeed, formerly claimed by the Crown, but the matter was taken up by the House of Commons, and it was declared that the writs might be demanded by those boroughs as writs of right. Writs were accordingly sent to some places from which they had been withheld, and for one of these places, Wendover, John Hampden was first returned to parliament. He was ready to go as far as any man in defence of the privileges of parliament, but he thought they were most safe when confined within legal bounds. He should not be willing to disfranchise these boroughs without hearing the fullest evidence; but he conceived the Lords had sufficient evidence to say that the Commons having proved bribery to have existed in those boroughs, and being desirous of taking measures to regulate the elections in future, they would suspend the issuing of writs for this time. To proceed by the authority of the two Houses of Parliament and of the Crown was the only legal course, and he should therefore support the bill.
Mr. Marryatsaid, the bill required serious consideration. The House had not all the evidence before them en the different cases. Besides, there were in the different cases various shades of criminality. Two of their own members also (Mr. Swann and sir M. Lopez) had been severely visited, as well as several voters of two of the boroughs. Was it likely that these persons, after the warning they had had, would again commit the crime for which they had suffered? Indeed, if he were asked where he should expect to find the greatest purity and independence in the elections throughout the country, he should naturally lay his hand on those boroughs. There was such a difference also in the evidence before the Lords and that before the Commons, respecting Barnstaple, that the difficulty concerning that case was much increased.
§ Mr. Broughamsaid, that his doubts as to the expediency of passing the bill were founded on his sense of the great importance of the measure ultimately in view. They were not in those circumstances, or in that period of the session, when they could enter into the consideration of a change in the representation with advantage or effect. The change now proposed was no less than to extinguish the fran- 1618 chises of four boroughs, and to tranfer them to other unrepresented places Though neither of these objects was directly affected by the bill, it would distinctly recognize the principle, that though there was not evidence to disfranchise the boroughs for ever, yet on a prima facie case they might suspend the franchises. It might be proper to legislate on this business hereafter, when they had time to view the question in all its complicated bearings, but it seemed strange to say that they had evidence to deprive a borough of its franchise pro hac vice, and not for ever. The circumstances of the representation of these boroughs being filled up, could not operate as a bar to legislation on the subject; and it would be better indeed, constitutionally, that the question of the disfranchisement of these boroughs should be discussed when their members, who might be supposed to act as their attornies, were present. As to the proposal of proceeding by address to the Crown, it had been satisfactorily disposed of. If indeed the Crown could disfranchise four, it might disfranchise 44 or 100 boroughs; and he did not see why, if this power were recognized, it might not also extend to counties or universities, so that the very existence of the House of Commons would be at the mercy of the Crown. The only course of proceeding therefore was by bill. He felt unwilling to conclude without stating his feelings, respecting those who were suffering under, perhaps just, but certainly not lenient sentences, for offences committed in these boroughs. When they considered that these offences were not solitary, when every member of the House must necessarily have been acquainted with so many unconvicted offenders of the same description, he felt that the sentence of two years imprisonment, coupled with a very heavy fine, was severe. He did not know the individual so punished even by sight; he had never spoken, or had any communication with him, but he felt in common with many others equally unknown to sir M. Lopez, that the House should show that it would not oppose any impediment to the clemency of the Crown, which would not of course be advised to exercise its right of pardon, in a case in which the House of Commons were concerned, without their concurrence. The prisoner, he believed, was 68 years of age, and though a grave and serious offence against their privileges, against law 1619 and morality, the crime he had committed could not be said to be extremely rare. His case would operate as a warning, even if the whole of the sentence were not carried into effect; and similar offences would not be more frequent, but probably more rare, after such a warning.
§ Mr. Scarlettthought it would be a delicate matter for the House to interfere to induce the Crown to remit a sentence which the court of King's-bench had imposed. The members of that House, too, should be the last to appear disposed to treat with lenity such offences, which they were out of doors but too generally supposed to view with favourable eyes. He was himself not prepared to say that the sentence was too severe. Though offenders of this kind might, in some instances, gain the cross, and in others the crown, the court of King's-bench did well always to show a severe front to such offences. He felt reluctant to make these observations, because he had had to appear as advocate for this individual. After having done his duty on this occasion, however, his connection with him had ceased.
§ Sir J. Yorke, though he thought the case of sir M. Lopez a hard one, could not but feel for his friend Mr. Swann, who had only been found guilty because he had done an act of kindness.
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the only object of this bill was to enable the House to apply any punishment it might inflict on these boroughs earlier than they otherwise could. The non-existence of the bill would not form an obstacle to the taking cognizance of these cases in a new parliament. Though he had made up his mind to vote for the bill, he could not disguise the fact that it was a strong measure, and went beyond the precedents which had been adduced. The case of Shaftesbury only applied to the issuing of writs during the existence of a parliament over which the House had a constitutional control. But it was a bolder measure to interfere with the elections for a future parliament, when they were, in some measure, tied up to a specific number of members by the act of Union.
§ Sir J. Mackintoshmaintained, that there was a sufficient prima facie case, with respect to the boroughs alluded to in this bill, to induce the Lords to acquiesce in the measure for suspending the issue of any writs, until the merits of the case should be fully gone into. It was 1620 clear from what had appeared in evidence, that such corruption had taken place in each of those boroughs, that it would be inconsistent with the principles of the constitution, and with the character of the House itself, to allow the electors, who had been guilty of such flagrant criminality, to send members to that House. The course pursued on this occasion was fully warranted by the precedent of the Shaftesbury case. For in that case the Lords agreed to the suspension of any new writ upon the same ground as that which was assigned in the preamble of this bill. The only difference, indeed, between the two cases was, that in the Shaftesbury case the bill for suspending the writ was passed on the eve of a prorogation, whereas in the present case the suspension was proposed on the eve of a dissolution. In point of principle the two cases were precisely the same. On the ground of precedent then, as well as upon principles of constitutional justice and sound policy, the present measure ought to be adopted.
Lord Castlereaghthought the Shaftesbury case much, stronger than the present, as in that case the Lords had obtained from that House a copy of the evidence taken before a committee upon the subject, in order to examine such evidence before the act was agreed to.
§ Lord J. Russell, in reply, animadverted upon the observations which had been made with respect to the merit of the bill. It was true, that the Lords had obtained a copy of the evidence upon the Shaftesbury case before the act of the 14th Geo. 3rd was passed, but then their lordships had not much more time, previous to that enactment, to examine such evidence, than they were likely to have at present. But the material objection which offered against the delay of the proposed enactment in this case was, that if new writs were issued to these boroughs, each would continue so to demean itself at a new election, as to raise some argument to defeat the object of this bill, or to palliate the proved delinquency upon which it was founded. To postpone or reject the present bill would serve to raise a doubt in the country as to the sincerity of the promise held out by the House, that in any borough where flagrant corruption was proved, measures would be taken not only for the punishment of the corrupt, but for the prevention of such corrupt practices in future, 1621 by the disfranchisement of the borough in which they took place. With respect to Barnstaple, the House had had only one efficient member for that borough since the rejection of sir M. Lopez, and yet no complaint had ever been heard of the inadequacy of its representation. As to the sympathy expressed for the fate of sir M. Lopez, he did not mean to find fault with those who entertained that sympathy, although it must be admitted that such corruption as that of which this baronet was convicted, deserved punishment. But as to the corruption which prevailed in small boroughs, where the voters were comparatively few, poor and ignorant, he much feared that it was idle to calculate upon the prevention of such corruption; and he felt, that whenever it was proved to take place, the only remedy was, to transfer the right of election from boroughs of that description, to large and populous towns. He had no disposition to blame those who felt sympathy for sir M. Lopez. He submitted, however, that much more sympathy or consideration was due to the poor voters who accepted the bribe; because, from their ignorance, they were probably not aware of the magnitude of the crime which they committed. As to the praise pronounced upon Mr. Swann, who was at present suffering imprisonment in consequence of a conviction for bribing an elector, he should only say in the language of the poet—"Rara avis in terra nigroque similima cygno."
§ The bill was read a second time.