HC Deb 11 July 1820 vol 2 cc367-76
Lord J. Russell

rose, pursuant to notice, to move for an address to the Crown, praying his majesty to shorten the term of the imprisonment awarded to sir Manasseh Lopez. Some persons erroneously supposed that he wished to do away with the punishment altogether; but these individuals did not recollect that sir Manasseh had already paid a fine of 10,000l., and had suffered imprisonment for eight months. Considering the amount of fine, and the imprisonment which sir M. Lopez had undergone, he now came forward to propose an address to his majesty, praying that the remainder of the sentence might be mitigated. In doing this, he wished to be understood as not meaning to impute any thing like injustice to the sentence itself, or to cast the slightest suspicion on the motives of the judges by whom it was awarded. The laws passed by parliament for the prevention of bribery and corruption proved the legislature to be so decidedly hostile to such practices, that, when cases of the kind came before the judges, he conceived it was their bounden duty to visit them with severity. That their judgment was correct he was bound to suppose, because nothing could appear before them except the mere facts given in evidence; consequently their sentence could not be affected by the state of public opinion or feeling at the time. But still cases might occur where the House would think that justice might with propriety be suspended, and the dictates of mercy be allowed to take their course. This was an instance in which it was impossible for the Crown, of its own impulse, to exercise the prerogative of merey which properly belonged to it. The prosecution of sir Manasseh was undertaken by the desire of the House, and, in obedience to their wishes, he had been brought up for judgment. It was always admitted that sir Manasseh had a most extensive borough influence and connexion, which it was known he exercised for the support of administration. Under these circumstances it was impossible for ministers to interfere with the course of justice, by recommending to the Crown to remit a punishment inflicted in furtherance of a vote of the House of Commons; because it might be supposed, in such a case, that ministers acted from a desire to support an individual who had been in the habit of affording political support to them. It was, therefore, deemed better that the subject should be noticed by the House of Commons, they being the original prosecutors, and the body who brought down the ultimate punishment on sir M. Lopez. There were several reasons why the sentence of this individual should be rendered less severe. In the first place, the great age of sir M. Lopez, who was now in his sixty-fifth year. Two years imprisonment might naturally be supposed to comprehend a large portion of the remaining life of a man who had arrived at such an advanced age. This, he thought, was a circumstance that would induce every humane man to wish that his sentence should be mitigated, and that he should not be allowed to suffer a farther imprisonment of 16 months, since his life could not be calculated to extend beyond 10 or 12 years. In the next place, he believed sir M. Lopez to have been ignorant of the magnitude of the offence which he had committed. This was a circumstance that could not be pleaded in a court of justice; but here, he conceived, it might be alluded to with propriety, and without at all weakening the detestation which the House ought to feel at the commission of such a crime. An individual might come into that House and hear (from persons not of one party only, but of all parties, and of no party) the subject of bribing electors treated as a matter of common conversation. A man, ignorant of the serious nature of the offence, might be deceived by this familiar mode of conversation, and might in consequence be led to look on the act of bribery as no very great crime. He did not mean to defend the course adopted by sir M. Lopez, though he might be allowed to say that he was, perhaps, not more guilty than other individuals, but that be had been less prudent; the consequence of which was, that he had been subjected to this heavy punishment. In making this observation he was borne out by facts. It was stated at their bar, last year, by a person who acted as solicitor for the members for Grampound, that 7,000l. were paid to prevent the petition against the members from being prosecuted. So that sir M. Lopez was sentenced to a severe punishment for bribery and corruption, while others, against whom the same conduct could be proved, by paying a large sum of money, procured a total exemption from punishment. The punishment of sir M. Lopez might be safely remitted to imprisonment for one year. He conceived a fine of 10,000l. and a year's imprisonment was a punishment sufficiently severe. With respect to the Grampound case, he wished that to be treated in another manner. He had unfortunately been prevented from going on with it, owing to the pressure of other and more important business. But if the House adjourned, the bill would continue in the same state, and he would certainly proceed with it as soon as possible. He would now move, "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, praying that his majesty would be graciously pleased to shorten the term of imprisonment awarded to sir M. Lopez, who had been sentenced to two years confinement in the gaol of Exeter, in such manner and to such time as his majesty might think fit."

Mr. Wynn

felt that it was extremely unpleasant to oppose a motion of this description, and to endeavour to thwart the disposition of lenity which the House might feel towards any particular offender. Every gentleman must wish to show mercy and forbearance, as far as justice would permit; but the case in point was not one in which consistently with their duty, with the forms of parliament, and with propriety, they could interfere. Cases might exist, in which the House might in justice be called on to advise the Crown to interpose, and to exercise its prerogative of mercy, in the same way as they might offer advice with respect to any other prerogative; for the House had a right to advise the Crown on matters connected with all its prerogatives. But sure he was, that if there were any one case to which the House should look with especial jealousy, it was where the prerogative of the Grown and the prerogative of parliament were likely to interfere with each other. The prerogative of mercy was, of all others, peculiar to the Crown itself; and, in this instance, he could see no ground for advising its exercise. The House did not know what had passed in the court of King's-bench; they were not present—they were utterly ignorant of the evidence on which the sentence was awarded—and yet they were asked to adopt a proceeding, the effect of which would be to alter that sentence. He was not competent to judge of the propriety of such a proceeding. The House, however, knew that the individual had been found guilty of bribery in repeated instances—no less than 18 persons had, he believed, been corrupted. The House had decided, when the verdict of a jury established such a crime, when a regular conviction took place before a criminal court, that then the offender should be brought up for judgment. The House could not be aware of all the circumstances of the offence; they could not be acquainted with the matters that had come out in evidence. He could not agree with his noble friend that this was a case in which the interference of the Crown was necessary. It was by no means an ordinary instance of corruption. It was not the case of an individual engaged in a warm contest, and betrayed by the impulse of the moment into an illegal act. Here was an attempt made by an individual to purchase a borough, not for himself, but with the intention of transferring it to another party for his own emolument and benefit. He deprecated any interference of that House with the province of courts of justice, and with functions which did not belong to it. It had become but too common of late on the part of the House to interfere in every executive department in addition to the discharge of those ancient functions to which it was the interest of the Crown as well as of the country that they should confine themselves. The House would do well not to adopt a motion which would serve to establish a precedent, that might naturally lead to similar applications for other individuals, which applications must produce great inconvenience to the House itself. It behoved the House then to guard against such a course, as should this motion Succeed, other individuals, in similar circumstances, would be apt to have similar motions made upon the speculation, that if such motions did not even produce their release, the discussion of them might contribute to their advantage.

Mr. W. Peel

supported the motion, and urged, that the same measure of mercy should be granted to Mr. Swann, who had been lately re-elected to that House, in a manner that was equally honourable to his constituents and to himself. There had also been a serious calamity in the family of Mr. Swann, since his imprisonment commenced, which formed an additional claim to the generous consideration of the House. If some remission of his sentence were extended to Mr. Swann, it would, under such circumstances, be a most seasonable and acceptable indulgence.

Lord Castlereagh

said, he was not quite sure, but he believed that this was the first time that a question like the present had been brought before that House. He believed that this was the first case in which that House was called upon to interfere with the exercise of the royal prerogative of mercy; and what had taken place in the course of the debate, seemed to show to what consequence the adoption of such a motion was likely to lead. The motion was no doubt honourable to the feelings of the noble lord, but the precedent was peculiarly to be deprecated, which the acquiescence of the House in such a motion was calculated to establish. It would better become the House to leave the prerogative of mercy where it was fixed by the constitution, and not to press a proposition of this nature. Whether the law should have its execution was the peculiar prerogative of the Crown, and the responsible servants of the Crown could not be justified in recommending the interposition of the royal mercy upon the mere suggestion of that House (he spoke it with perfect respect) any more than upon the application of the humblest individual in the land. Although feelings must always be excited corresponding to the circumstances of particular cases (and particularly ill health was calculated to excite commiseration), could they conceive a place where such feelings could be less properly expressed than in that House? The noble lord had not meant to make his motion of general application, but to limit it to this particular case; yet that case at once brought forth another. If an inter- ference of this kind came to be once sanctioned, it would be thought a sort of personal reflection upon any person suffering the sentence of a court of justice, if he could not find a member in the House to bring his particular case under their consideration; and every one must be convinced that the noble lord's endeavours were not likely to be ineffectual, nor the expression which they had called forth from the House overlooked, if the Crown should be induced to reconsider the case; the necessity for which, however, as a matter of justice, he by no means admitted, and would not undertake to insure such an event. The noble lord would feel that the prerogative of mercy was placed in hands least capable of abusing it, and that would necessarily extend it with the greatest propriety, circumspection, and humanity. The Crown always attended to the recommendation of the judge—the best source of recommendation in such cases. He did therefore hope the noble lord would be satisfied with having brought the subject under the notice of the House, and he might feel assured that if the case should come under the consideration of the Crown, the conduct of the noble lord would not retard its interference, or operate disadvantageously to the individual. He hoped the noble lord would therefore withdraw his motion, having satisfied his feelings as he had done. No One who knew the noble lord could doubt that his interference had proceeded from motives of humanity.

Sir T. Acland

felt desirous of establishing an inference that, whatever became of the motion, the Crown, in consequence of its having been made, would feel more at liberty to extend mercy respecting a sentence occasioned by the interposition of that House. It was that circumstance that distinguished this case from all others, and exempted the interference of the House from the character of strange anomaly which would belong to their conduct if they interfered with the royal mercy in general cases. In the present case the House had made itself the prosecutor—as far, at least, as the judgment went; and he hoped that the punishment would go far to prevent practices that tended to corrupt the country in the exercise of its best rights. He could not therefore understand why the House could not interfere as any other prosecutor might, for mercy. Another consideration, if not for taking away the crime, at least for reducing the severity of the punishment, was the too common and shameful conversation in the country and in that House respecting the means used to procure returns of its members. The sense of the country was, that the measure of punishment in this case was severe. Undoubtedly the court had acted right in not noticing any circumstances offered in palliation; but it was not to be disguised that the punishment bore with undue severity on the present offender. The judges could attend only to the crime; that House, who knew the age and circumstances of the individual might view the case differently. The end of punishment was example, and perhaps enough had been suffered for the attainment of that object.

Mr. Gurney

hoped that both the cases mentioned on this occasion would be attended to. Mr Swann's case was infinitely the strongest; he had been convicted only upon two counts out of twenty-three in the indictment against him, and that too in consequence of his not having pressed for the payment of a 20l. note which he held from one of the electors of the borough for which he was a candidate. But he put it to every gentleman who heard him, whether, on the eve of a general election he would attempt to enforce such payment from any elector of the place for which he proposed to become a candidate. It was also to be recollected that Mr. Swann was under the disadvantage of having his own counsel to plead against him, notwithstanding a special petition to the contrary, which was presented to that House. In Penryn the electors had been accustomed to get 25l. at a breakfast. If Mr. Swann was guilty of irregularities, they bad been brought upon him by the practice of one who was not responsible, because not returned to that House. He hoped the Crown would take the two cases into its merciful consideration.

Sir J. Yorke

concurred with the noble secretary for foreign affairs. The case of Mr. Swann was certainly the hardest.

Mr. Money

said, that Mr. Swann had two children at death's door, upon whom he was incapacitated, by his imprisonment, from bestowing his attention at so awful a time. He would support the motion.

Mr. Burrell

observed, that sir M. Lopez was overwhelmed with domestic affliction, which, with his confinement, had made a deep impression on his health and constitution, and had brought him near to the grave. As the end of punishment was example, he trusted that the House would feel that enough had been furnished by the confinement for a considerable period of a man of rank and property in a common gaol. He hoped that mercy would be extended to a person so circumstanced, and labouring, besides, under age and affliction.

Mr. Abercromby

declared, that if the noble lord now found the way for mercy more easy, he had no wish to say any thing further; but that, if the question should come to a division, he should feel bound to vote against it. He wished the matter to be left with the Crown, and its responsible advisers. The grounds on which the motion was brought forward were not sufficient. A plea had been set up, that the offence was common. He did not agree in the propriety of it; but if it had weight, it should have been considered before the House proceeded to call upon the courts of justice to pronounce judgment. It was too much to say that that House, after having prosecuted, should turn round and say sentence should not be executed. He could not view any argument used on this question but as an impeachment of the sentence. It seemed to him, that it would be an act of extreme impropriety in the House to interpose, because no fact had been offered which was not known before. There was, besides, this material consideration—there was, on such prosecutions, nothing of willingness, either in the Crown or the judges, to proceed. It was generally conceived, that prosecutions ordered by that House were cases in which there was obvious reluctance in other quarters to proceed against the offence. If such were the general character of the cases, it could not be favourable to the interests of justice for the House to thwart the opinion of the judges in affairs submitted to them by the House. The whole argument resolved itself into a complaint of the severity of the sentence. He wished the House to remember the time when, in cases of libel, the punishment of imprisonment was inflicted for years upon years to a frightful amount; and yet no word of interference had been attempted in the House. He begged pardon, one member had ventured a word. The late Mr. Whitbread, of whom he could never think but with reverence and esteem, had incidentally mentioned one. of those cases, and well did he recollect the exclamation of all against such interference. It was correct in the House to express an opinion when there was an excess and abuse of authority; but he deprecated any interference with the province of the judges.

Mr. Brownlow

disapproved of interfering with the prerogatives of the Crown. Though he felt how much pity was due to the case, he would oppose the motion; but be hoped the circumstances mentioned on this occasion would have their effect elsewhere.

Mr. Canning

hoped that, when it was considered that this motion, if it failed, must become an impediment in the consideration of the case elsewhere, and if it was carried, must be fertile in occasioning questions of a similar nature, in that House, which was the most unfit place in the world for such discussions, the noble lord would be convinced of the propriety of withdrawing his motion. If there had existed any where an impression that an impediment arose from any prejudice supposed to exist in the House, that impression must be removed by the discussion that had now taken place, and the noble lord might believe that his motion had thus had sufficient effect. The removal of what was supposed to operate the other way be earnestly hoped would satisfy the noble lord, without pressing his motion to a division, which could not be beneficial.

Mr. Grenfell

concurred with the right hon. gentleman opposite; and as there appeared to be an understanding, that due consideration would be given to the case of sir M. Lopez in the proper quarter, he hoped his noble friend would be induced to withdraw his motion. He also trusted that the case of Mr. Swann would be taken into consideration at the same time with that now before them.

Lord J. Russell

said, if he understood the statement of the noble lord, this case was already under consideration [No, no]. Well, then, he must understand that whether his motion had been brought forward or not, there were at present no impediments in the way of taking the case under the consideration of the Crown. He was satisfied with this declaration, He stated at the commencement of his observations, that there were some obstacles and difficulties in the way of a fair consideration of this case by the Crown; but as the noble lord had assured him that those difficulties would be removed, he was ready to admit that the case would be much better taken into consideration in the quarter which had the power of mitigating the punishment, than in this House. Of this principle he had never entertained the smallest doubt, and he thought, therefore, that much of what had been urged by his honourable friends around him, might have been spared. He had certainly never intended to say. that in any ordinary case it would be proper for this Mouse to consider whether mercy ought or ought not to be extended; but this was a case in which the privileges of the House were peculiarly involved, and in which the House therefore might have properly interposed. After what had fallen from the noble lord, he could have no objection to withdraw his motion.

The Motion was withdrawn.