Sir Thomas Freemantlerose to move for leave to 237 bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, on the ground of the gross bribery and corruption which had been practised at that place at the last election. The House was aware, that his Motion was founded upon the Report of the Committee, that had sat in the last Session, to inquire into the practices of that borough. The Committee had directed its Chairman to move for leave to bring in a Bill of disfranchisement; and, as he had the honour of filling the chair, he now made his Motion, in obedience to the Report. The evidence before the Committee established the fact, of the prevalence of gross and systematic bribery, to such an extent, as to call for the disfranchisement of the borough. He did not feel that it was necessary to trouble the House with many observations at that early stage of the proceedings, as he would allow a sufficient interval to elapse, between the first and second reading of the Bill, for hon. Members to consider all the facts of the case. The elective franchise ought not to be taken from any individual, much less from a body of individuals, without a most satisfactory cause; but he was convinced that, in the case of Stafford, the necessity was imperative, and he would not shrink from the performance of his duty. During the election for Stafford, there had been opened, by each candidate, houses, at which the voters went to receive their money. Every man that received his pay had his name put down in writing, and these documents had been put into the hands of the Committee. Four-fifths of the voters had received money, so that the ends of justice would not be answered by any partial disfranchisement. The Committee had found, that the voters that had been introduced under the Reform Bill, had been as guilty as the rest. Of 167 of the newly-created 10l. householders, 85 had received bribes. Two-thirds of the old burgesses, who were 10l. householders, were likewise bribed. In fact, corruption was so general, so systematic and inveterate, that it was impossible to put a stop to it, except by the severe remedy which the Committee had recommended. It would be for the House to consider whether the franchise should be transferred to any other place, and, in the meantime, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill.
Mr. Halcombeobjected, that the evidence had not been taken upon oath, and 238 that it was publicly boasted of in Stafford, that the witnesses had told the Committee a parcel of lies. The House could not take away the most valuable rights from the people, without being able to punish for perjury the witnesses that had misled the Committee. He should give his strenuous opposition to the Motion.
§ Mr. Chetwyndcomplained, that the hon. Baronet who had brought the Motion, had not been made aware of the circumstances that had lately transpired in Stafford. Within a few days, it had been made known to him, that the witness who had given the list of bribed voters to the Committee, had publicly declared, that from the beginning to the end, it was a forgery. He would, therefore, entreat the House to suspend its judgment.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that when notorious corruption was proved, it would be the duty of the House to disfranchise the borough. All must admit that, from the reform which had taken place in the representation, such practices could not continue, and the system of corrupt boroughs must be put an end to.
Leave given, Bill brought in and read a first time.