HL Deb 15 June 1809 vol 14 cc0-1040

Upon the order of the day being read,

The Earl of Liverpool

spoke to the following purport:—My lords, I rise for the purpose of proposing that your lordships should go into a committee or the whole house upon this bill, which has been introduced for the preservation of purity in election, and the prevention of sales of Seats in Parliament, by corrupt traffic. Before I proceed, my lords, to declare those general sentiments which induce me to admit the propriety of this measure, and before I state those grounds, which, in my opinion, render it necessary, and before I describe what the bill is, I shall, in the first place, pronounce what the bill is not. This measure does not in the least partake of the nature of what has been denominated Parliamentary Reform. It does not in- terfere with, or profess to disturb, parliamentary representation. There is no person in this country, who has turned his attention to that species of reform, who has more than myself considered the dangerous consequences of such a system, if carried into effect. From long, deliberate and mature consideration, I am convinced that the disfranchisement of the smallest borough, would lead to consequences of a most pernicious nature, and would eventually destroy the constitution. But the bill before you has no such tendency to interfere with the representation of the people; for sorry should I be to see that system altered—sorry should I be to see the representation of this country so changed, that the whole of our elections should be similar to those of Middlesex and Westminster. Look, my lords, to those elections, and you will perceive the evil of such a representation! Every noble lord who now hears me has had an opportunity there of observing how perjury, subornation of perjury, and all the vices which are consequent thereon, abound on those occasions, and tend to degrade and disgrace the community. Having thus far, my lords, applied these observations, for the purpose of shewing what the bill is not, I shall now state what I conceive, to be its, principle, and those grounds upon which. I consider it entitled to my support. The introduction of this measure is founded upon the existence of certain abuses. It has been acknowledged, that a practice has long existed, whereby seats in parliament have been sold and purchased. This practice has long been known to exist; how it sprang up, I believe those most acquainted with the history of the constitution would find it difficult to determine; and if it were traced back to more ancient periods of our parliament, I believe it would be equally difficult to ascertain its commencement. Most probably it had its origin at a time when it was exercised to a very small extent, and has been gradually increasing through the succession of later periods. At length it has grown to such an enormous degree, that its existence, for the first time, has been openly declared and avowed, and parliament has been called upon to interpose its legislative interference. Under such considerations, my lords, I certainly do not perceive how your lordships can reject going into the committee. It may be alledged, that this is an offence at common law, but I am inclined to believe, not only from the exercise of my own judgment, but from the opinion which greater authorities have pronounced upon the subject, that such a practice is not punishable at common law. But supposing it be doubtful whether the buying and selling of seats in parliament is or is not an offence punishable by common law, yet, my lords, I cannot hesitate a moment to assert, that, according to all analogy of law, and according to the true principles of the constitution, it is an offence which ought to be punished. Therefore, parliament, when the question has once been brought before them, is bound to give their decision. They must determine either that it is legal or fit to be legal, or else they must determine it is illegal, or fit to be made illegal. The practice being once acknowledged and avowed, parliament, for the first time, are called upon to declare the law, and if it has not hitherto extended to the punishment of this offence, your lordships, by rejecting the bill, would, for the first time, give a sanction to its legality. Then, my lords, it now lies for your consideration to prevent a known and avowed abuse; and the analogy of law, together with the pure principles of the constitution, call for legislative interference. The law has imposed a severe penalty on the man who receives five guineas for his vote, and yet the same law has imposed no punishment upon the man who receives five thousand for an offence of the same description. With respect, my lords, to the particular provisions of the bill, as they fall more appropriately under discussion when we go into the committee, I shall defer my observations to that stage of our proceedings. There was on a former day a remark made by a noble earl opposite (Grosvenor), that this bill has completely altered its shape from what it was in its original state, and that the principle has been so far changed, that it can no longer be deemed the same bill which was first introduced in another place. I rejoice, my lords the bill has undergone those alterations. For, in its original stale as introduced by an hon. member (Mr. Curwen), who unquestionably was actuated by the purest motives, it was liable to very serious objection, and upon consideration was generally admitted to be so by almost every man in the house; and even that hon. gent. with his usual candour, gave way to the propriety of the objections. That every abuse ought to be remedied, admits of no doubt, and that in- fluence corruptly exercised, ought to be prevented, we all agree is necessary; and so far the bill, after being subjected to certain alterations, most wisely provides; but I never can admit that it would be for the interests of the country to destroy the natural preponderance which the influence of property will ever preserve in the representation of the people. It is the course of things; and make twenty bills if you please against it, property will always possess a great degree of influence; and when you have made laws against that influence being corruptly exercised, you will have done all in your power, and all that is necessary and beneficial, for the purity of the constitution.

Earl Grosvenor

. It gives me great satisfaction, my lords, that the noble secretary deferred the discussion of this bill to its present stage of proceeding. Thereby an opportunity has been afforded for a fuller attendance of your lordships; for did not think it perfectly decorous, nor would it have been quite decent, that such an important measure should have been debated in a thin house; besides, another advantage has accrued—that of giving more time for its due consideration. With regard to the greater part of the noble Secretary's speech, I most readily subscribe to many of those sentiments which have been delivered, but there are parts of that speech, containing sentiments to which I find it impossible to subscribe. It has been stated, that this measure does hot partake of the nature of reform, as generally understood; but, my lords, disguise the name as you please, it still remains the same, and is really a species of reform. Neither, my lords, is it less deserving of our approbation; because, if abuses are admitted and avowed, it is our duty to redress them. Glad should I have been, if the provisions of this bill had been in unison with its title, which certainly recommends itself to our approbation and respect. Still, whatever the measure may be called, and however deficient in its extent, it is a part of that system of reform, which I rejoice has some time commenced, and which, for the interests of the nation, is not likely to cease. The first step in this progressive reformation of abuse began by the introduction of a bill for the prevention of granting certain Places in Reversion, which, though not at that time, was ultimately successful. The bill which lately passed for preventing the Sale of Offices was another measure for the reform of abuses, and would have been entitled to my hearty approbation, if it had not been for certain exceptions, which incurred my dissent. It has also been publicly known, that other abuses have lately existed, and the present bill was introduced for the purpose of extending that principle, which parliament have already recognized in the two measures which preceded it. But, my lords, under whatever name it may be disguised, I see, with joy, that it is a part of that system of reform which has commenced, and which, for the good of the country and the preservation of the constitution, will not, and ought not to cease. There is another observation made by the noble Secretary, with which I cannot accord; I consider myself bound to look at the provisions of this bill, before I can accede to the propriety of going into the committee. For with whatever pleasure I peruse the title and preamble, I feel considerably disappointed in directing my attention to the provisions. That part of the bill which is intended to prevent the disposal of seats in parliament, for money, meets with so much of my approbation, as to raise in my mind more astonishment at the clause which relates to corrupt influence, exercised through the disposal of offices. No man can doubt but the influence, exercised directly or indirectly, in the one case, is equally corrupt with that exercised in the other. But the bill before your lordships leaves the patronage of the crown unaffected, and his majesty's ministers, while they are anxious to abrogate corrupt influence by money, leave their own influence a greater latitude of being corruptly exercised. When, my lords, I look at this gilded title and emblazoned preamble, with which it is intended to deceive us, and consider how much they are at variance with the provisions which are presented as the means of accomplishing the object, it reminds me of some of those romances or novels of the present day, which are printed on fine paper, bound in beautiful red morocco, and elegantly gilt, yet within contain principles of a most pernicious nature, subversive of good morals and destructive to virtue. This, my lords, I consider a very appropriate description of the bill upon your lordship's table. It pretends to remedy abuse in one instance, and proceeds to sanction it in another. His majesty's ministers have altered the measure completely from what it was originally, and, under colour of so plausible a title, now attempt to deceive the nation. But, I trust, the time is not far distant, when we shall witness a temperate reform of every abuse, and a gradual completion of what has fortunately commenced. But unfortunately for the government and the country, the present bill, by the introduction of the word "express" has transferred the power of corruption to his majesty's ministers, to be exercised by them without controul. On this account, the bill must incur my opposition. They may suppose they have deceived the people, but they will eventually find they have deceived themselves. They may rejoice they have outwitted the hon. gent. who introduced the measure, and have tripped up his heels; but let them recollect they will not outwit the nation, nor trip up the heels of the country.

Viscount Sidmouth

; —My lords, every one must bear testimony to the honest motives and sincerity with which the noble lord, who has just sat down, has invariably declared his sentiments, as an independent peer of parliament. As much as I am disposed in general to concur with the opinions of my noble friend, there cannot be the same unanimity on the present occasion. It has been stated by the noble Secretary, that, for the first time, it has been acknowledged and avowed in parliament, that abuses, such as those which the bill professes to remedy, do actually exist; It has also, my lords, been stated, that considerable doubt remains upon this subject; and the noble Secretary referred to other authorities than his own, though his own must be allowed to be of considerable weight, to prove that the selling and purchasing seats in parliament fall under the cognizance of the common law; and, if so, I do think we are now called upon, in the most solemn manner, to declare what the law is as it effects the present question. By rejecting the bill before you, my lords, we should indirectly sanction this corrupt practice, and assent to its legality. Still, as the common law now stands, I would appeal to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, whether, as the guardian of the property of others, he himself, or the Master of the Rolls, or any of the Masters in Chancery, would consider any influence attached to property belonging to a minor, or other person under the noble and learned lord's care, as a species of interest, legally accountable for in the hands of those who exercised it, and, as such, requiring that it should be disposed of to the best advantage? Why, my lords, in that case the noble and learned lord would, in his high official situation, be bound to consider, not whether a seat in parliament were disposed of to an able and virtuous character, but whether it were disposed of to the greatest possible pecuniary advantage? My lords, the common law has not sanctioned any such corrupt practices; on the contrary, it has in all its principles, declared the same to be illegal. Still, there is no provision adequate to the prevention of so great an abuse, and when that abuse is admitted and avowed to exist it is necessary to remedy it by some legislative interference. Not only, my lords, do I consider the abuses to which this practice has led, but I am bound to reflect upon those to which it may be applied. It has sometimes probably happened, that some of the most enlightened, able, and virtuous men, have sought this mode, in preference to all others of obtaining a seat in parliament. They have sought with anxiety a place in the great and honourable assembly of the legislature, and having acquired it by these means, have gloried in the patriotic and disinterested exertions of their talents, without fear of being controuled, while they were conscientiously serving the cause of their country. But although such may have been some of the consequences of this system of influence, yet we are bound to consider it contrary to the principles of the English constitution; and as legislators, our duty directs us to inquire to what improper and base purposes such corrupt influence is capable of being applied. If we consider the laws which have been thought expedient to prevent corruption in the electors, we shall see that a man is punishable for giving five guineas for the purpose of influencing a vote, and that the disposal of a seat in parliament, for five thousand pounds, is left without any legislative measure for its prevention. What is this, my lords, but a prohibition of corruption by retail, and an encouragement of it by wholesale? I certainly agree with what was stated by the noble earl who spoke last, that, in the provisions of this bill, considerable alteration has been made, and, in the second part of it, which regards corrupt influence, arising from offices, all the effective terms of the former part have been omitted, and by the admission of the word "express," the whole provision has been deprived of its salutary consequences; neither does it in any way correspond with the expectation necessarily arising out of its admirable title and preamble. There are sentiments expressed in the preamble, which furnish good ground for a more noble superstructure. On that account, more than any other, it meets with my approbation; and nothing would induce me to accede to the least alteration in that part of the bill. Those sentiments will pass into a statute, and become a part of the law of the land, from whence they never can be expunged. I am ready to admit, that the bill will do a great deal, but it does not do enough: and I would submit to your lordships' consideration, how much more easy it will be to make the measure more efficient, than it will be to introduce another bill to amend this under the present discussion? One word on the subject of Reform: It is in my opinion, very fit, that the monied interest should partake in the representation, and that all the variety of interests should have their due share in the legislature.

The Earl of Carysfort

in very strong and forcible terms, expressed his opposition to the bill.

Lord Boringdon

defended the bill, and contended that if the word "express" had not been introduced, it would have been scarcely possible to make even the most innocent use of the patronage of the crown, and it might even have happened under the bill, as it would then have stood, that persons might have been called upon to prove a negative.

The Earl of Rosslyn

commented upon several parts of the bill, for the purpose of shewing the futility of its enactments as they now stood, particularly with respect to one of its professed objects, that of preventing the abuse of the patronage of the crown. There was not near the same moral guilt in trafficking seats for money, as in trafficking for them the patronage of the crown, and yet the difference in the enactments with respect to the two objects, was peculiarly marked. In the former case broad and general words were used, but in the latter, by inserting the word "express" it was scarcely possible that they could reach any case of abuse, unless where the parties were insane enough to make an express agreement.

The Earl of Selkirk

also condemned the bill as now worded, and contended that it was a mere trick and deception on the country.

The Earl of Buckinghamshire

thought, that by enacting the principle of this bill, and recording it on the statute book, the best answer would be given to the violent reformers, as it would shew that an abuse was no sooner discovered than a remedy was applied; and it was remarkable that those who were loudest in calling for reform, seemed to consider the measure in this point of view, as they opposed it the moment it was introduced. He could have wished that it had been rendered more efficient; but he thought it of great importance to enact the principle, and from that other enactments might follow.

Lord Mulgrave

contended, that there was a clear distinction between trafficking seats for money and using the patronage of the crown; it being in the former case entirely gratuitous, whilst in the latter the patronage might be used with innocent and honourable motives, although in its effect it might have an influence in procuring a return. It was necessary, therefore, to guard against rendering criminal the innocent use of patronage; and were it not for the insertion of the word "express," it would scarcely be possible to use that patronage in any way without being liable to the charge of making an implied agreement with respect to some election.

The house then went into a Committee.

Earl Grosvenor

after a few observations, moved, 'That the word 'express,' should be omitted.'

The Lord Chancellor

opposed the motion; he said that if the implication was triable at common law, the bill, even as it stood, would add to the punishments; if it was not, it would create punishment to meet the offence. With respect to the question of parliamentary reform, his lordship expressed himself decidedly against the measure. He stated, that, having come into parliament in the year 1783, and being attached to the politics of a great man, now no more, he was not inclined even to go along with that great character in the support of such a doctrine.

The house then divided—

Contents 9
Non-Contents 23
Majority in favour of the word "express" —14

The bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.