§ Earl Stanhopepresented a petition from Mr. Christopher Wallis in favour of the Bill "for preventing corrupt and illegal practices, and securing the freedom and purity of Election, in the borough of Hellestone." The noble earl said, he merely presented it for their lordships consideration, without pledging himself to agree to the prayer of it. The petition was then read, and stated the constitution of the borough of Hellestone, and that the petitioner himself had, since the report of the Commons which led to the present Bill, become a freeman and voter of Hellestone; that he was also a freeholder of the two hundreds to which it was proposed that the right of voting should be extended; and that he believed that this bill of disfranchisement was the only method, considering the present constitution of the borough, by which the election could be free and independent; and he prayed to be heard by counsel at the bar in favour of the Bill.
§ Lord Grenvillesaid, that their lordships ought at least to pause before they agreed to the prayer of this petition. This Bill was novel in its nature, for its object and, principle was to disfranchise all, not merely those who had exercised their right of voting corruptly, but also those who had given an honest and independent suffrage. The principle of former bills was to disfranchise those who had voted corruptly, and—preserving the franchises of those who had not voted corruptly—to extend the 2 right to others in the neighbourhood. Now, the petitioner stated himself to be a freeman of Hellestone; the object of his petition was, therefore, to be heard in favour of a bill which disfranchised himself, and likewise all the rest, whether guilty or innocent. This was partly a penal and partly a remedial Bill. With respect to the penal part of it, that was merely a matter of public concern, in which the petitioner, as an individual, had no particular interest so as to entitle him to be heard: but as to the remedial part of the Bill, he might perhaps have some interest, as he was a freeholder of the two hundreds to which it was proposed to extend the right of voting as a remedy against the corrupt practices alleged to have taken place in the borough. It was not decided, however, that this extension should take place; and until it was so determined, he doubted very much whether this petitioner had any right to be heard. The most proper course, therefore, would be to adjourn the debate on the petition till to-morrow, that they might consider the subject in the mean time. This was a matter of great importance, and they ought to proceed with caution.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that this gentleman had the other day presented a petition which was found to have little or no relation to the points respecting which the petitioner was desirous to be heard; and their lordships would recollect, that he had refused to be at one farthing's expense in producing witnesses in support of his allegations. If he had a right to be heard, it was because he had an interest: and if he had an interest, this conduct was very 3 extraordinary. He came now with another petition, and the import of that petition was this, that he might be heard in favour of a bill by which he himself was to be disfranchised, and not only he himself, but all the voters of the borough—not only those who had voted corruptly, but those who might have given as honest a suffrage as any voter that ever existed. Corporations might, perhaps, in some cases incur a forfeiture by the act of the majority; but their lordships ought to be very cautious, indeed, how they entertained bills which proceeded on this principle, that the innocent and meritorious were to be sacrificed along with the guilty. But what was the nature of Mr. Wallis's interests? He stated, that he had become a freeman of the borough, and, therefore, his object was to get himself, as well as the rest, disfranchised, because the majority had voted contrary to his notions of independence. It was impossible that this could be a sort of interest which he was anxious to maintain, and, therefore, there must be some farther object, and that was, that he was a freeholder of the two hundreds to which it was proposed to extend the elective franchise of this borough. But till parliament had decided that this should take place, he had no interest in respect of that freehold. His opinion, therefore, at present was, that the petitioner had no more interest than he (the Lord Chancellor) had, and that was no interest at all. Parliament might, by possibility, choose to extend the right to Dorsetshire, and Northumberland, and then he might have an interest; but till Parliament did so, he had none, and the petitioner had as little in respect of the freehold which he had mentioned. The petitioner had refused to produce witnesses in support of his petition; but what their lordships might do, acting in behalf of the public, was another question. They would no doubt examine the matter with that attention which the importance of the subject unquestionably demanded; but as for Mr. Wallis, it appeared to him at present, that he had no interest whatever to entitle him to be heard. He agreed, however, that the most proper course would be to adjourn the debate on the petition till to-morrow.
§ Earl Stanhopedecidedly agreed with his noble relation near him, and the noble lord on the woolsack, in every respect except one, and that was the adjourning 4 of the debate on the petition, for in his opinion it ought to be rejected immediately. A petition as absurdly worded as any petition that ever came before their lordships had been presented the other day from the same person, and it was found to have no proper relation to the matter with regard to which the petitioner wished to be heard. It was therefore withdrawn, and he now presented another, but he had stated that he did not pledge himself to support it. He had only presented it in order to raise the question, and he fully agreed that the petitioner had no interest to entitle him to be heard.
§ The debate was adjourned till tomorrow.