HELLESTON ELECTION BILL. (Hansard, 5 May 1815)

The Lord Chancellor
said, that if frequent and anxious consideration could have brought him to think that this Bill ought to pass, he should certainly have by this time been of that opinion; but the more he considered the nature of the Bill, the more he was convinced that it ought to be discussed on the principle, before they adopted any further proceedings. Considering the Bill in this view, the only motion which he could recommend to their lordships on this subject was, that the Bill should be read a second time this day six months. His lordship 157 then repeated the objections which he had before stated. Taking the allegations in the Bill to be true, it appeared to him to be one which the House could not pass. It differed essentially from all the Bills for the punishment or remedy of such practices that had ever passed that House. There had been four bills of the description to which he had alluded; the first case, that of Stockbridge, afforded no precedent for this Bill: the next case was that of Shoreham, where it was proved that there was a society called the Christian Society, the object of which was to secure the return of members of parliament in an improper manner. This was proved against 68 of them individually, and these 68 were disfranchised; and for the purpose of preventing the recurrence of the evil, freeholders were added as voters along with those innocent persons whose franchises were continued. The case of Shoreham, then, was one in which the guilty only, on proof of the guilt of each, had been disfranchised: but this afforded no ground whatever for a Bill like the present, which went to disfranchise the whole of the electors, innocent and guilty. Then came the cases of Cricklade and Aylesbury, where none were disfranchised, not even the guilty, though to prevent the recurrence of such corrupt practices in future, the right of voting was extended to some of the adjoining hundreds. The first objection, then, was, that this was partly a bill of pains and penalties, and therefore to be proceeded upon according to those strict rules on which the House acted in the discharge of its judicial functions; and looking at the Bill as one which went to punish the innocent along with the guilty, it was impossible their lordships, in any consistency with these rules, could give it their sanction. Then another difficulty was, that, even if they were disposed to proceed with the Bill, they might pass it on evidence which the other House had not heard, and which if they had heard they might not have passed it on that ground. He did not mean to say that this was insuperable, or that their lordships were by any constitutional principle prevented from passing it on their own grounds if they thought proper, whether those grounds had been brought before the Commons or not; but in a legislative measure of this description and importance, it was desirable that the two Houses should proceed upon the same grounds. 158 Their lordships could not pass it on the evidence sent up from the Commons, for this reason, among others, that there was hardly a page in which questions did not appear, which the House of Lords, acting on the principles which he had stated, would suffer to be put, or at least to be the foundation of any penal proceeding. It had been most justly observed by a noble lord (Grenville), who had paid great attention to this case, that though a corporation might be forfeited by the act of the majority, yet the elective franchise did not belong to the freemen in their corporate but in their individual capacity, and therefore there was no pretence for involving the innocent with the guilty. On these grounds, and on others to which he had before adverted, it appeared to him impossible for their lordships to pass this Bill. It might be said that they might make the alterations in the committee; but it was far from being a desirable course of proceeding to make the necessary alterations in the Bill after its coming from the other House, though their lordships had the power, he presumed, to do so. Where they could not hope to alter the Bill so as to make it fit to pass, it was useless to go to the committee with it; and therefore he concluded by moving, That it be read a second time this day six months.

§ Lord Grenville
said, that after the attention he had paid to this Bill, and the steps be had suggested with respect to it, he thought it due to the House now to state his decided conviction, that on the principle of the Bill the course recommended by the noble and learned lord was the only one that could be at present safely adopted. The great objection in point of principle to this Bill was, that it was a bill partly of pains and penalties, and had for its object to punish the innocent as well as the guilty. He agreed with the noble and learned lord that, in this view of it, they must proceed with a rigid attention to those rules which govern them in the exercise of their judicial functions; and looking at the Bill with these rules in view, he asked, on what principle were they to punish the innocent with the guilty? The great difficulty in this novel case arose from the combining the two distinct objects of punishment and remedy in one bill; whereas they ought to he the subject of separate bills. The rules applied to them must be different, and rendered the proceeding 159 extremely difficult where they were united in the same measure. With regard to the bringing in of a new bill, his opinion was, that considering it as a bill of pains and penalties, it ought to originate with those who constituted the grand inquest of the nation, and not with their lordships, who were more accustomed to the exercise of the judicial functions with respect to such matters. There was another objection to this measure, which was this, that no ground whatever was laid for the application of the specific remedy recommended rather than another; for when they were thus, in effect, putting an end completely to the elective franchises of the borough of Helleston,— he meant putting an end to them if the Bill were to pass,—there appeared hardly any reason why any other place as well as these Cornish hundreds might not return the two members of parliament who were before returned by this borough. If they were to proceed upon the principle of taxation, or population, or property, as at the Union, other places might have a better claim, supposing it necessary that the numbers of the House of Commons should be exactly the same as at present. He came to the consideration of this measure, with an opinion that it was one of the same description with those which had formerly passed; and, therefore, as he had before stated, with a general impression in its favour: but finding this to be quite a novel proceeding, sanctioned by no precedent, and glaringly objectionable in point of principle, his opinion was, that it ought not to be passed by their lordships in its present shape, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to make the requisite alterations and amendments, supposing they were to suffer it to proceed to the committee. It was at any rate desirable that the proper measure should originate in the other House; and for these reasons and others he concurred in the motion.

Lord De Dunstanville
coincided in the propriety of the noble and learned lord's motion; but suggested that it would be proper to have the expenses defrayed of those witnesses who had come up, on account of the Bill, from so great a distance.

The Lord Chancellor
observed, that what the noble lord suggested might be the subject of separate consideration.
The question was then put, and the Bill ordered to be read a second time that day six months.