The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, that as he understood that no objection would be offered to the Bill in its present stage, all parties being agreed to go into evidence upon the subject, he would confine himself to a very few observations. The present bill differed from the former one, inasmuch as the former went to remove the franchise altogether, while the present transferred it to another place. It had been improperly compared to a bill of pains and penalties; it was, in fact, a bill of regulation. Besides, it was to be recollected, that nearly one-half the voters had been already convicted, who were now said to be put upon their trial, and that so far from awarding any punishment against individuals, by the bill, they had passed an act of indemnity to protect them in giving evidence to sustain a remedial law. A 152 party had desired to be heard by counsel, but there was no counsel on the other side: it was, therefore, necessary to consider how they should be heard. He did not object to the calling in of counsel; but it was impossible that their lordships could submit to be interrupted in their examination by counsel, or to bandy legal subtleties with professional men. Perhaps the most convenient course would be, to allow counsel to be present at the whole of the evidence, and then to call upon them for their defence. His lordship concluded with moving the order of the day for proceeding to the examination of witnesses on the bill.
§ Lord Ashburtonobjected to the Bill altogether, as it not only exercised the power of disfranchising one borough, but of transferring that franchise to another. If they resolved to disfranchise the rotten borough now under consideration, they did not know how soon they might be called upon to adopt the same proceeding with regard to other places; and when they reflected, that the House of Commons owed the introduction of some of its most distinguished members, among whom were the names of Pitt and Fox, to small boroughs, they ought to pause before they recognized a principle which might end in their extinction.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he could not agree to the mode of conducting the inquiry proposed by the noble lord; for whether they looked upon it in the light of a bill of Pains and Penalties or not, they had derived great advantage in a recent case, which was a bill of Pains and Penalties, from adhering to all the rules of evidence. The rule of evidence was, that counsel should be permitted to offer legal objections to any question; of course in doing so, they would observe the respect which was due to the House; but he had lived long enough to know, that in judicial proceedings, there was no man who did not stand in need of assistance. If, however, the House should object to the interference of counsel, he hoped they would excuse him if, in his anxiety to do justice, he submitted questions on behalf of the persons interested.
§ The Earl of Harrowbysuggested, that as it was proposed to hear counsel against the bill, it might be proper for the House to appoint counsel to argue in support of the bill.
The Earl of Rosslynobjected to the hearing of any counsel, as it would be the 153 means of postponing the examination of the witnesses until after the holydays.
§ Lord Erskinehoped the bill which had passed the other House, would have the most important effects; it would, he trusted, raise that House in the affections and confidence of the people.
The Marquis of Lansdownwas decidedly against calling in counsel on both sides, as the bill was wholly of a remedial nature.
The Earl of Rosslynthought, that counsel were not necessary to argue at ther lordships' bar the wisdom of a legislative measure.
§ It was agreed, that counsel should be called in to-morrow, for the purpose of proceeding on the examination of wit-nessess.