HL Deb 10 May 1821 vol 5 cc626-33
The Earl of Carnarvon

rose to move the second reading of this bill. He was aware, he said, that many noble lords objected to the particular provisions of the bill, whilst others were hostile to the whole principle, not only of this bill, but of all measures of a remedial nature, growing out of the evidence given at the bar of the House. He would not, however, enter at any length on the general part of the question, because, by having already passed three acts of parliament of a similar nature to the present bill, and having entertained every bill of the kind which had been presented to them, their lordships would seem to have recognized the principle, that when the House of Commons sent up any such bill as the present, they Would hear evidence, for the purpose of regulating their conduct thereby. It would only be necessary, therefore, for him to endeavour to convince their lordships, that the evidence which had been given on the present occasion was sufficient to justify the passing of the bill. Those noble lords who might vote for the second reading of the bill would only pledge themselves to this—that some change was necessary to be adopted in the manner of exercising the elective franchise in particular parts of the country, either according to the words or the spirit of the present bill. None of the evidence which had been given in support of the bill had been impaired by opposing evidence. At the end of the last session, wo bills for the disfranchisement of Grampound and Penryn had been sent up to their lordships from the other House; which bills, after all the evidence in support of them had been gone through at the bar, were prevented from being passed by the prorogation of parliament. The noble earl opposite, however, had given it to be understood, that if either of those bills should be sent up from the Commons during the present session, it should be considered to stand on the same footing as when formerly before their lordships. In consequence of this understanding, he had thought it unnecessary to go into the evidence at the same length as on the former occasion. He could state, however, that the evidence on which the Commons had passed this bill was the same as that on which the former bills were founded. The noble earl here proceeded to take a review of the evidence which had been given before the House of Commons, in order to show that it was sufficient to authorize the adoption of the bill. It appeared that fifty out of sixty-three, the whole number of voters, had been in- fluenced in their votes by means of bribes given in the shape of loans, secured by notes of hand, which were cancelled at the end of the election. That the object of the notes was to bribe the voters could not be denied. It was also proved in evidence, that a person who had formerly been major of Grampound, had offered to procure a majority of votes upon receiving the sum of 7,000l. He had stated these facts to show what had been the general practice of the borough. For this enormous evil the bill provided the most expedient remedy, by increasing the number of suffrages, and extending them to another species of voters. In legislating for the particular case of Gram-pound, it became their lordships to take a wider view of the question of transfer contained in the bill, and to consider, whether it did not afford a remedy for the evil, if the right of election were given to populous towns. It had been mistakenly said, that Cornwall possessed an undue share of the representation; but the fact was, that though Cornwall had hitherto returned a large number of members through these boroughs, the persons chosen were not connected with that county; they were, in reality more the representatives of Manchester and other great trading or manufacturing towns; but if the system of confining the representation to the hundred prevailed, the objection to the state of the representation of Cornwall would then be well founded; for in that case, when other boroughs in the same manner came under the animadversion of parliament, instead of the representation being distributed, as it ought, over the different classes of which the community was composed, the only result would be that of introducing thirty or forty more Cornish gentlemen into the House of Commons. He was not prepared to say that the existing balance of the constitution was the best that could possibly be constructed; but of this he was certain, that no better had ever been tried, or as yet suggested. To give security to a system, it was necessary that it should be pure; and he was therefore most desirous to remove all those blots and anomalies which disgraced the constitution. This, it was obvious, could only be done by timely and prudent reforms. Where, he would ask, was the point at which human institutions ought to stand, still? Since the beginning of the world every thing had been subject to change. No proceeding took place in the legislature which did not, in some degree, alter the state of the constitution. Every inclosure bill their lordships passed had an effect on the existing state of society. The prerogatives of the Crown were daily altering. Was the state of the Crown or of the House of Commons the same as it was a century ago? If their lordships really wished to preserve the practicable identity of the constitution, they must be content to do it by renovation. When all was changing around us, why should one part of our institutions alone remain unchangeable? He was not one of those who wished to innovate on nothing but hopes; neither did he fear to touch the constitution, lest the whole should crumble into ruins. He wished to see direct representation extended to a few of our commercial towns, and those boroughs which had abused their elective franchise, made use of to give it to others.

The Lord Chancellor

said he would not have risen to offer a word on the present occasion, had it not appeared that the noble earl considered the House pledged to entertain this bill. He therefore felt himself bound to state, that he reserved to himself the right of discussing the principle of the measure, and that he conceived that their lordships were not pledged to any thing by the examination of witnesses, or by any step which had yet been taken.

The Earl of Westmorland

objected to the bill, both on account of the injustice of its principle, and because it tended to secure indemnity for future offences of the kind of that which it was intended to punish. For when persons who had acted honestly at an election, should find that for giving assistance in bringing the guilty to punishment, they were to be deprived of their own rights, they would no longer be disposed to yield that assistance, without which guilt could not be proved, and corruption might be carried on to any extent without a check. The principle of the measure was inconsistent with the British constitution, and in direct violation of Magna Charta. He contended that no corruption had been charged against thirty-two of the Grampound electors: that the innocent ought not to be punished for the guilty; and that the part of the bill which related to the disfranchisement of Grampound ought not to pass into a law.

The Earl of Liverpool

wished briefly to state the grounds on which he should vote for the second reading of the bill. Whether his opinion were right or wrong, It was one which he had long entertained: for although in the second session in which he had sat in the other House he had opposed the general plan of reform brought forward, he had supported a bill for removing the elective franchise from Stock-bridge. He considered the right of election as a public trust, granted, riot for the benefit of the individual, but for the public good. He admitted, at the same time, that it was attended with great advantages to the individuals by whom it was enjoyed; and that was the reason why he could never vote, for the disfranchise of any place on grounds of expediency alone. But, if a case of abuse were proved, on the part of those whom it was intended to disfranchise, then he could have no hesitation in giving his vote. The elective franchise had no analogy to the right of property, though it had some to the rights of their lordships as peers; because they sat in that House, not for their own benefit, but for that of the public, and might be deprived of those rights if they were abused. The same principle might be applied to a borough. If it hall abused its trusts by gross corruption, parliament was authorised to deprive it of the exercise of its rights hereafter. The only difference was, that in one case the deprivation would apply to an individual alone, and in the case of the borough, to the whole; the act of a corporate body being for good or bad the act of the whole. If the question were, whether a case of abuse had been made out, on that ground, alone he should vote for the second reading of the bill; for, if ever a case of general and systematic corruption had been proved against any borough, it was against the borough of Grampound. He had opposed the bill for disfranchising Barnstaple, because he had not considered the case established to a sufficient extent to justify such a measure. But if ever corruption had been exposed, it was in the present instance.—The usual practice had hitherto been not to transfer the elective franchise, but to extend it to the hundred. In the cases in which that had been done, he had highly approved of the enactment; and if he should adopt a different course on this occasion, it should be only because he did not think that the same remedy would apply. The situation of Grampound made it impossible to throw that borough open to the hundred without great inconvenience. It was well known that Cornwall abounded with boroughs; but, though there were more boroughs in Cornwall than in any other county, there were not more Cornish members in the House. To throw open those boroughs to the hundreds, would be to make that which was only an evil in theory, one in reality; for it would make the representation more local, and exclude persons from other parts of the country from a participation in it. At the same time, he had a great objection to one part of the remedy proposed. If the elective franchise were transferred to Leeds, the qualification would be arbitrary; for there was no fixed principle on which it could be formed. Some would go on the ground of property, whilst others would be for giving it to all householders, a system of which he had seen too much, not to have discovered the evils which resulted from it, and how liable it was to that very species of corruption which it was the intention of the present measure to punish and prevent. Neither could he approve of a very limited qualification, as it would give an obnoxious character to the bill. He thought it would therefore be better to have recourse at once to broad and fixed principles, which could be done by giving two additional members to the populous county of York. So many difficulties attended the transfer of the elective franchise to Leeds, that he did not see his way out of them; but if two members were added to the representation of Yorkshire, the House would then take and transfer the right of election as it found it, without the necessity of creating any fresh rules or qualifications. But, should their lordships object both to Leeds and to Yorkshire, there was another course which might be still more beneficial. Parliament might, after disfranchising Grampound, authorize his majesty, through the exercise of his prerogative, to order that two members should be returned for any place which he might think proper, or to revive an old borough. The last borough which had been created, that of Newark, had been created by the royal prerogative. This course would obviate most of the difficulties in which the subject was involved, at the same time that it would be perfectly consistent with ancient usage. When a corporation had forfeited its charter, there was nothing to prevent the Crown from reviving that charter, and granting it to another body. The course to which he had alluded would be the same, and he conceived, more unobjectionable than that now proposed. Should it be decided that the prerogative of the Crown should be exercised, the first thing to be done, would be, to select some populous town, and to grant it a charter of corporation, as similar as circumstances would allow to those of our ancient corporate cities. He should only add, that he should feel it his duty, in the committee, to propose that the elective franchise be transferred to the county of York instead of the town of Leeds.

The Earl of Lauderdale

maintained that no case of general corruption had been established against the Grampound electors, for that out of fifty electors who had been accused, there were thirty-two against whom there had been no charge whatever. To punish the innocent for the acts of the guilty would be a most unjust and mischievous system of legislation.

The Marquis of Lansdown

regarded the bill as calculated to command their lordships assent, from the importance of the principle of moderate reform which it involved, and which would tend to perpetuate the constitution, by investing it with the respect and confidence of the people. He was fully convinced, that if the law and constitution of the country recognised the representation of the people in parliament, through the means of corporate bodies, every individual belonging to those corporate bodies must be content to share their fate, and submit to the consequences of their general delinquency. With respect to what had fallen from the noble earl opposite, as to the expediency of leaving the Crown to select the place for which the members should be returned, he begged to protest most distinctly against being involved in any assent to such a proposition. Whether such a course would be conformable or not with ancient usage, he had no hesitation in saying, that since the Union with Scotland and Ireland, it would be a complete innovation upon all that made up the modern practice of the constitution. Though he should prefer granting the right of election to Leeds; yet, should he find the sense of the House against that provision, he would not oppose the transfer proposed by the noble earl opposite, to the county of York.

The Earl of Liverpool

never meant that the Crown should have the right of creating new boroughs. What he proposed was, that after the disfranchisement of a borough took place, it should be the power of the Crown to declare to what unrepresented town or borough the right of election should be transferred.

The bill was then read a second time.