GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. (Hansard, 14 May 1821)

The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that previously to the order of the day being read, he had to submit a proposition to their lordships, which was, that a committee should be appointed to report the names of the mayor, aldermen, and freemen of the corporation of Grampound, distinguishing those against whom evi- 694 dence of bribery had been given, from those against whom no evidence had been given. He thought if their lordships had fairly considered the case, they never could have been induced to vote for the second reading of this bill, which appeared to him one of the most unjustifiable measures ever assented to by parliament. He would not dwell on the singularity of the case. The bill did not act on any case of corruption which had taken place at the last election, or at the one previous to the last, but it went as far back as the 1st of Feb. 1816. He was ready to admit, that all those electors who had been proved to have received money ought to be considered as corrupt. But, according to the evidence on which the bill professed to proceed, it appeared that, of the persons against whom evidence had been given, only 19 possessed the right of voting, whilst there remained 25 electors against whom not a tittle of evidence had been given. Since 1816, seven new freemen had been added to the corporation, so that the number of un-impeached electors amounted to 32. Certainly, a more extraordinary principle never was acted on than that of making these innocent individuals suffer for the misconduct of others. It was said that the bill was not a bill of pains and penalties; but for his part he could not see the least distinction between this bill and a bill lately under the consideration of their lordships, which he had heard abused and reprobated as destructive of the constitution in stronger terms than he had ever known to be applied to a parliamentary measure. He contended, that the elective franchise was vested in the freemen of Grampound, for the same object for which the privileges of the illustrious lady who was to have been affected by the bill to which he had just alluded were conferred upon her, namely, the public good. He had heard it said that the people, in their present state of suffering, were most anxious that some improvement should take place in the state of the representation. He, however, did not believe this to be the case. He was once an earnest parliamentary reformer himself; but the moment he changed his opinion on that subject, he was just as violent on the other side. And here he would observe, that he should consider himself the most despicable of human beings, if he did not avow any conscientious change of opinion 695 on political subjects, and state the grounds upon which such change proceeded. The people were suffering under grievances which had no relation to the state of the representation; but they were ready to grasp at any object which was held out to them as the cause of their misery. Many persons, in both Houses, had talked of the benefits that would result from reform; but he believed, if the people were canvassed from one end of the kingdom to the other, the great majority would be found to consider Mr. Hunt a better judge of the subject than any of its parliamentary advocates. The present measure, if carried through parliament, would not satisfy the reformers; it would only have the effect of making them pursue their schemes with increased energy. His lordship concluded with moving, that the proposed committee be appointed.

The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he never was a parliamentary reformer in the abstract, but when a case of gross corruption in the exercise of the elective franchise was made evident, he would always approve of the principle which parliament had frequently adopted, and vote in favour of a measure to prevent the recurrence of the evil. The noble earl, after stating that there were forty-one corrupt electors in the borough, arid only thirty-two uncorrupt, concluded by expressing his opposition to the motion.

The Lord Chancellor
said, that the present bill was completely irreconcileable with the law and constitution of this country. Other measures of a similar nature had been founded on mistaken notions of the law and constitution. It had been contended, that the bill was not a bill of pains and penalties, or an ex post facto law; but, in his opinion, it was both to every intent and purpose. If their lordships meant to act justly, they could not apply this bill to Grampound without passing an act to tell the whole country, that the law with respect to bribery was completely changed. What was a bill of pains and penalties if the present, which inflicted on innocent men the punishment due only to the guilty, was not one? and a severer punishment too than the law had provided even for the guilty. The rights of individuals ought never to be visited on corporations. This was a principle which had always been acted on in the courts below. The right of voting was given to the corporation, but the benefit belonged 696 to individuals. Upon this principle lie was of opinion, that if any of the freemen of Grampound had been prevented from voting at the late elections, they could have brought actions for pecuniary damages, on the ground, net of trust, but of interest. What would be the effect of the bill in a moral point of view? Would it not afford ground for a corrupt majority to say to the other electors, "why do you continue uncorrupt; we can only be disfranchised for being guilty, and you will also be disfranchised for being innocent?" Believing that the motion of the noble lord would produce much useful information, he would give it his support.

The Earl of Liverpool
wished to say a few words on the question before the House, because he believed it was proposed for the purpose of defeating the object of the bill. He would not enter into the question whether the bill was a bill of pains and penalties or not. If he found that bills of pains and penalties had been recognised by the constitution, it would be only necessary to consider whether a bill of that nature would apply to the present case. The elective franchise was conferred on the corporation, not for the benefit of individuals, but as a public trust; and when parliament should be of opinion that this trust was abused, it became their duty to withdraw it. The privileges possessed by the corporation of Grampound stood on the same footing with the privileges of their lordships. If any peer were found guilty of gross corruption in the discharge of his public duties, he might be deprived of his rights; and this had been done. He might be told that in such a case the guilty alone was punished, and not the innocent. But the principle was the same where a body acted by the majority, and where the reform applied to the majority. In former cases parliament had given to the uncorrupt electors the right, of voting in the hundreds. If it should be thought necessary, a proposition to that effect might be made in the committee on the bill. His noble friend objected to all bills of this nature. The doctrine of his noble friend would prevent parliament from adopting any remedial measure, in a case where only two or three electors might remain uncorrupt out of several hundreds. It was his decided opinion that where systematic corruption was proved against a borough, some remedy should be applied. He stated this without reference to the number of electors which a 697 place might contain; and, in the present case, was convinced that the remedy could not be found by throwing the borough into the hundred. One of the greatest advantages possessed by the constitution was, the variety which occurred in the nature of election, by which every class of the community was fairly represented; but the extending the right of voting for the borough of Grampound to the adjoining hundred, instead of promoting, would counteract that end. He proceeded on no theoretical view. The true rule of conduct, in questions of this kind was, never to reform on speculation; but when any part of the elective system was found corrupt, to take means to correct it. When an evil was clearly proved to exist, nothing could be worse than shutting the door against the remedy. He supported the present bill, not because he was a parliamentary reformer, but because he was an enemy to all plans of general reform. He would make no alteration on theoretical principles, but he would never refuse to pay due attention to any case of abuse which might arise. Their lordships had already recognised the principle of this bill by having passed several bills for a similar object; and they had now to consider whether it was fit for them to retrace their steps. If they refused to proceed with the bill, it could not be because the case was one which deserved to be treated with less severity than others, for no worse case of corruption had ever occurred. He therefore thought that their lordships ought to go into the committee.

§ Earl Bathurst
said, he opposed the bill because it enacted the complete disfranchisement of Grampound, and did not, as had been done in other cases, throw the borough into the hundred. He preferred extending the right of election to the hundred, because that was not extinguishing the borough; but, in the present case, nothing less than extirpation was intended, and what was taken from one place was to be given to another; an advantage was to be conferred on persons who hitherto had not possessed it. The principle thus acted on was calculated to open a door to parliamentary favour and jobbing. To give the selection of the places to be represented to the Crown, was an arrangement which might be attended with dangerous consequences. Of the two modes of transfer which had been suggested, that of giving two additional members to the county of York was the best, because it 698 created no new right of voting. He how ever objected to the bill altogether.

§ Lord Redesdale
objected to the measure as tending to establish the principle, that population was the scale for representation. This principle would lead to the system adopted by the National Convention of France, and might be so used as to destroy our present institutions.