HL Deb 26 April 1830 vol 24 cc31-2

The Marquis of Salisbury moved the order of the day for the second reading of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill; and also that counsel and witnesses be called in.

Lord Durham

said, that the debate ought to precede the examination of witnesses.

The Marquis of Salisbury

said, the usual course was to hear the witnesses before the second reading.

The Earl of Rosslyn

concurred in this opinion, and counsel and witnesses were called in.

[Mr. Law, Mr. Adam, Mr. Alderson, and Mr. Stevenson, appeared as counsel at the Bar, and Richard Hannam was examined respecting his knowledge of the malpractices of the electors for the borough.]

Lord Durham

objected to the course of proceeding. No impropriety, as far as he could see by the examination which the case had already undergone in another place, could be charged against the present electors, but that they had suffered themselves to be treated; but that was the fault of the candidates. There were, he believed, but few Members of the House of Commons who had stood a contested election against whom the charge of treating might not be brought. He had been obliged, when he contested the county of Durham at an expense of 25,000l. to treat the freeholders. As this was the heaviest charge against the present electors, he should move, that counsel for the Bill be instructed to confine themselves to the cases of imputed bribery and corruption at the last general election. It appeared that the electors had then conducted themselves honourably and honestly; it would be wrong, therefore, to punish them for the crime of their ancestors.

The Marquis of Salisbury

maintained that it should be left to the discretion of counsel themselves, to decide on the course of proceeding which they might consider it most judicious to adopt with regard to the examination of witnesses.

The Earl of Malmesbury

said, that the merits of the case consisted in what took place at the last election, and therefore the corruption on that occasion ought to be proved first.

Lord Holland

thought, that they ought not to interfere with counsel. The most natural mode, he conceived, would be to commence with the rise of corruption in the borough, before they examined into any occurrences which had happened at subsequent elections, but that was a point for counsel to consider, who had the cause to manage, and not for their Lordships to control.

The House then divided: Content 12; Not content 23—Majority 11 against Lord Durham's Motion.

[The examination of Richard Hannam was about to be proceeded with, when the House, on the Motion of the Marquis of Salisbury, adjourned.]