HL Deb 11 July 1834 vol 25 cc8-9
The Earl of Radnor

said, he had received a note from his noble friend (the Earl of Durham) who had undertaken the care of the Warwick Borough Bill, in which he stated, that owing to the indisposition of his lady, he could not attend the House, and therefore the noble Earl requested, that he would, in his absence, postpone the proceedings in that Bill. Having done so, he should take that opportunity to draw their Lordships' attention to another Bill, the Liverpool Freemen Disfranchisement Bill, which was now waiting for a second reading. The understanding was, that the latter should not be proceeded with till the Warwick Borough Bill should be finished. Now, as it was proposed to stay the proceedings with respect to that Bill for some time, he submitted to their Lordships whether, at the present late period, and under existing circumstances, it would be proper for him to go on with the other Bill. He would take that course which was most pleasing to the House.

The Lord Chancellor

said, the question was certainly one of great importance, and required much consideration. As to bringing it on, if the House pleased, he might say, as had once been said by a learned person when asked if he would please to move, that there was no pleasure at all in it. That, however, was an individual opinion, and for himself, he had no objection to go on with the Bill. Their Lordships ought, however, to recollect that they were, he would not say near the end of the Session, for then he should fall into the same error into which a noble baron had fallen the other day,—but that they were near the end of July, and it would take a very considerable time to discuss such a measure as this. There was, however, a very important Bill,—a Bill which was calculated to effect great improvements in the election system, in Committee up stairs—the Bribery Bill. The object of that Bill was to establish a just and convenient tribunal for the adjudication of cases of this nature. Now if, with the concurrence of the other House, that measure, which was now prospective (except with reference to the Carrickfergus case), could be made retrospective, would it not be better, if that were done, to reserve those two cases for the decision of that new tribunal? By taking that course, they would prevent loss of time, and be relieved from the evil of having three or four election cases at once under the consideration of the House.

Lord Ellenborough

was not quite clear, that the Bribery Bill, which was up stairs, could be got through this Session. Besides, he did not know that it would be expedient to say that they would refer certain cases to a tribunal which was not yet formed. He had no desire to proceed with the Stafford Bill this Session.

The Lord Chancellor

said, if the noble Baron dissented from his proposition, he (the Lord Chancellor) should at once retract his suggestion, and beg of his noble friend (the Earl of Radnor) to suppose that he had not made it. He was very willing to sit next week, and go on with either of the cases.

Lord Ellenborough

did not say, that this Bill ought not to go before that tribunal. He had merely doubted the propriety of declaring that offences which had been committed a long time ago should be brought before a judicature not yet established.

The order of the day for the second reading of the Warwick Borough Bill was discharged.

Back to