Lords Sitting of 18 March 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Sugar Duties.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of UXBRIDGE, from Dissenting Congregations of Holyhead, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of LANSDOWNE and Lords DURHAM and WHARNCLIFFE, from Dissenting Congregations—for Relief to the Dissenters.

WARWICK BOROUGH BILL.
Lord Wynfordpresented a Petition from certain electors of the borough of Warwick, against the Bill for preventing bribery and corruption in elections for that borough. They complained that the Bill proceeded on an unfair principle, inasmuch as only twenty-one cases of corruption had been proved, in a constituency of 1,300. They, therefore, prayed their Lordships that the Bill should not be allowed to pass into a law, and that they might be heard at the Bar of the House against it. He conceived that the prayer of the petition was just and reasonable, and ought to be attended to.
The Earl of Durhamcould not agree with the noble and learned Lord in the opinion which he seemed to have formed on this subject. To understand the question rightly, it was absolutely necessary, that their Lordships should know what had taken place in the other House with reference to this borough. If the proceedings before the other House were examined, it would appear very plainly, that the petitioners were not entitled to be heard at their Lordships' Bar. The same parties who now petitioned the House, had previously been heard by the Committee of the other House, having caused a petition to be presented for that purpose. Witnesses had been heard in support of its allegations, and the Committee had reported, that they were guilty of such gross prevarication, that no reliance could be placed on their statements. They then demanded to be heard at the Bar of the other House; but their application was refused, and the Bill was carried almost unanimously. The question was, whether under these circumstances, an examination into the facts of the case should be instituted before their Lordships. Were they
356
to run the risk of a sort of conflict with the House of Commons, and incur an expense of 9,000 l. or 10,000 l. for the purpose of enabling individuals to prove before their Lordships, that which had already been proved by the evidence brought under the consideration of the House of Commons?
Lord Wynfordsaid, the real question for their Lordships' decision was, whether the petitioners, who complained of a grievance, were to be heard by counsel at their Lordships' Bar or not? He would put it to every noble Lord in that House, whether a Bill of this kind had ever been passed, without a previous inquiry having been instituted with respect to the alleged facts? He was certain, that the noble Earl could point out no precedent of the kind. The noble Earl had alluded to the possibility of a conflict arising between that House and the House of Commons, if their Lordships prosecuted the inquiry which the petition called for. No man could more anxiously wish than he did to avoid such a conflict; but certainly, he would not consent to do so at the expense of the honour and dignity of that House. Never had a case occurred of a borough disfranchised, or new electors added to its constituency, in which their Lordships had simply acted on the report of the other House of Parliament. It was their duty to see with their own eyes, and to decide by their own knowledge. Even in the case of Grampound, where it was found that every Magistrate in the place was corrupt, their Lordships did not proceed merely on what had occurred in the other House.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas of opinion, that the Reform Bill afforded to the noble and learned Lord a very sufficient precedent. Many boroughs were disfranchised by that Bill, but no inquiry took place at their Lordships' Bar on the subject. He thought, with humble deference to the noble and learned Lord, that they were justified in proceeding with this Bill, without hearing counsel or witnesses at the Bar. It should be borne in mind, that there never was a case in which petitioners came before their Lordships under circumstances similar to the present. In his opinion, it would be nothing more than an immense and unnecessary waste of time and money to hear the petitioners by counsel at the Bar.
The Marquess of Salisburywas sur-

357
prised to hear the Reform Bill quoted as a precedent on this occasion. The cases were entirely dissimilar. There was nothing in the Reform Bill, which proceeded on public grounds, that could be adduced as a reason for depriving a body of electors of their rights. Nothing, he conceived, could be more unjust, than to disfranchise a borough on account of the errors of a few electors. He would call on their Lordships to give the parties interested a fair opportunity of being heard. He hoped that their Lordships would not depart from the precedent which had obtained in various other cases, when interference with the elective franchise of different boroughs became the subject of their Lordships' proceedings.
Lord Wynfordwished the noble Earl to state on what day he meant to move the second reading of the Bill, because on that day he should move that the petitioners be heard by counsel at the Bar.
The Earl of Durhamsaid, he did not wish that this question should be made merely a matter of debate between the noble and learned Lord and himself. He was anxious to know what course Ministers meant to pursue on this occasion; and the more especially, because this was the first of five or six Bills of a similar description, which were coming up from the other House of Parliament. He might here be allowed to observe, that the present Bill was not brought in for the purpose of disfranchising a single individual. It only added to the existing body of electors, a class of persons who were resident in the neighbourhood of the borough. In point of fact, the Bill did not disfranchise any one person. The number of electors would be extended; but so far as the constitutional exercise of their right was concerned, it did not affect the old electors at all. He wished Ministers to declare what course of proceeding seemed to them to be most advisable? He wished also to learn what the opinion of their Lordships was on this subject. Did the House intend to hear witnesses at the Bar? Did they intend to incur all this additional expense for the purpose of obtaining that evidence orally, which at that moment was printed, and lying before them? Would they throw away 9,000 l. or 10,000 l. to arrive at that information which had been already afforded to them by the House of Commons? He objected to these parties being heard before the
358
House; but, if their Lordships determined to hear evidence, he, on his part, should be ready to make out a case that would clearly prove the necessity of proceeding with the second reading of the Bill.
Earl Greysaid, it was not his intention to enter into the question whether or not satisfactory evidence had been given with respect to the alleged bribery and corruption at the late Warwick election; neither would he offer any opinion as to the means of correcting the evil complained of, whether by extending the franchise, or by adopting any other course. He should also abstain from any inquiry into the precedents which might be drawn from the mode of proceeding that had been adopted in similar cases. The present was not a fitting opportunity for discussing those points. On the question which now immediately occupied their Lordships' attention, he could only say, that it was a matter of very grave and serious consideration to that House to reflect whether, in a case which must in a great degree be decided upon by them in their judicial capacity, they could proceed to punish individuals, without hearing them in their defence. This, he repeated, was a matter of very grave consideration. He would not at that moment give his opinion on the question; but, he would state in his judicial capacity, what that opinion was, when the subject came regularly before them. He had thought it right to say so much on this point; but it was not for that purpose that he had risen. His noble friend had called on the members of that House to state their opinion, and more particularly in one part of his speech, he had called on his Majesty's Ministers to state what course they meant to take. Now, he disclaimed any particular feeling on the subject; because he considered this question as coming judicially, and in no other manner, before their Lordships. He, therefore, felt no more interest in it than any other member of that House. It was not for him, as Minister, to point out any mode of proceeding which he might consider more or less expedient. As an individual member of that House, he should be ready to give his opinion at the proper time; but he did not feel that it formed any part of his official duty to make such a communication.
The Earl of Durham, would not, after what had fallen from his noble friend, press the matter further. On former oc-

359
casions, however, when similar measures were before the House, Ministers had taken a very active part. Thus, in the case of East Retford, it was well known that the noble Duke then at the head of his Majesty's Government, he might almost say, superintended the proceedings, and stated to the House what was the course which, in his opinion, it was most proper to adopt. He had, therefore, thought, that as a matter of form, his Majesty's Government might offer some statement on this occasion.

JUDGMENTS IN EXECUTION.
Lord Wynford Lord Wynford moved the second reading of the English and Irish Judgments Bill.
The Marquess of Westmeaththought the Bill vicious in principle, and that it ought not to be allowed to proceed further. He, perhaps, should be told, that the Bill gave no right to creditors which they did not at present possess. That might be the case; but still he maintained that the Bill would give encouragement to parties to obtain by sinister means what they might now obtain by a straightforward course. He believed that the provisions of the Bill were entirely unknown to the practitioners of the law in Dublin; and he put it to their Lordships, whether it would be wise, at a time when the question of the Repeal of the Union was agitated, to irritate these parties by an enactment which had the appearance of an attempt to deprive them unfairly of a portion of their practice, by transferring it to London? He thought the noble and learned Lord would do well to postpone the second reading of this Bill, until the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was able to attend in his place.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas favourably disposed towards the Bill, because he believed, that it would have the effect of inducing persons of property to send their capital to Ireland, but he objected to the ex-post-facto character of the measure. For instance, he believed that existing creditors would, by the Bill before the House, have an advantage over their debtors, which, by the present law, they did not possess. He wished the Bill to be postponed, in order that the opinion of Irish lawyers might be had on it.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the law in Ireland was the same as the law in England, and consequently English lawyers were as able as Irish lawyers to judge of the merits of the Bill, It would inflict
360
no hardship upon existing debtors—it would not make them pay more than they owed, but would in reality save them money by altering the process of proceeding. The Bill was well known in Ireland, and, under these circumstances, he saw no reason for postponing the second reading.
The Bill was read a second time.