The Lord Chancellorwould call their Lordships attention to the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill. He believed most of their Lordships were aware that, on a former day, they had heard counsel at the Bar at length, and had proceeded to hear evidence in support of the preamble of the bill. Their Lordships had met at ten o'clock that morning to proceed with the evidence, and counsel had examined three witnesses, for the purpose of proving general acts of corruption and bribery: they were unsuccessful in producing any such testimony; the consequence was, that the Lords then present suggested to the counsel, if they had a case, that they should bring forward such witnesses as they thought they could rely on, and save the public expense; and at the same time an intimation was flung out that unless counsel thought they could make out a case of general corruption in the borough, it was not reasonable to suppose that the House would pass this 492 measure. It was also stated, that the House relied implicitly on the honour, the integrity, and the experience, of the learned counsel, whether they could, in their judgment, give the House reason to believe that the case could be made out; it was also said, that this intimation was not given with a view of stopping proceedings, but was only a suggestion. The counsel for the bill consulted for a short time, and then Mr. Austen the leading counsel, stated that he would not proceed further with the evidence. He was satisfied from all their inquiries and all the information they could obtain, that they had not reasonable ground to believe that they could make out a case of general corruption, and that, therefore, after the intimation of their Lordships, counsel would not proceed with the bill. The Lords then present thereupon thought it better not to proceed; and that the circumstance should be represented to a fuller House before any course was taken as to the second reading of this bill.
Lord Broughamonly wished to add one fact to the statement of his noble and learned Friend; the greatest possible facilities had been given to the parties to proceed, if they had a case; they were not taken by surprise, for it was intimated to the counsel that if they chose they need not give an answer that day, but wait to take time to consider; but having answered the first question in the negative, that they had not a case to prove of general bribery, counsel stated that they had no desire to proceed, that they had consulted upon the matter before, and this was their deliberate opinion. They were then asked if there would be any want of justice, or any inexpediency if the bill dropped? They thought not. After this their Lordships had but one course to take; the case was given up; the preamble had not been proved; and they had only to postpone the second reading till that day six months. They had no occasion to discuss the matter, it was now over, and he would at once move the postponement of the second reading of the bill for six months.
The Earl of Wicklowthought the noble and learned Lord had better give notice of his intention, especially as the noble Marquess who had the conduct of the bill (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was not present.
Lord Broughamhad no objection to 493 postpone the motion till to-morrow; it was clear that they ought not to delay the decision on this bill any longer.
§ Subject at an end.