Sitting of 22 June 1827

EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. Tennyson,in moving the second reading of the bill, said, that he had postponed it to that late period to allow time for the burgesses of East Retford to petition to be heard by counsel; but no such petition had appeared. There was a petition from the aldermen, containing a sort of protest, but not denying their participancy in the corruption, or praying to be heard. He did not propose to proceed further then, but wished for the second reading, as an assurance that the House would support him in the next session, and would not, in the mean time issue the writ to Retford. He should think it his duty to prepare himself with the local details connected with Birmingham, that would enable him to submit to the House, when parliament re-assembled, a bill with such provisions as would secure to that town the benefits of representation without the evils too frequently attendant upon it. He should provide for a summary mode of taking the poll; for a registration of votes to prevent disputes, and other matters, so as to preclude, if possible, the tumult, demoralization, delay, and expense which might otherwise convert what he intended for a highly beneficial privilege, into an infliction and a curse. All he
1376
now asked was, the second reading of the bill with the view he had stated; and if, when the subject was resumed, the burgesses of Retford wished to be heard, there would be ample time afforded.
Mr. Bankesopposed the further progress of the measure, on the ground that the case of corruption and bribery had not been sufficiently established. He objected, also, to the further suspension of the writ until the next session.
Mr. Dundasadverted to a petition from the electors, in which they prayed to be heard by counsel, and asserted their innocence.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that no reasonable doubt could be entertained of the corruption of the borough, and that a sufficient case had been made out for its disfranchisement.
Lord Lowtherrecommended, that the whole subject should be deferred until next session.
Mr. Wynnwas of opinion, that a prima facie uncontradicted case had been made out for reading the bill a second time. It had been brought in by order of the committee; and all that was intended this session was to fill up the blanks. It was highly proper that the question regarding the issue of the writ should also be postponed. If the writ were issued, it would, in fact, be deciding the question. Whether it should be given to Birmingham or thrown into the hundred, in case of the disfranchisement of East Retford, was another point.
Sir C. Wetherellcomplained that the bill had been printed with the town of Birmingham substituted for East Retford. It might hence be concluded out of doors, that the House had decided that point before it had even determined to disfranchise East Retford.
Mr. Fergussonagreed with the general object of the bill, but contended that the evidence already adduced was not sufficient. If the case opened were established, it was more gross than that of Penryn.
Mr. N. Calvertthought the case of general corruption quite sufficient, and that it was the duty of the House to confer the elective franchise on some place, where it would be exercised with more fidelity.
Sir C. Forbessaw no reason why the bill should be read even a second time, if it was intended afterwards to postpone it until next session. If they wanted to put

1377
an end to corruption, they ought to put the axe to the root of the tree, and begin with the corruptors. They should begin with reform among themselves. They ought, when they came to the hustings, and to the table of that House, to take an oath against bribery and corruption; and then they would see what sort of a House they would hate. He had ever set his face against cant, hypocrisy, and humbug, and he would still continue to do so. He further objected to transferring the franchise to Birmingham, as manufacturing towns were the very hot-beds of corruption.
Mr. J. Stuartsaid, that if the bill were read a second time, it would appear as if the House had pledged itself to transfer the franchise to Birmingham. Now, he was not prepared to say, even if East Retford were to be disfranchised, that the franchise should be transferred to Birmingham. He might think that it would be better to transfer it to one of the unrepresented Scotch counties, where there was neither bribery nor corruption. He would therefore move as an amendment, "That the bill be read a second time this day three months."
Mr. Rosssupported the second reading, since all the proper amendments might be made in the committee.
Mr. Wynnwould consent to the second reading, only in order to see what the proposition of the hon. mover was. But he wished to guard himself against giving any opinion as to the place to which the franchise should be transferred.
Mr. Fergusonwas desirous to guard himself against giving any opinion now as to what might be his ultimate conclusion, either as to the propriety of the disfranchisement of the borough, or the place to which the franchise should be transferred.
Mr. Bankessaw no use in allowing this bill to be read a second time just now, when it was well known that it could not stir another stage this session.
Sir C. Wetherellconcurred in that opinion. In such cases as the present, the bill ought to be read only a first time. It was improper to raise expectations in the inhabitants of Birmingham, which might be ultimately disappointed. There had been no discussion as yet, as to the place to which the franchise should be transferred, and he therefore did not think it proper that the bill should be read a second time with Birmingham inserted in it.
Mr. Tennysonin reply, observed, the he had introduced the bill transferring the franchise to Birmingham with tin deliberate sanction of the House. Manchester and Birmingham offered themselves as the most desirable cases for representation; and Manchester having been appropriated by a noble lord (J. Russell), he had adopted Birmingham; and having done so he could not and would not abandon it. The intelligence had been received at Birmingham with gratitude and satisfaction, and had created a great sensation there [hear, hear, from sir C. Wetherell] His learned friend cheered, but he begged to inform him, that the satisfaction and excitement he alluded to was amongst all the leading inhabitants of the place, as would appear from the copy of a requisition in his hand, signed by almost all the intelligent and wealthy merchants and manufacturers, by five bankers, and generally by gentlemen of importance at Birmingham. The requisition was for a public meeting, from which, no doubt, a petition would emanate, and be presented to the House before the prorogation. After this he should think he acted most unfairly if he consented to the substitution of any other place [hear, hear]; and if the transfer were to be made to a town, he saw no ground for change, for no place required distinct representation more than Birmingham. He wished for the second reading chiefly as a pledge from the House, that it would proceed with regard to East Retford in the next session; when he should move to re-introduce the bill. For the present session it would necessarily drop. As to the nature of the franchise to be established at Birmingham, it undoubtedly required great deliberation. He had applied himself diligently to the subject, but it was one for future consideration. His object was, to establish a franchise which would furnish a constituent body limited in point of numbers within convenient bounds; but one also which, comprising a portion from all classes, would bestow upon the mass of the inhabitants the satisfaction of feeling that they were represented, while at the same time due weight would be given to the commercial interests and property of the town. In the bill he had endeavoured to indicate a franchise with these qualities; and if it had been committed pro forma, he should, by filling up the blanks, have proposed a right to the inhabitant house-

1379
holders who had been resident for three years, rated for that period, and who had paid their rates.
The House divided: For the second reading of the bill 35; Against it 17; Majority 18. The bill was then ordered to be committed on that day fortnight, with the object of postponing the subject till the next session.

ABUSE OF CORPORATE FUNDS TO ELECTION PURPOSES.
Mr. Maberlyrose, to withdraw the notice of his intention to move a Resolution concerning the application of Corporate Funds to Election Purposes. His attention, he said, had been drawn to this subject, in consequence of the dictum which, he had been informed, had been pronounced, in another place, by a very learned personage; who had broadly declared, that corporate funds were, in every respect, private property, and might be legally used by the corporation for all purposes to which individuals might apply their property. It was evident if this dictum were correct, that the members of any corporation might meet and divide the corporate funds among themselves for their own private benefit. He had always understood that corporate funds were held in trust for corporate purposes, and could not legally be applied to any other object. The corporation acted as a trustee; and in that capacity alone. Would that House suffer corporations to apply their funds to election purposes, and in so doing overturn all their rights and privileges? He had intended to move a resolution to prevent this abuse; but considering the state of the House, he should waive his intention. He trusted that this notice would have the effect of guarding against these malversations. He could assure any corporation, that if they interfered with any election by misapplying the funds they held for corporate purposes, they might be called to the bar of the House, and visited with the just measure of its indignation. His observations were not directed to any corporation in particular; but he felt called upon to notice a handbill which had been circulated by the corporation of Northampton, in which some grave misrepresentations appeared respecting the proceedings in regard to a bill which had passed this House, and had been rejected by the other House, on this subject. Some unjust and groundless remarks had been made upon the conduct of
1380
his hon. relative (colonel Maberly) in this hand-bill; and he appealed to the members of the committee, whether they were not directly opposite to the truth. He recommended that corporation to mind what they were about, for he had understood that their charter was not quite secure, and that. it would be necessary to come to parliament for its confirmation. The funds were restricted by the terms of their charter to objects of "common utility," and he could not see how that phrase could justify their application to the returning of members to parliament. He should not press the resolution, but he hoped some steps would hereafter be taken to meet the evil.

CORN AVERAGES BILL.
Their lordships went into a committee on this bill.
Lord Farnhamsaid, he wished the averages of towns in Ireland and Scotland to be taken, and therefore intended to

1373
move, in order that he might be enabled to introduce the names of those towns into the bill, that the words "England and Wales" be omitted, and "Great Britain and Ireland" inserted. This amendment was necessary to give the real price of corn as sold by the grower. It was a great object to bring the true price before the public. In Scotland, when the price of grain was 66 s., persons complained that they could never get such in the market. He thought that this was a gross deception. He considered it was a most extraordinary measure, which placed in the king's government the power of raising or depressing the averages. The present bill was, he believed, intended to be the basis of a permanent measure, and he should therefore move, that certain towns in Scotland and Ireland be inserted in the bill.
Lord Goderichdid not see any conclusive objection to the principle of including Scotland and Ireland, but he thought there was a good objection to adopting the amendment in the present bill. This was intended as a permanent bill, but it was so intended in concurrence with another measure, which had not become law; and there would be a difficulty in introducing the amendment into the bill, except in concurrence with that other measure, as the law now stands. If Scotland and Ireland were introduced, it might have the effect of lowering the averages, and might materially affect the period at which, under the present law, the importation price would be reached. He thought it was unreasonable to introduce such a measure into this bill, seeing that the Corn-laws might be revised next session. It would have an effect on the present law not contemplated by those who framed it. He could not consent to introduce Scotland and Ireland into the present bill, and should oppose the amendment. It would be impossible to know what would be the effect of such an amendment.
The Earl of Malmesburysaid, that unless the proposed extension took place, it would almost be better not to persevere in the bill.
Lord Goderichsaid, he had no objection to drop it.
Lord Ellenboroughwas not disposed to conclude that the admission of Ireland and Scotland would tend to raise the averages. On reference to the returns of
1374
corn sold in the inland towns, he found that the amount did not exceed one million nine hundred thousand quarters per annum, making the sales per week amount to about thirty-five thousand quarters. If, therefore, those towns were included where a small quantity of corn was sold at a high price, it would not raise the averages more than 2s. per quarter. He was disposed to hope that the noble viscount would allow the amendment to pass; because it was important for them this year to ascertain really what the averages were.
The Earl of Harrowbyentered into a detail of the present mode of taking the averages, and urged the necessity of their lordships' agreeing to the proposed alteration. It was impossible to take the averages to the extent proposed by the amendment, unless an account was taken of every bushel of corn that was sold.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it was impossible that the averages, as proposed to be altered, could be made applicable to the bill now in progress elsewhere. The present Corn-law was that of 1822; the present averages were made applicable to that law, and the newly-proposed mode of taking the averages could not be made applicable to it. But, with a view to any entire permanent measure that might hereafter be introduced upon the subject of the Corn-laws, he thought it highly desirable that the fullest information should be furnished, as to the state of the b averages throughout the country. There would be less chance of fraud, by having that extensive knowledge which it was the object of the amendment to arrive at.
Lord Goderichsaid, he did not, on principle, see any great objection to extending the present mode of taking the averages to the inland towns of England and Wales, and, perhaps, subsequently to Ireland and Scotland; but he did not see the necessity of the immediate extension of it, as proposed by the amendment.
The Earl of Harrowbysuggested, whether it would be worth while to set on foot so expensive a system for so short a period, merely for the sake of experiment. The salaries of inspectors amounted to 70 l. or 80 l. per annum each, and would entail a great expense without affording any corresponding benefit.
The Earl of Belmorethought that, if the measure was extended to Ireland, it would only embarrass the system. It would be

1375
manifestly unjust that the price in the Irish markets should regulate the amount of duties in this country.
The Marquis of Salisburyconsidered the important point in this question was, to adopt that mode which would give the averages most correctly. He supported the amendment, and said that this was the proper time to make the experiment.
The question was then put, "that the words England and Wales do stand part of the clause." Upon which the House divided:—Content 44; Not-content 44. The chairman (the earl of Shaftesbury) gave his casting vote against the question; which was therefore negatived. The amendment was then put, that the words, "Great Britain and Ireland be inserted." Upon which another division took place: Content 37; Not-content 43; Majority against the amendment 6.
The effect of these two divisions is, therefore, to exclude every part of the united kingdom from the clause.