Sitting of 28 May 1827

WOOL. TRADE.
Mr. Portmanpresented a petition from the Wool-growers of Dorsetshire. The hon. member entered into a statement of the past and present condition of the wool-growers. He observed, that they had, at that moment. in their warehouses, a stock equal to three years' produce, without the slightest hope of a market. Since the chancellor of the Exchequer had reduced the duty on foreign wool, there had been, in one year, no less than forty-three million, eight hundred and thirty-seven thousand pounds
1036
imported into this country. This enormous quantity, united with the increasing production of the country, rendered the case of the farmers almost hopeless; although, he believed, there had been a very great increase for some time in the demand. From 1824, when the first alteration took place in the duty, clown to the present time, wool had fallen in price from twenty-two pence to ten-pence, at which price he believed it to be at this moment. It would be impossible for the landlords to meet the heavy demands made upon them in the way of taxation, unless agricultural produce was encouraged in a corresponding degree to that bestowed upon manufactures. With the low price of corn which they would have to encounter, and the low prices of other articles of agricultural produce, it behoved the new ministry to take into their consideration the best mode of affording the agriculturists such relief, as would enable them to meet the burthens imposed upon them. Much of the support given to the present administration arose from an expectation, that due attention would be paid to the agricultural interests.
Mr. Huskissondid not think it necessary, after the judicious opening of the hon. gentleman, to detain the House long upon this subject. The hon. gentleman had very fairly stated, that he attributed the existing depression to the inordinate importation of 1825, and to the reduction in the duty on foreign wool. He (Mr. Huskisson), however, looked to another source for the distress of the wool-growers, and that was the pressure on that manufacture, of which the article of wool formed the raw material. Now, if the pressure arose from that cause, it would be an odd way—he had almost said an Irish way—of attempting to remove it, by raising the price of the raw material. Yet, this was the remedy proposed by the petitioners. The progress of the present depression was easily traced. In 1825 there was a great importation of the article of wool. This led to a stagnation in the home market—the invariable consequence of a glut; hence proceeded a fall in prices, and the subsequent distress of the growers. And this distress, he was confident, they would considerably aggravate, if they were to take away the only chance which the wool-growers had of an improvement; namely, the foreign demand for the manufactured article. It could not he questioned, that

1037
such a consequence would result from any measure tending to place the British manufacturer in a state more unfavourable to competition than he was in at present. In 1825 there was a combination of causes, which led to the unfavourable result of that year. The extravagant speculations, not only in wool, but in every other article of commerce, were such, that it was not to be wondered at, that such an enormous importation should have taken place, as to produce stagnation in the market, and subsequent low prices. But it was not only in wool that this fall of prices had occurred. He had been looking over a table of the prices of different articles, only that morning—and the reductions he found to be upon cotton, since 1825, from ls. 6½d. to 7d.; sugar from 45 s. to 30 s.; silk from ls. 5d. to 11 d.; tobacco and other articles in proportion. The present was not, in his opinion, a proper opportunity for inquiring into the grounds to which those fluctuations might be traced; nor of investigating the causes which at one moment had led to the extension of particular manufactures, and at another had almost occasioned their annihilation. This depression (which was now clearing off) was not confined to one branch of raw material, but was observable in all those with which the manufactures of this country were concerned. Now, he apprehended that the same causes which operated to lessen the value of other articles used in manufactures, must have equally affected wool; and, when they ceased, the value of the raw material would be proportionally improved. In 1819, a duty of 6d. per pound had been laid on the importation of wool. Before that time, seventeen million pounds were annually imported. After 1819, the duty continued pretty nearly the same up to a recent period, and the manufacturers complained, that they were daily losing their export trade, and that many branches in which there had previously been a considerable demand, were declining, in consequence of those duties; that they were, in fact, undersold by the manufacturers abroad. The answer made to these representations was this—"If you will consent to a free export of wool of British growth, we will reduce this duty on the importation of that article." In 1824, that argument prevailed. After some discussion in the House of Commons, the then chancellor of the Exchequer succeeded in effecting
1038
his object. Here it might be proper to observe, that between 1819, when the duty of 6d. was imposed, and 1824, when it was modified, the price protected by that duty of 6d. was not a high price, but a price which continued to decline. From 1819 to 1824, the price was constantly declining; but in 1825 it rose again, as indeed every article did at that period. In 1826, the price was once more depressed; and it now remained as low as it was in. 1824. But, though it was now depressed in value, as compared with 1825, its present price was considerably superior to that of 1819. Wool was 11 s. per tod in 1819, and it was now from 23 s. to 24 s. per tod. The hon. member for Calling-ton (Mr. Baring) seemed to think, that long wool only had been subject to the jealous interference of the legislature; but he could assure the hon. member, that, up to a late period, the severe penalties of the law were directed against short wool. The reason of the immense growth of wool abroad was this:—foreigners found that their corn was excluded from this country, and, anxious to procure British manufactures, they applied themselves to the production of that article which they thought they could most readily exchange for those manufactures. With that view, large flocks of sheep were encouraged; and there was, at this moment, four or five times more Merino wool raised in Germany than was ever before known. It was this change of system that mainly contributed to the depression of the price of short wool. That price was unquestionably very low at present. It was low in comparison with that of long wool; but long wool now commanded a price double that which it fetched some years ago; and he thought that any interference with the duty now would have the effect of depriving this country of a considerable foreign trade. In proof of this he should read an extract from the last letter received by the Board of Trade from Mexico. It was dated the 21st of December, and contained the following passage:—"The imports from Europe are chiefly confined to silk, linen, cotton and woollen manufactures. The silks are imported from France—the linens from Germany—the woollens principally from England and the United States. France also furnishes a considerable quantity of linen. Some branches of the English cloth-trade has declined, as the French

1039
are able to undersell us, in consequence of the cheapness of the raw material; but the English broad-cloths have a decided advantage. In that line, the French cannot enter into a competition with us." Now, what would be the consequence if they increased the price of that species of wool which entered into the composition of every sort of cloth? Would they not thereby deprive themselves of the portion of this foreign trade which they now possessed? The facts which he had stated were, he thought, sufficient to show the impolicy of placing any additional duty on wool. Looking to the price of wool in 1825, and at present, the duty was equal to twenty per cent. He recollected, in 1825, when the British merchants went "wool-gathering" in every part of Europe, such was their eagerness to purchase that commodity, that the manufacturers on the continent, not only did not buy in competition with them, but actually sold to them the wool which they originally intended to have manufactured themselves. The wool came to this country at double its ordinary price, and it soon fell fifty per cent below that ordinary price. It was impossible to prevent this spirit of speculation in a free country like ours. All they could do was to lament a system which produced such unfortunate results. With respect to the duty imposed on the importation of foreign wool into France, it was undoubtedly very considerable. Their course was this—a heavy duty was laid on the wool imported, and an account was opened between the officers of government and the importer. A drawback greater than the amount of the duty was allowed to the importer, if he proved satisfactorily that he had exported woollen goods equal in value to the quantity of wool which he had imported. This system might answer in France; but it certainly would not suit the complicated machinery of the trade of this country. On the contrary, it would create endless confusion and embarrassment. When they considered the varied manufactures of this country, in which a little foreign wool was mixed with that of English growth, it must appear impossible that such a system could be adopted here. At the same time, he did not mean to condemn that policy with respect to France. He would remind the House, that France and the Netherlands were running this country very hard, with reference to woollen manufactures; and, therefore, if heavy duties were laid on the
1040
raw material, it would be giving those countries a great advantage over England. It was clear that such a proceeding must injure the grower, who must of necessity suffer, if the manufacturer could not purchase. It would be the means of depriving the labourer and the industrious artisan of this country of that employment and remuneration, which his exertions deserved. He would tell those who were interested in the success of agriculture, that that system best deserved their support, which gave steady, constant, and full, employment to the labourer, and which afforded him good and sufficient wages. It was with a view to the establishment of that system, that the government was now acting; and, by properly following it up, they would do infinitely more to promote the agriculture of the country, than by any artificial attempt to force production beyond the fair limits of demand.
Colonel Daviesreprobated the petition, as originating in the selfishness of a class seeking to place upon others the burthens which they ought to bear themselves.
Mr. Calcraftdid not concur in the prayer of the petition; but, he must say, that he believed his gallant friend was the only member who would assert, that the petition deserved reprobation. His gallant friend reprobated the petitioners because they called for an additional tax on wool, which they conceived would serve their interests. They, however, were not singular in that. The fact was, that every class of persons was so heavily taxed in this country, that each man was endeavouring to throw his own burthen on the shoulders of his neighbour. With respect to the price of wool in Dorsetshire, he would contend that there was no price. The growers could not sell the article at present; and that at a time when they had the expectation of another crop coming on their hands. Still, he knew not how they could be assisted. This was but cold comfort; but he was persuaded, that the individuals most interested would be more satisfied to hear the fact, than to have any delusion practised upon them.
Mr. G. Bankessaid, it would have been more considerate on the part of his gallant friend, if he had waited till the petition was read, before he passed so decided a censure on the petitioners. If he had waited, he was sure his censure would have fallen more lightly. He could not but regret that an hon. member had made any

1041
allusion to the political changes which had recently taken place. He thought the present was not a fit opportunity for such observations. When the hon. member expressed his sentiments with respect to those whom he denominated seceders from the administration, he had heard his observations with the utmost regret. He had spoken of those seceders as individuals who had become odious to the country—as having fattened on the produce of the land. These accusations had raised feelings in his mind more painful than he had experienced on any preceding occasion. The petitioners had a right to complain that the hon. member had accompanied that document with reflections on those to whom the county of Dorset was under the deepest obligations. The petitioners in point of weight and property, were entitled to the respect and attention of the House. They had not, on all occasions, been visiting parliament with feverish complaints, and besetting the throne with fancied grievances. They had not got up addresses, first, to a supposed injured queen, and next to a supposed ill-advised king. He denied that the formation of a new government was any reason for not entering upon this question. If a delay had been occasioned in forming that government, the inconvenience arising from it ought not to be visited on the people.
Lord Miltonsaid, he would not make any remarks on the speech of the hon. member for Corfe Castle, because it was quite clear that the speech had not been intended for that place. So far were the petitioners from having any right to complain of the course which had been taken by the member for Dorsetshire, that his hon. friend was entitled to their gratitude; and especially for the elucidation of the subject which he had drawn forth from the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade—an elucidation which every candid man must allow was satisfactory.
Mr. Westernexpressed his doubts, whether it would be a wise policy to allow of the importation of wool from all parts of the world, free of duty. He thought that a committee ought to be appointed to inquire into the causes of the depression under which the agriculture, manufactures, and commerce of the country were labouring.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the speech of the President of the Board of Trade had been so clear and convincing, that it had set the question completely at rest, To im-
1042
pose a duty on foreign wool would be so indefensible a measure, that it was unnecessary to say a word on the subject; and, to refer the petition to the consideration of a committee, would be only to waste the time of the House, and to hold out absurd expectations; as every man of common sense must know what would be the result. No protection that could be afforded would balance the advantages which the foreign grower and manufacturer derived from the cheapness of food and labour. If such measures as were advocated by the opponents of the right hon. gentleman should be carried into effect, the wool-growers of England would get prices inferior to those which they now obtained. He should suppose, that the House would no more appoint a committee upon this subject than they would a committee to inquire into the regulation of the price of labour, or rate of wages. If the country was to thrive, it could only be upon the sound principles of commerce supported by the right hon. gentleman. This was not a new-fangled doctrine. The free importation of raw materials was an old principle of the policy of this country.
Ordered to lie on the table.

PENRYN ELECTION BILL.
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Manning said, he did not deny the right of the House to look into the former offences committed at Penryn, but he denied the justice of punishing the present electors for what was done so far back as 1807. Only five persons had been proved to have taken bribes at the last election, and this was not sufficient to induce the House to disfranchise a whole borough. If the punishment of these electors was to be increased in consequence of what had taken place in 1807, he did not see why the House might not refer to any period, however remote. He denied that Sowell had been employed as his agent.
Mr. Legh-Kecksaid, he would have called Sowell to the bar, but for the disinclination of the House to hear evidence at the late hour to which the examination had been protracted. He, however, had not any expectation of getting much information from him. In 1819 the House laboriously endeavoured to elicit from him evidence, but in vain. The hon. member for Penryn had declared, that this Sowell

1043
was not an agent employed by him. He congratulated the hon. member upon the fact; for, had it been otherwise, he would not now have had the opportunity of addressing the House. That hon. member ought not to refer to the former corruption of Penryn, when the last examination fully established the present existence of bribery in its worst sense. This was proved, as well by direct evidence, as by the efforts which other witnesses made to misrepresent facts, or to suppress truth. If this were not a case which required parliamentary interference, it was beyond his conception when parliament could interfere to check corruption.
Mr. Fergusonsaid, that if this was not a case in which parliament ought to exercise its power of disfranchisement, it would be utterly impossible to conceive circumstances in which that mode of proceeding ought to be adopted. He could not agree with the hon. member for Penryn, that nothing was proved against the borough. It was fully established, that an agreement for the sale of the borough had been signed by a member of that House, who had stipulated to give each voter twenty-four guineas for voting for an hon. baronet. Mr. Swan had given each voter 5l.; but he had refused to give them the breakfast; by which was meant a bribe of 24 l. The last report of the committee proved a variety of instances in which money was paid for votes. After alluding to the evidence of Stanbury, the hon. member went on to express his surprise that Mr. Freshfield, who was unknown in the borough, and who, it was said, had employed no agent, should have met with such signal success. It was clear from the evidence, that it was impossible to represent Penryn without bribery. This fact was also amply proved by captain Pellew, who had been for years a resident in the borough. If they should decide upon disfranchising that corrupt borough, the next question would be, to what district they would transfer the elective franchise. For himself, he thought it would be right to give it to Manchester. If they transferred it from Penryn to the adjoining Hundreds, the whole power would, he understood, be vested in the hands of two or three great men.
Mr. J. Denisonsaid, there never was a grosser case of bribery and corruption than the present, The borough of Penryn
1044
had been guilty of similar practices in 1807 and 1819. The right hon. gentleman at the head of the government had, on a former occasion, stated that if a case was made out against any borough, he would support a motion for its disfranchisement. He was, he said, ready to sacrifice Grampound in order to preserve Old Sarum. Now, he called on the right hon. gentleman to adhere to his promise, to attend to the recommendation of the committee, and to disfranchise this corrupt borough. If this was not done, they could never attempt to assail corruption, however undisguised, on any future occasion. If they decided upon the disfranchisement of Penryn, he should advise, that the right of returning members to parliament should be transferred to the wealthy, intelligent, and populous town of Manchester. To transfer the right of voting to the two adjoining hundreds, would be of little avail. Cornwall, as a county, had already more than a sufficient number of representatives.
Mr. A. O'Neillobjected to the course pursued with respect to Penryn. Allusion had been made to what took place in that borough in 1807 and in 1819. Now this, he thought, unfair. Were they to keep a paltry running account against this, that, and the other, borough? He called upon the House to put out of their recollection the details of what took place in 1807 and in 1819, and to decide upon the evidence now before them.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, that the evidence now before the House was conclusive; although it would be rendered more satisfactory in the other House, as their lordships could examine witnesses upon oath. It was a singular anomaly, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons should have power to examine witnesses upon oath, and yet that the whole House possessed no such power. This, he thought, was a matter which called for immediate alteration.
Mr. D. Barclaysaid, that the present electors of Penryn were about to be punished for the acts of those who had gone before them. He admitted that, at former periods, much corruption prevailed in Penryn, but a great reform had taken place in the borough since that period. It was too bad to condemn this borough upon hearsay evidence, and not upon that which was established before them. If the process of disfranchisement was employed

1045
against Penryn, why was it not to be carried into effect with respect to Old Sarum, Gatton, and a hundred others infinitely more corrupt? How could the House determine to proceed against Penryn, where there were five hundred voters, and delay to proceed against Gatton, where there were two seats that were always openly sold? If the House proceeded in the one case, it was impossible, with any degree of consistency, that they could refuse in the other. He thought that the reference to Manchester had only been introduced to prejudice the discussion. The committee that had sat to decide the merits of the present election, had agreed, that there was no proof of corruption against either himself or his colleague. He begged to recal to their recollection, that out of the five last elections, three had passed without any charge of bribery being made.
Lord Miltonthought the borough of Penryn had been so well defended by its present member, that, at first, he really believed the favour of the House had been transferred from the hon. gentleman who had just sat down to the borough itself. But that effect had been weakened by further consideration of the case. He did not think it proper to look merely to a few recent elections; but at the general history of the borough. If, from such an examination, all the elections, or nearly all, were found to have been purely conducted, it would be an act of injustice to disfranchise the borough for one accidental offence. But the examination would prove exactly the reverse: and he did think that, after the gross corruption proved against the Borough in 1807, its repeated practices of bribery ought not now to be overlooked. In that instance, a committee on behalf of the electors and sir C. Hawkins, now a member of the House, actually entered into an agreement, counter parts of which remained in possession of the respective parties. In the present instance, the bribery had been as real, though it was not conducted with the same formality. It was said, that there were five hundred voters; but it should be recollected, that of these, one hundred and fifty came in from the neighbouring parts on the approach of an election, attracted by the 24 l. and the breakfast. The general system of the place was corrupt. In treating this subject, he wished the House to proceed according to the
1046
wisdom of ancient times, and the actual principles of our government, rather than to adopt any of the new-fangled theories which had crept in of late years. He wished to see them restore, as often as circumstances would permit, the old foundations of the representative government of the country. In proposing, however, to remove the franchise from Penryn, he did not do it on the supposition, that Cornwall was too well represented: he hardly believed that it was enough so. But, to take away the franchise from Penryn, could not be to take it from Cornwall, any more than it was to take it from Jamaica. If half the Cornish boroughs were disfranchised, that would not affect the actual representation of Cornwall; because, the members who obtained seats for those boroughs, by means which he would not more particularly notice, did not represent them: practically speaking, they were the representatives of very different and distant places.
Mr. Van Homrighsaid, he had been one of the members of the committee, and he thought it his duty to declare, that no act of bribery was proved against the two gentlemen who represented that place. Boroughs were not always corrupt; for he could distinctly declare, that he owed his election to the unbought, unsolicited, suffrages of the town he represented. He thought it would be a most extraordinary act to disfranchise a borough, when there was no proof of corruption against its two representatives.
Lord Althorpthought the argument of the hon. member was a very extraordinary one; and the more so, as that hon. member must have recollected, that, although the committee exonerated the two members from the charge of corruption, they had unanimously decided, that gross bribery had been practised in the borough. He felt that the House ought to revert to the former acts of the borough. The case of a borough was not like that of a man on trial for a particular crime; when it would certainly be most unjust to set the former acts of life in array against him. The case of a borough was to be determined on its constant practice; and, in the present instance, there was a practice of corruption for the course of twenty years. As a member of the committee, he must declare it as his opinion, that Penryn furnished a gross case of corruption.
Lord John Russellstated, that, after what had been said about Manchester being introduced into the discussion to prejudice the question, he should think it the more convenient course to declare; first, that Penryn ought to be disfranchised; and then, when the bill was again in the committee, the proper time would arise for considering the place to which its franchise should be transferred.
The House having resolved itself into a committee,
Lord John Russellproposed, by way of amendment, that in the first clause of the bill the following words should be introduced—"That the borough of Penryn be hereafter excluded from the privilege of returning burgesses to serve in parliament." The question of disfranchising the borough would depend upon the House being, or not being, satisfied that great corruption had taken place. He thought that, after the evidence given before the committee, there could be no doubt upon that subject. The abuse of the elective franchise had been sufficiently great, to justify the House in taking it away from the borough. The next question to be determined was, to what place it should be transferred? Some members had intimated, that it should be transferred to a large town now unrepresented; while others had proposed, that it should be given to the inhabitants of the adjoining hundreds. It would aggravate the defect to give the franchise to the hundred; as it would throw the right of election into the hands of a few large proprietors. This mode of reforming corrupt boroughs in fact created little counties, and did not tend to the general extension of the right of election. It had often been said, that trade and manufactures were not sufficiently represented in parliament; and, when cases of this kind occurred, advantage ought to be taken of them, to afford representatives to large and industrious masses of the population. A remedy would thus be gradually supplied to the acknowledged defect of the House. He therefore proposed by one bill to deprive Penryn of the elective franchise entirely; and by another, to transfer that franchise to Manchester. He moved, "That the borough of Penryn, hereafter, be excluded from returning Burgesses to parliament."
Mr. Legh-Keckobserved, that the present bill was the same as that passed by the House in 1819, and thrown out by the
1048
lords; and it was now supported by additional evidence, taken before the late committee, and at the bar, to shew the existence of bribery and corruption. In his conscience he was satisfied, that the safest mode was to give the franchise to the hundred. He contended, that the manufacturing interest was already sufficiently represented in parliament; and that although the resolutions passed at Manchester were most temperate, it became the House to beware of establishing an evil precedent. If, on every occasion of this kind, the franchise was given to some populous manufacturing town, what would become of the much-talked-of balance between the manufacturing and landed interests in parliament? As the experiment was of injurious tendency, and as the course pursued in former instances, of extending the franchise to the neighbouring hundreds had not been complained of, he should support a like course in the present instance. If the contrary was the opinion of the committee, he should bow to it.
Mr. C. Barclayadvised his hon. relative not to press the question to a division, seeing that it was undoubtedly the opinion of the committee that Penryn should be disfranchised. He should give his support to the proposition of the noble lord; as he was satisfied that to transfer the right to Manchester, under certain restrictions, would be highly beneficial. One limitation he wished was, that no person should have the power to vote for a member who was not rated to the support of the poor to a certain amount. In Southwark, which he formerly represented, this plan was found to work well, for there, by certain local acts, on all houses under 20 l. a year, the landlord paid the poor-rate, and the tenant, consequently, had no vote. Yet Southwark was considered a scot and lot borough. He had had no reason to complain of the electors of Southwark, and certainly he never knew a body of men better able to think for themselves, and to decide upon any great political questions.
Lord Miltonsaid, that, by the disfranchisement of Penryn, a vacancy in the representation would be occasioned, which vacancy might be supplied upon two principles; population and taxation. With reference to both it might be urged, that a large and wealthy district of the metropolis was unrepresented—the parish of Mary-la-bonne; and he thought that it

1049
had, perhaps, as good a title to the franchise now to be disposed of, as any other place. He protested against the principle which the hon. gentleman who spoke last wished to establish—that of confining the right of voting to an aristocratical portion of the community. The abandonment of the ancient system of the constitution in this respect, as far as regarded Leeds, and, by wishing to confine the right of voting to a certain rental, had had the effect of depriving that important town of the opportunity of returning members, and had given it to the county of York at large. He objected strongly to these fanciful devices to exclude the inferior orders from representation, whose interests most required protection. He liked to witness the influence of the inferior orders in the House. The more extensive the right was made, the less chance there was of corruption. If the franchise were general, votes would not be worth purchasing.
Mr. G. Philipsbelieved, that the feeling in Manchester was, that the right of voting should be given to such only as were rated to the poor, for houses of the annual value of 15 l. or 20 l. It seemed to him that the present was a very favourable opportunity for introducing the principle of such a qualification; and the constituent body in Manchester would then consist of from five thousand to seven thousand persons.
Lord Althorpput it to the hon. member for Leicestershire, whether it would not be better to agree to the disfranchisement of Penryn absolutely; leaving it to the House to determine hereafter to what place the representation should be transferred.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that to extend the elective franchise to the adjoining hundreds, would be throwing the power of returning the members into the hands of the landed interest.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanexpressed his approbation of the principles which had been mentioned by the noble member for Yorkshire. He fully concurred with him, that, according to the true constitutional system, representation and taxation ought to be combined as much as possible; and that the influence of the lower classes in that House ought not to be diminished, but placed beyond the reach of corruption, by the numbers to whom the elective franchise was extended.
Mr. Canningsaid, that, looking to what had on this, and on former occasions, occurred, he thought, that, although the de
1050
grees of guilt in these cases were different, enough had been proved against Penryn to call for the notice of the legislature; but he did not think it had been proved, that the proportion of guilty persons was so large, as compared with the whole population, as to justify the complete disfranchisement of the borough. In a question of this kind, which was no party one, but a matter rather of a judicial nature, each hon. member would form the opinion which he might consider as that which the state of the case called for. In such a state of things, perhaps, the opinion of any single individual might not be held to be of any great consequence; but the unanimous opinion of the committee up stairs was so weighty, that it would require very strong evidence to rebut it. Upon the principle which he had already mentioned; namely, that the case was one of a judicial character, he would abstain from going into any general discussion, but decide as if he were upon a jury, and bound to give a verdict strictly according to the merits of the case. He did not think that such a degree of guilt was established, as to warrant a total disfranchisement. Many were, no doubt, innocent; but, in the situation of committees of this description, the innocent must sometimes suffer along with the guilty; and, upon the whole, he believed that he should do his duty best by supporting the motion of the hon. member for Leicester. As to the case of Gram-pound, he had only to observe that, when it was judged proper to resort to a measure of this kind, and, to a certain extent, to trench upon the franchises of any particular place, the most constitutional mode was, not to adopt an entirely new representation, but to confine, as much as possible, the franchise, which, though strictly a public privilege, was still, in an innocent sense, a valuable private possession, to the same description of interest as that from which it was taken. He admitted the convenience, in point of debate, of separating the disfranchisement from any other question; but, in another view, he thought it was material, that the question of partial disfranchisement, and that of fixing the manner in which the franchise should be subsequently settled, should be decided together, instead of leaving the ulterior question to form the subject of a new vote; and, therefore, without entering upon a discussion of the general principle, either one way or the other, he thought his vote

1051
ought to be given for the motion of the hon. member for Leicester.
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that when he saw a primâ facie case of corruption, he was glad to cut away the corrupted part. As to the degree of guilt which was sufficient to justify disfranchisement, the right hon. gentleman and himself had different views. He was anxious to detect; the right hon. gentleman to defend. He thought the better course would be, for the present, to disfranchise that borough, and to consider afterwards, what should be done with it. He thought that, if the right hon. gentlemen could be persuaded to separate the two questions of disfranchisement, and how the place thus made vacant should be supplied, it would be disposing of the matter in a way more honourable to the House, and more advantageous to the question itself. He hoped the right hon. gentleman would not press the question of throwing the franchise into the hundreds. Such a case had been made out against the borough of Penryn, that it would be an injustice to the constitution, if it were not disfranchised; and he did not see how this was to be done, if they tampered with that question, by introducing the question how the franchise was to be disposed of. For his own part, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of the borough, if it was to be thrown into the hundreds; and he did hope that these two points would be separated, that the country might not misunderstand the principle upon which the House proceeded.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that, of all the cases which had been brought before that House, there were few in which bribery had been brought home to so small a number of individuals. At the same time, there was clear moral evidence of a much greater system of bribery having been carried on, than had been brought home. One gentleman had told them, that he left Penryn, because his impression was, that he could not procure a sufficient number of votes without paying for them. Nor could he dismiss from his mind the events which had taken place at other elections at Penryn; from which it was clear, that the bribery was not casual, but systematic, and that it could be removed by nothing but the interposition of parliament. They might, perhaps, have indulged a hope, that the punishment of individuals would put an end to this practice. That experiment had been tried, but still the system
1052
was carried on. This, therefore, was a case in which the House ought to legislate. He would prefer supporting either of the propositions which had been suggested, to leaving matters to go on. He was anxious that the proposition of the hon. member who introduced the bill should be adopted, as it would then be less liable to be lost in another place, where four bills of a similar description had already failed.
Lord Sandonthought it would be a pity to neglect so good an opportunity of enabling large towns to send members to parliament. If the principle which some hon. gentlemen had insisted upon was allowed to prevail, the number of Cornish members sent to that House would be as numerous as ever. He should therefore vote for the proposition of the noble lord.
Mr. Woodof Preston, said, that, if the hundreds were to be taken in, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of the borough; for, upon that plan, the paramount influence would be given to two great neighbouring proprietors, lord De Dunstanville and sir J. St. Aubyn. He regarded the influence of the great landed proprietors, who sent the rich members into the House, with as much contempt as he did these corrupt boroughs.
Mr. W. Marshallsaid, that, if he understood the proposition rightly, it was to allow those persons who had acted in so unconstitutional a manner to keep their votes, but to increase their numbers. He thought that, if any change was made, it ought to be on constitutional grounds, and not a half measure.
Mr. W. Lambadverted to the strange change of opinion which had taken place among the parliamentary reformers; for they now cried out against increasing the influence of the landed interest, and the great object of their general plans of reform had before been always stated to be to increase that influence. Such had been the alleged object of the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, and others; and yet they now appeared to be averse to the extension of the influence of the landed interest. He should support the original motion.
Alderman Waithmanopposed the throwing open the franchise of Penryn to the adjoining hundreds. He would prefer having the abuses of the representation left in their hideous deformity, to the delusive farce proposed to be played off.
Lord Rancliffewas glad of an oppor-

1053
tunity of giving his support to the chancellor of the Exchequer; who had that evening, stated that though he was opposed to the general question of reform, he would assistin effecting any practical good.
Sir J. Newportsaid, if ever there was a case that called for the intervention of that House, it was the case before them. Penryn had been proved to be thoroughly corrupt; not at the late election merely, but for a series of elections. Considering the anterior practices, and the evidence of their continuation, he saw no other mode of dealing with the corruption of the borough, than that of rooting, it out, by transferring the elective franchise to some wealthy town at present unrepresented.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that in the course of the debate, both sides had assumed the guilt of Penryn. The only question was, whether that guilt should be punished by letting in the hundreds to share the elective franchise, or by transferring it absolutely to some other place? The latter mode implied a greater degree of guilt; but the former was not consistent with guiltlessness. It was clear there must be some fault in Penryn, else why sluice them with the hundreds? If the electors of Penryn were innocent, why all of a sudden let in on the two hundred voters, who, for the purposes of bribery and corruption, had been made four hundred voters, the two thousand voters of the neighbouring hundreds? That form of punishment assumed that they were condemned, though not so deeply as by the other. The difference of these forms to them would, however, in effect, be very slight. The skilful voter, who looked at the property with an eye to borough objects, and regarded his vote only with a view to sell it—one of the Stanburys and Sowells—would not thank the House for the mitigated form which would let in upon him the two thousand voters in his neighbourhood. Men of that stamp did not love their neighbours as themselves. They would rather continue the monopoly of votes. He believed firmly that Sowell or Stanbury would just as lief have the borough wholly disfranchised, as retain their votes, if they shared them with their neighbours. What would they sell their votes for when they were only one of twenty-five hundred? He thought, therefore, that the disfranchisement was as complete by letting in the hundreds, as by transferring the elective franchise else-
1054
where. The corrupt interest of the parties punished was just as fully extinguished in the one case as in the other. He would not then enter into the inquiry, whether Penryn deserved to be punished. It was admitted on all hands, that it had incurred guilt. The question was reduced simply to this: whether the House should, by the one form, operate a general disfranchisement, without making any provision as to the parties who should succeed to the exercise of the franchise; or whether the House should adopt the proposition of the hon. member for Leicestershire and, by throwing the right into the hundreds, admit them to share it with the borough? If he voted for the latter proposition, it would only be advancing a few steps in the inquiry; but, if he voted for his noble friend's amendment, and if the effect of that vote did no more than merely to prepare the canvass on which the future artist might inscribe reform, he thought he should be effecting a great practical good. He was ready to admit that the question was one of the greatest importance; but he felt, at the same time, with his noble friend, that the franchise should not be extended to the hundreds, but that those who had been proved to be guilty should forfeit that right which they had too long abused. This, of itself, he conceived, was a sufficient argument in favour of his noble friend's amendment; namely, that it did not pledge the committee to any one line rather than another. Any member might give his vote for his noble friend's proposition; and, on the third reading of the bill, it was competent for that hon. member to introduce, by way of rider, a clause, by which the franchise of Penryn should or should not be transferred to this or that place. What was the naked fact? A party stood accused of malpractices, and a verdict of guilty had been pronounced. All that this bill sought to effect was, to transfer the right of systematically perpetuating a system of abuse, which was so shamefully carried on, that it grew at last too intolerable to bear; and the end by which this desirable object was sought to be effected was, by at once disfranchising the guilty borough of Penryn. Whether that disfranchisement should be total or partial was matter for future consideration; but let the House come to the determination to disfranchise the borough at once, and a great practical good would be effected. How the borough should be

1055
dealt with afterwards, the House in its wisdom could decide; but he thought, if the question of disfranchisement were at once carried, it would not be very difficult to determine where to transfer the right of voting. The House should recollect, that there was such a county as Cornwall that returned no less than forty-four members to parliament, and then there was the whole district of Lancashire that only returned fourteen members. It was the greatest of all possible delusions for hon. gentlemen to flatter themselves that, by extending the franchise of Penryn to the neighbouring hundreds, they would effect any real good. He did not wish to say where the franchise should be placed, because he thought that question could be discussed with far greater advantage in some future stage of the bill; but this much he would say, that, by stripping Penryn of the power which its voters had too long abused, a great good would be effected.
Mr. S. Bournesaid, that, if he could believe with his hon. and learned friend, that a verdict of guilty had been pronounced against the borough of Penryn, he would at once agree in the propriety of stripping the borough and transferring its right to some more deserving place. He felt that the question was one of great difficulty; and, if any means could be devised by which those who were guilty could be adequately punished, he would vote for that punishment. But he did not conceive that it would be fair to disfranchise a whole borough for the misconduct, however gross, of not more than half the voters in that borough. If any gentleman could point out any way in which the guilty could be punished without injuring the guiltless, he would willingly adopt that course; but he could not make up his mind to punish both parties alike—a proceeding which, he conceived, would be contrary to every principle of justice.
The committee divided: For the original motion 69; For lord J. Russell's amendment 124; Majority for taking the Elective Franchise from the Borough of Penryn, 55.
List of the Majority and of the Minority.

MAJORITY.

Althorp, visc.

Baring, W. B.

Archdeckne, A.

Baring, sir T.

Barclay, C.

Birch, J.

Baring, F.

Benett, John

1056

Bentinck, Lord W.

Maxwell, J.

Blackburne, J.

Millbank, M.

Bright, H.

Milton, visc.

Brougham, H.

Monck, J. B.

Brougham, J.

Morpeth, visc.

Burdett, sir F.

Munday, F.

Calcraft, J.

Newport, sir J.

Calvert, C.

O'Brien, L.

Calvert, N.

Ord, W.

Campbell, C.

Osborne, lord F.

Carter, J.

Palmer, C. F.

Cave, R. O.

Pelham, J. C.

Clements, visc.

Philips, G. sen.

Colborne, N. R.

Ponsonby, hon. F.

Corbett, P.

Ponsonby, hon. W. S.

Cradock, S.

Ponsonby, hon. G.

Crompton, S.

Poyntz, W. S.

Dawson, A.

Price, R.

Davenport, D.

Proby, hon. G.

Davenport, E. D.

Protheroe, E.

Davies, T.

Rancliffe, lord

Duncannon, visc.

Rice, T. S.

Dundas, hon. T.

Rickford, W.

Ducane, P.

Robarts, A. W.

Denison, W. J.

Robinson, sir G.

Downie, R.

Rowley, sir W.

Easthope, J.

Russell, lord J.

Ebrington, visc

Russell, lord G. W.

Euston, earl of

Russell, lord W.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Russell, R. G.

Fergusson, R. C.

Russell, John

Fitzroy, lord C.

Robinson, G. R.

Folkestone, visc.

Rumbold, C. E.

Fitzgerald, J.

Sandon, lord

Graham, sir J.

Sebright, sir J.

Grosvenor, hon. R.

Shelly, sir J.

Gordon, R.

Slaney, R. A.

Guise, sir B. W.

Smith, W.

Guest, J. J.

Sotheron, Admiral

Heathcote, G. J.

Stuart H. V.

Heron, sir R.

Stanley, lord

Hobhouse, J. C.

Stanley, hon. Ed.

Howard, H.

Tavistock, Marquis

Howick, visc.

Thompson, C. P.

Hume, J.

Townshend, lord

Hurst, R.

Tufton, hon. H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Tynte, C. K.

Kekewich, S. T.

Waithman, alderman

Kennedy, T. F.

Warburton, H.

Labouchere, H.

Webbe, Edw.

Lamb, hon. G.

Western, C. C.

Lester, B. L.

Whitbread, S. C.

Leycester, R.

Wood, alderman

Lloyd, sir E. P.

Wood, C.

Lombe, E.

Wood, John

Marryatt, J.

Wrottesley, sir J.

Marjoribanks, S.

Wilson, sir R.

Marshall, W.

TELLER.

Martin, J.

Lord John Russell

MINORITY.

Acland, sir T.

Buck, L. W.

Arkwright, R.

Buller, C.

Barclay, D.

Butler, C.

Batley, C. H.

Burrell, sir C.

Binning, lord

Bourne, rt .hon.S.

Bonham, H.

Brown, J.

1057

Carrington, sir F.

Lambert, J. S.

Canning, rt. hon. G.

Lamb, R. hon. W.

Chichester, A.

Lascelles, hon. W.

Chaplin, C.

Lowther, lord

Clerk, sir G.

Macauley, gen.

Cockburn, sir G.

Manning, W.

Croker, J. W.

Martin, sir B.

Curteis, E.

O'Neil, A. John

Davis, R. H.

Palmer, R.

Dottin, A.

Pallmer, C. N.

Douglas, W. R. K.

Palmerston, visc.

Duff, general

Petit, I. H.

Drake, T. T.

Phillimore, Dr.

Eliot, lord

Planta, J.

Farquhar, J.

Saunderson, A.

Fellowes, W. H.

Scarlett, sir J.

Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.

Sibthorpe, C. D.

Forbes, sir C.

Somerset, lord G.

Foster, J. L.

Spottiswoode, A.

Gordon, John

Talmash, hon. F. J.

Grant, sir A.

Tullamore, Lord

Grant, rt. hon. C.

Twiss, H.

Grant, R.

Tyndal, sir N. C.

Halse, J.

Van Homrigh, P.

Herries, J. C.

Vernon, G.

Hill, sir G.

Wynn, rt. hon. C.

Horton, R.W.

Wyndham, W.

Holmes, W.

Irving, John

TELLER.

King, hon. H.

Legh-Keck, G. A.

ELECTION EXPENSES BILL.
Lord Althorp moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Calcraftrose at that late stage of the bill, to give his strenuous opposition to a measure, which, as far as he was aware, had never yet undergone discussion. He thought it necessary to warn the House what this bill was intended to do. It disfranchised every voter who was employed as an agent by a candidate at an election, and thus threw a stigma upon all the profession of the law. It could not be supposed that the fees which attorneys and barristers received for lending their services to the candidate who employed them, could ever act upon them so far as to induce them to give him their votes corruptly, when they were hostile to his political principles. He was sure that, in point of pecuniary emolument, all professional men were losers by being employed in elections [a laugh]. He was convinced that the case was as he had stated it. That part of the bill which prohibited the use of music, ribands, and party symbols during the election, would destroy all the fun, and spirit, and gaiety of an election, and make them the most dull, monotonous, methodistical, and puritanical spectacles that could be imagined. In
1058
point of fact, without flags and ribands, the electors would not know whose heads they were breaking, and might knock down their friends under the mistaken idea that they were knocking down their foes. It was said, that the candidates might select their agents out of those persons who were not qualified as voters; but what unqualified person would ever feel the same interest, or exert the same energies, for a candidate as the qualified person, who had identified himself with the candidate of his choice? He hoped that the third reading of the bill would be deferred.
Mr. Hudson Gurneysaid, it was his intention to move, that this bill be read that day six months. All the malpractices which it was intended to prohibit by this bill, were, under heavy penalties, prohibited in Ireland; and every one of them were either evaded, or something worse substituted. He had just been on a long Irish election committee, and the witnesses whom it had been his lot to hear examined, proved the point he had asserted beyond possibility of dispute. In the election to which he alluded, there were whole legions of lawyers employed, not as lawyers, for that was one thing petitioned against, as it would have vitiated the return; but as active and zealous friends—for which he had no doubt but that these active and zealous friends were, in the end, well paid. If the House prevented the candidate from paying his agents regularly and openly, it could only go to his paying them through a third hand, more lavishly than he would otherwise have done, when the election was over. As to the clause which prevented any voter from wearing ribands or other mark of distinction, nothing could be more absurd, and, indeed, injurious. It was a specimen of Irish legislation, which went to put down forceably any insignia of the thousand varieties of party association, which made faction harmless, and to divide a nation into two parties having each to other the most deadly hatred: and from Irish legislation, and Irish peace, and Irish tranquillity, and Irish elections, he trusted in heaven, that England would be delivered! They could not break English custom, do what they would; and, in almost all the places in England, half the electors voted for a riband; and it was an idle folly to suppose that, by a bill like the present, the House could make an English election as demure as a Method-

1059
ist love feast.—The hon. member then I proceeded to ridicule that clause of the bill which prohibits any man from voting whilst he bore any insignia of his party, under a penalty of 10 l; and also to censure the clause which disfranchised all those acting as special constables; it being obvious that the friends of electors might be made special constables and paid in their places, to the great increase of that species of bribery; and if ever there were disposition to riot, respectable electors would be the persons most likely and most interested to preserve the peace.—He said, he held in his hand a letter from a gentleman very conversant in elections, stating, that he knew the means by which every clause in the present bill might be evaded, with great ultimate increase of expense to the candidate [a laugh].—He considered the present bill in every way objectionable; but was of opinion, that a great reform might be easily introduced by arrangements, under which any city or borough, however populous, might be polled in two days. This bill contained no such arrangements. It went, unnecessarily, to disfranchise a great number of voters. It was a bill easy of evasion, and producing necessarily evasion; and every one of its provisions appearing to him either mischievous, or frivolous, or absurd, he should conclude by moving, "that it be read a third time this day six months."
Mr. Spring Ricedefended the provisions of the bill; and declared that there was nothing contained in it which could possibly disfranchise a single individual. It provided merely that no canvasser, fiddler, flagman, or messenger, was to be employed for money; but he might engage himself in any of those capacities for the benefit of the candidate, if he chose to do so without demanding any recompence.
Sir R. Wilsonobserved, that the member for Newton was rather unfortunate in his statement, that the hoisting of ribands prevented the necessity of swearing in an additional number of special constables. The exact contrary was the fact; as might be seen by a reference to the late proceedings at Coventry. Ribands, it was known, were very liberally distributed in that city; and yet the most violent proceedings took place there at the last election.
Mr. R. Gordonthought the bill an instance of very petty legislation, which would tend to increase rather than de-
1060
crease the expense of elections. There was one clause, providing that no person was to wear these favours, or do any of these things, for six months before the election; which would be thought so comprehensive, that it would lead to a thousand inconsistencies. The Treating act had created more expense than any which was incurred before its enactment; and he was convinced the provisions of the present bill would have the same effect. Under this impression, he would vote for the amendment.
Lord Althorpdefended the bill, and said he knew several instances of the employment of seven hundred constables at an election. He had heard no reason which could induce him not to press the bill to a third reading.
The House then divided: For the third reading 26; Against it 10; Majority 16.