Star. — London, England, 1821-05-10 00:00:00

didate for a seat in Parliament, and told one of the voters that he. was a friend to Reform—" Yes, (said the voter), and so am I, for I am toathat there are some candidates who don't Rive their poor voters a' single guinea—such men as these need reform !" It was well known that in the boroughs in Cornwall this practice prevailed to a great extent. The people in a borough there would engage some person in the neighbourhood, as patron of the borough, who would maintain the poor, and incur other expenses in behalf of the town, and for this would get one seat, while • the other was sold for a sum of money. The conse quences of such p: actices were most pernicious. The fist effect was to promote drunkenness and profli gacy ; to encourage a disregard for the duties im posed by the Constitution, and to keep the People in la state of ignorance and brutality. Besides this, the internal affairs of those small towns were often, in consequence, shamefully mismanaged. In one town In particular, he knew that a revenue of 1:200 or £3OO a-year, which should be expended for the benefit of the poor. was, by means of the parliamentary in fluence, employed in feasting the voters. Another effect was, the Executive Government was enfeebled :by the necessity of conciliating the voters and their patrons. It was well known, that in those boroughs `where there are only twenty or thirty voters, these 'voters have obtained places to which they would 'never otherwise have had any pretension. He had ibdeed received letters, which stated that in these bo roughs 'Government offices were regularly sold; that is, when a voter obtained a promise from a patron for a place which he did not wish himseif to hold, he sold it to some one who wished to get it. This charge was not made vaguely ; for in the evidence on the Gram pound Election, it was stated that eight hundred pounds had been paid to a voter for an office in or connected with the Navy. A further consequence was, that the Ministers were obliged to look to the boroughs and their patrons for sup port in that House. He did not attribute to this Mi nistry in particular, more than any other, the con vection with these persons, but it was in t hel nature of things. There were eighty County Members, and 300 returned by boroughs with less than 300 voters. The necessary consequence was, that the Ministers must look to the 300 with more anxiety than to the eighty who were returned by great districts. If these 300 persons were not returned by independent voters, but by men who held their privilege only as a mar ketable article, like their cheese or wool ; if such were the miserable infatuation of the voters, the effect must be felt from the highest to the lowest depart ment of the State. He came now to consider what remedies had been applied to this evil by the Legis lature. In the first year after the Revolution, an Act passed to regulate expenses at elections; for thus early was it discovered that almost at the very in stant when, after a long struggle, the freedom of Par liaments u as established, attempts were made to cor rupt Parliaments themselves. The corrupt practices at elections were then declared to be a " great scan dal of the kingdom -" and it was enacted, that any candidate who should give any money to a voter, or treat him after the teste of the writ, should be inca pable of sitting in that Parliament. But this enact ment was not efficient; for, by an arrangement be tween the candidate and voters, the latter were paid their bribes half a year or a year after the election, which operated just as effectually as if they had re ceived them between the teste of the writ and the election. By another Act of Geo. 11. a penalty of £SOO was imposed on every one who gave or took a bribe, and the voter was made incapable of voting. but in this statute there was room for evasion, for there was an exception from the penalty in favour of a person who discovered an accomplice within a certain time, so that candidates had often after an election indicted some persons whom they had bribed. There was also an Act against the sale of seats, from which, how ever, the Honourable Author of it (Mr. Curwen) would at this time see that no effect was to be ex pected. The question "vas, what course should now be adopted—should they make the penalties on bri be; y moi e severe ? In his opinion decidedly not. These small boroughs were placed in a situation in which they could not exercise their franchises indepen dently. If 40 or 50 persons almost upon the par ish, who were indifferent as to the conduct of that Great Council of the Nation, who did nut at all care what legislative measures were taken—if such men as these had the power of electing Members, and if, on the other hand, persons possessing plenty of money wished to obtain seats, it was almost impossible that the two classes should not come together and make their bar gain, be the penalties of Parliament however severe, be its declarations however solemn, or its hypocrisy however well maintained—(tlear, hear).—They must look to the franchises of these Boroughs. It appeared that as early as the first year after the Revolution which he had mentioned, in 1689, corrupt practices were discovered in the Borough of Stockbridge, and a proposal was made to take away its franchise, and give the right of returning the Members to the County of Southampton. The proposition being then new, the debate was put off, and was never resumed. In 1695, the election in the same Borough was de• clared corrupt and void, and a Bill was brought in ie disable the Borough, and to send the Election to Basingstoke. The Bill was read a third time, but it then dropped. It was singular that, at the end of the 18th, as well as the 17th century, it had been de clared by a Committee that there was notorious bribery and corruption in the elections there. The next Borough was Aldborough, which was declared corrupt in 1696, and no writ was issued. In 1697 the voters petitioned, confessing their fault, and praying to be taken into favour, and the writ was 4 _! s uel In the year 1698, Bilop's Castle was aseelared Corrupt, and no writ was issued that Set sion The same was the case with Great Grimsby. Zile House would observe, that some of these Bo roughs had come lately before them in the same tl a saiacter, the inhabita nts n o t f orgett i ng t h e w hole v - ale practices of their ancestors. In 1701, there was great influx of corruption ; one Shepherd having P r actised a on a large scale, corruptly procured Re -114", for his connexions, for Bramber, Wootton Bas- Z, And over , and Ilchester. For the investigation of conduct, a Committee was appointed, in the bust arss of Which Sir Edw. Seymour took an active part. it W as voted that Sir Edward Seymour had made good his genes al charge against Samuel Shepherd, senior, fur corrupt practices, and the thanks of the Nouse ere delivered to Sir Edward Seymour for hiss by the Speaker. The result was, ther punishment•of several persons concerned. The elder Shepherd was sent to the Tower. In 1702, a Bill was brought in fur the disfranchisement of Hindon. The modern and more successful instances of these Bills were well known, but they by.no means formed. l a vigorous and sufficient corrective to the evil. Only three of these Bills were passed, thoughlhere were generally fifty or sixty Boroughs before them foe bribery every general election. But the case dis closed with respect to Grampound upon a very recent occasion, fully illustrated the inefficiency of the law as it stood, for the prevention of bribery and corrup tion. By the Grenville Act, which was no, doubt a just measure, there was no inquiry as to bribery or corruption before any Committee, unless immediately referring to the return. So that if the parties con cerned in that return should make up their differ ences in any way, the House would hear nothing of the bribery or corruption in arty case to which Peti tioners complaining of an undue election might allude. The Committee to which the Petition as ti the elec tion for Grampound was referred, reported that the Petition against the return was not frivolous or vexa tious, and that the sitting Members were duly elected. —But the nefarious practices at Grampound were brought to light through the bribery practised pre viously to the election, some of the voters having.re ceived such sums as Sir Manasseh Lopez refused to pay. Yet Sir M. Lopez was punished, while thosewho paid most, and consequently contributed most to the encouragement of bribery, were allowed to escape.— Thus it appeared that additional guilt was a protection against punishment, and Sir M. Lopez was the victim. It was said, that when a Mahometan crew happened to be in a storm, it was generally thought by them a good expedient for their safety, if they had a Jew in the ship, to fling him overboard ; and hence, per haps, the dealers in bribery at Grampound thought it expedient,- when detected in difficulty and danger, to fling this unfortunate Christian, Sir M. Lopez, overboard ! He himself believed that Sir Manasseh wai entrapped into the general practice of Boroughs floor its general impunity, without any peculiarly criminal motive, and hence he felt himself called upon to move the extension of clemency to that indi vidual. The means which he proposed for the full discovery of bribery and corruption, the Noble Lord stated to be, the appointment of a Committee, distinct from that prescribed by the Grenville Act, the pro vince of which Committee should be, fully to inquire into such practices alleged to exist in any particular Borough. To this Committee, as a distinct tribunal, he meant that all such investigations should be con signed, and that upon its Report both Houses should be called upon to decide. Great advantage would, in his view, result from the• constitution of such a tribunal, and particularly in preventing any partial inquiries, either in that or the other House of Par liament, in the latter of which inquiries of this na ture should not at all be gone into.—(Hear, hear). — There was some precedent for his proposition in the l'Grampound case for an inquiry with respect to bri bery, after the return was decided upon. On that occasion, he recollected that the Noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs followed patiently the course of the inquiry after it was gone into, and therefore be cal culated upon the Noble Lord's acquiescence in a Re solution for pursuing a similar course upon a like oc casion. If the Resolutions which he had to propose should be adopted, he meant to move their reference to a Committee, by which the details of a Bill, founded upon them, might be framed. In the course 'which he proposed to follow, heMeant no innovation which was not imperiously called for by existing cir cumstances or innovations upOri the practice of the, Constitution; for his objects were, first to provide against the practice of bribery ; and secondly, for as adequate representation in that House of the impor..l tant interests of the large manufacturing towns. It was to be remembered that when, in 1816, the Gee-, tlemen with whom he had the honour to act objected to large military establishments, they were answered by a call from the Ministerial side, to look at the in crease of the manufacturing population of the country. This, indeed, was the answer of the Prime Minister himself, who had recently made a declaration to the same effect, in reply to those who opposed the extent of our military establishment. Hence it appeared that the only difference between his and the other' side of the House as this, that Ministers for the go vernment of our increased population preferred a sys tem of force and coercion, while be and his friends preferred conciliation and reform—(Hear, hear•). — But it was said on the other side, that the manufac turing people were so virtually represented in that House, as to render any farther or more immediate representation quite unnecessary. Of this virtual representation, however, he would say, that it was rather a fiction, somewhat like that in Courts of Jus tice, where it was said that the Judge was always , Counsel for the prisoner; but he remembered a case where a Judge put such a question to a witness, that the prisoner exclaimed, " Sly Lord, if you were my Counsel, ) ou would nut put such a question ;" and so, the People would most likely . say to what were called their virtual representatives, " if you were our repre ' sentatives, Gentlemen, you would not give such votes' as you do." (Hear, hear).—But every man must think that no 'virtual representative could have the same dgree of information to communicate, or could pos sess the Same influence or authority upon local questions, particularly in that House, as a direct representative from any manufacturing town. Flow, for instance, could the Representative for War wickshire be entitled to the same attention upon any question connected with the hardware manufacture, as a direct Representative from Birmingham, who was so much mote likely to be Acquainted with the particular and general interests, as well as with the peculiar rie*s of the manufactureis? But the adop tion of the Bill for transferring the right of voting to Leeds, upon the ground of its important manufaC-1 turing interest, had in fact done away altogether with the principle upon which the argument rested, as is l , virtual representation ; for, in the case of Leeds, the principle and propriety of direct representation were directly required, and therefore the argument as to I l virtual representation, ifgood for anything at anytime, could now be no longer urged. It was indeed quite clear that, for the purpose of understanding the best interests of the country, the . great manufacturing towns should have their direct Representatives sitting within the walls of that House. Among the evils, too, belonging to the present system of representation, was the manner in which some of our great manu facturing towns were governed. The government of Manchester was in a Steward or•Bailif, fand that Birmingham in a High Constable or Headboretigh.l There being, then, no Parliamentary'Representrve for either of 'these great totem, the inhabitants had no one Of importance to look up•tn, tither for the formation of political opinions, or 11* the redrese of political grievances. They were not in the, situation of the people of Westminster, who had an oppor tunity of appealing to 'their Representatives for ad • vice and aid, O r w h o co ni c ! make known, throUgh ' them, any grievances of whieh they might corn plain. Manchester and Birmingham. then, •like other manufacturing towns, deprived of these advan tages, and having no Representatives to look to, were but too likely to attend to any Hunt or Knight that offered to -hear their complaints and promised f them redress- , --(Hear, hear, hear ! ).—But when such persons were listened to by the manufac turing districts, to whom, he would ask, did the Government resort in order to counteract the machi nations of dema g ogues, and to guard the people against being misled ? Did Ministers 'refer 'to the Magistrates, or to the Lord Lieutenants of Counties, to advise the people, or to inform them of their real wants and views ? No. On the contrary, one Lord Lieutenant rather appeared to have been suspected by them of revolutionary purposes—(A 'laugh, and hear, hear)—and, therefore, instead of resorting tq the aid and counsel of Magistrates and Lord Liente oants, to defeat the demagogues or to put down , dis affection, this object was confided to the care and judgment of Oliver the Spy—(Hear, hear). No one was appointed to go into the manufacturing districts to inquire into the grievances of the people, or to, guard against disturbances, but this Oliver, who was,' it appears, the virtual representative of the Govern ment—(Hear, hear).—He was the arbiter of peace and war, whose interest, and whose purpose it Win, to mislead and to inflame those whom it was the duty and professed object of Government to undeceive, and to tranquillize. Thus, while the demagogues were left to impress the people, as it was said, with a be-! lief, that the only redress for their grievances was; in the overthrow of the Government, that Govern ment itself superadded the influence of Oliver the Spy, to tell them that a vast body of armed men : were actually marching to assist them in accom plishing that over throw—(Cries [fear, hear, hear): . Was this the system which ought to be pursued by at wise Government at the head of a free nation? But: what had Government gained by coercion, or blood 7. shedding at Manchester, or elsewhere? With all the' experience of their coercive laws, and severe punish ments, and multiplied standing armies —what, he would ask, had the Noble Lord in reserve for in swing the tranquillity of this country under the ex isting system? What could he extract from his budget of resources for coerciaa.tessupply the means, of meeting any new exigency? He could not, in deed, imagine any farther expedient of restraint upon: public liberty which the Noble Lord could produce,, unless he meant to impose a Censorship upon the' Press, and that was a measure to which he hoped • and trusted the people of this country could never be persuaded or compelled to submit—(Hear, hear). — With respect to the effect of coercion upon the peo ple of this country, he referred the Noble Lord to a recent event at Glasgow, for the purpose of teaching him that there was no safety in such a system. As coercion then was found so ineffectual, it only re mained to try the influence of conciliation, by giving the people those rights which they universally de manded, and which could not be fairly withheld. In proposing that the large towns should be directly represented in that House, he was only acting upon the principle of the Constitution, as that principle was disclosed in our history. His wish.was, that Par liament should have the merit, and that the ICing should have the grace, of conceding to the will of the People—that the redress of grievances, and the grant of supplies should, as in better times,proceedparipassu. He proposed that the House should originate the ex.. tension of voting which he had in view, according to the precedents established in the cases of Wales, Chester, and Durham. As to the compensation which he thought ought to be granted to any Boroughs which might be disfranchised, in order to transfer the right of return to large towns, he lamented that he differed upon this point from his Hon. Friend tne Member for Durham, who had expressed his deter mination never to grant any indemnity in compensa tion to persons who carried on a white slave trade ; but as his Hon. Friend proposed to disfranchise Lon don as well as Old Sarum, his view was at least con sistent. As he (Lord J. Russell), however, meant only that the smaller Boroughs should be disfranchised; they would have good ground of complaint it no compensation were granted, particularly as they might point at larger Boroughs, allowed to retain the right of return, against which, perhaps, more corruption could be proved. But there were eases in which the right of returning Members to that House was granted as a favour, as in the case of Wenlock, which obtained that right for services ren dered to Edward IV. and therefore to deprive that Borough of such an advantage, without compensa tion, would be an act of injustice. But the principle of compensation for Boroughs disfranchised, was dis tinctly recognized by the Irish Union--(Hear, hear). Sucb compensations were, indeed, of little compara tive consequence to the propriety and necessity of extending the basis of popular fredom and represen tation, in order to augment the interest of the people in the maintenance of free and popular institution:. —All history served to illustrate the policy of this principle. When the popular returns for Spain were reduced from 200 to 70 places, the people betame indifferent to what remained, and the free Constitu tion of Spain did not long survive that indifference. But there was another example, and it *as that of Italy. In the 18th century there were I,Boopoo persons enjoying the privileges of freemen in Italy, and, in the 15th century, that number was reduced to 18,000. What was the consequence? Why, the immediate fall of liberty in Italy, to which event might be ascribed the easy conquest of that country by the Emperor of Austria. But, if freedom, or any remnant of the spirit which it inspired, had existed in Italy, it was impossible that such a spectacle of abject submission could have been exhibited, as had recently disgusted the people of.this country, as well as all that were manly among the people of Europe. And what guarantee could any reflecting English man calculate upon, that, if the smaller boroughs were allowed to have a preponderance in the Parlia ,ment of the country, to the exclusion of the large rammer/est the , mate of thelsOrdlarion i from the right of voting, Writ tfie!people of England Might not sink into the same state of indifference or apathy, with•te spect to national or individual treedi.m, which had lately marked the degraded character of the people of Italy?—( Hear, heat) - nu what was ire degrad ing in the history atnankind than the tonduct which those Italians had presented,to our view at the begin ning of the 19th century? If the Italians were free, , rito 'such .ireerie • conld' hare acetified, 'and be exhorted the GovernMent of 'this cintntiy' to consult the lessiin which that -scene 'afforded... ! to identify themielves with the people—to conciliate their affection and -con 'fidence by extending their liberties., Such, he assured the itoUse,'were'ilie only ends which his proposition had in' view. •Hiideii re Was to preserve and strengthen every link of connection between'the PeoOleind the Goveriunent—to render the Crown and that Haute the peculiar objects of popular attachment—( Cheers). ffeWas aware that he was opposed by different parties, and upon different grounds, in•the course 'Which 'he felt •it his duty to pursue tin this Occasion ; one party being AParmed at his propositions, from an apprehension that• he went too far, while he was ridi culed by 'another party for not going far enough. The former urged, that his views would endanger the institutions of the couhtry, while the latter main tained that they would produce no change at all. But be should only say to those parties, that he pitied the alarm of the one, while he contemned the ridicule Of the other; and that whatever might be the ani 'madyersions of the one, or the impressions of both, be Would pursue that course which was dictated b'y a sense Of duty to his country, and by an anxious so licitude for the preservation of its liberties--(Hear, hear).—The 'Noble Lord concluded with proposing the following Itesolutions : " 1. That grievous complaints are made in the kingdom, and Manifestly appear to be true, of the undue Elections of Members to serve as Burgesses Pa rliament, by gross bribery and cor ruption, contrary to the laws, and in violation of the freedom due to the Election of Representatives for the Commons of sllE land in Parliament, to the great . scandal of the kingdom, dis honourable, and may be destructive to the constitution of Par. llarnent. • 2. That in order to strengthen and maintain the rieeeigttiy connection between the Commons of this Kingdom and their Representatives in Parliament, it is expedient to give to such - places as are greatly increased in wealth and population, and are not at present adequately represented, the right of returning Members to serve in Parliament. 4 3. That a Select Cominittee be appointed to comider to what places, according to the principle of the foregoing Resolti. dons, it may be advisable to extend the right of returning Mem bers to serve in Parliament, and the best method of effecting that measure without an inconvenient addition to the Members of this House. " 4. That It be referred to the same Committee, to consider further of a mode of proceeding with 'respect to ►ny Borough which may hereaftir be charged with notorious bribery and corruption, in order that such charges may be regularly and ef fectually inquired into, and if proved, that such Boroughs may be disabled from sending Burgesses to serve in Parliament for the fitgare." Mr. WHITMORE, in rising to second the Motion of the Noble Lord, assured the House that it Was not his intention to trespass much upon their attention..— He was an enemy to Radical Reform, whether in the shape of Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage, or in that milder form of it which proposed to grit the right of voting to inhabitant householders, because it appeared to him to aim at the total overthrow of that Constitution v, hich - had raised this country to a pitch of glory unexampled in ancient or modern history. The elements of insecurity were so mixed up with the fabric of Radical Reform, that, instead of amending ally part of the superstructure of the Constitution, it was calculated to throw the whole superstructure down. While he objected to Radical Reform, because it would tend to make that House purely and entirely democratical, be was a tiiend however to a moderate and rational Reform, and he supported the Resolutiogs of the Noble Lord, because he thought they were calculated to attain that object, and that his plan would be found capable of a safe and easy execution. The &BAKER having read the first Resolution, there was a loud cry of Strangers withdraw ;" and the Gallery was nearly cleated tor a division, when Mr. B. BATHURST rose, and spoke against -the motion.. The Hon. Member complimented Lord J. Morrell on his hereditary talents, and his propriety of manner in bringing forward any motion in that House. But be had been in hopes that the Noble Lord had intended to propo4 some better mode of punishing bribery and corruption than bad hitherto existed iu this country. This might be found in the practice of disfranchising the offending boroughs, and giving the franchise to others; but the Nobl e Lord's plan seemed to be to disfranchise the small boroughs, whether they have been guilty of corrup , tion or not, and to transfer their franchises to large towns. This he could not agree to ; nor to delegate to a Committee the choice of those boroughs that should or should not be disfranchised and punished, The Right Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the previous question.. Mr. BARHAM defended the Borough of StoclE. bridge from the imputations which had been tome pt out against it in the course of the debate. There was not a county or city in the kingdom more free from corruption than that Borough was. , Lord JOHN RUSSELL said a few words, in ex, planation. The Gallery was then cleared for a division, when there appeared, tut the Previous Question - 15$ 124 ...-SI Fur the original Motion . Majority againK- the Motion BANE OF IRZLAND. Mr. MABERLEY, objecting tc the tort:posed ar rangement with the Bank of Iceland, as as improri, dent bargain for the Public, The CTIAINICELLOR of the EXCgEOBR de fended the measure. Mr. MABERLEY repeated his objections. 15 7 4 , were going to borrow a sum of £500,000 in Irelau4, which we could get for E 5,000 a-year less in England. Mr. BARING could not consent to borrow money in Ireland at 5 per cent. whilst we could get it in England at 4 per cent. After a few words from Mr. CaLeitarr, the Bitl which was to authorize theboirowing this money was then read a first time, and ordered to be read a see cond time this day. pnwanaiien . The Metropolis Roadll Went ilitottib t Cusinsittee pie forma, the Report was received, and ordered to be taken into tortiv:r consideration on Friday selhtt The other Orders were then disposed of, and the &nit inward at a Quarter before Two o'llock, eat.- - I -:-