The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1804-06-07 00:00:00

r.

IWenn—because lie would never consent to abr -
don what was found pradically good, for a this;
fa it at best was uncertain. In the case now oelor
Rte ;louse, there vat a manifest departure from ti e
eitablished usage and practice of the Constittnio..
was a case very different from other eases of bribk
try end corruption. It was different in this re<peCt
that bete there had been a long continued and sy
kinetic scene of corruption, which loudly called fr
the interference of Parliament to suppress. Partin
agent aright have been justified in disfranchising th,
horauga altogether and it was still more justified it
adoottng the fresent remedy. It had been argued,
that thee:tension of the franchises to the adjoining
hundreds would be an injury to the present Lie,.
tors of the Borough. Now, in answer to this, he
senuld suppose, that a man went and built a house
within the bog ugh of Aylesbury, and occupied
h. He was then to be considered an Elector,
and there was one more added to the number al-
ready in the Borough. Would any man say that
this was doing injustice, or doing an injury to the
remaining electors t and if it was contended that it '
was unjust, in point of principle, to admit 100 addi-
tionalelettors, it must be equally unjust in princi-
ple to admit one. If their I.ordships would look
Co the foundation of this measure, they would see
that it was one to which they could not, with any
propriety, refuse their assent. A court, composed of
IS Members pf the House of Commons, appointed
under that law which was called the Grenville
Ait, had examined into and ascertained the
anent of the bribery and corruption which had been
prallised at Aylesbury ; and it was on their express
recommendation that the present Bill had been
brought into the House of Commons. He earnestly
boned that their Lordships, by their vote, would
sanetion this proceeding ; that they would do an at
similar to what had been done in the case of Shore-

Irits, when the late Lord Chatham observed, that,
the Parliament had taken the borough of Shots-
bans out of the kingdom of Bengal, and placed it
fa the kingdom of England."
Lord AUCKLAND supported the Bill; and
pored as MI amendment to the Lord Chancellor's
Motion, M That so much of the Order of the Day,
N required Counsel to be beard in favour of the
Me be dispensed with."

Lod HAWLESBURY strongly supported the
Bill, as a measure absolutely necessary to correa a
Sigma abuse in the Constitution t and with no in-
ionic, to individuals. The individuals belonging
be time Borough of Aylesbury could not complain
.61 any injury, for nothing was to be taken from
1 ibem ; and if there was, that thing could not be
considered in the light of private property. The
einalve franchise which they exercised was not pri-
vate property, but a public trust vested in there by
due commu*ty ; and if that trust was abu,ed, the
community from which they received it had a right
to take it back again ; but even this was not the
caul herr, for they sti:l were to hold the trust ; but,
es order to prevent them from making a bad use rf
k again, it merely proposed that several o:hers we:c
to participate with them in the exercise of the same.

Lord ;LLEN BOROUGH strongly ob.l:Eted to
' BM es an a& of great injustice, because it went
to Matt pains and penalti:s on :Iv: ir.nocent as
well as the guilty. And if such a precedent as this
erns once admitted, a similar measure of disfran-
chisement might be adopted in every case of bribery
which might occur at every eleCtion throughout the
kingdom.
The LORD CHANCELLOR followed the last
I Noble Lord in opposing the Bill. And, in answer
• to what fell from Lord Grenville, he contecaled that
**accession of new eleflors was an infringement on
the right of the old eleßors. Even she addition of
one who should build a hense within the borough
must be considered as dssonos sine ;sjaria. He was
**enemy to real reform, ',tit he would ever oppose
dat thing called reform which was founded hi in-
• justioe.
Aker some further conversation. it was ordered
**Counsel be admitted to die bar. The Counsel
against, the Bill were admitted accordingly, and
were heard for some time.
When Counsel withdrew from the bar,
Lord Glum gt.t.s moved the second reading of
the BM.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed it, upon
de Around that there was no evidence before the
bat the Minutes of the Committee of the
of Commons. He. therefore, proposed an
Amendment, which should be entered on the Jour-
. sals of the House. a, shew to posterity that there
was one man in that House who would oppose so
initya Bill.
Gaeta ex explained.
Lord AUCKLAND said, that not having heard
she arguments of Counsel, nor the evidence ad-
' decade he should decline voting either way on the
lireseatspestion.
Lord GRENVILLE declared he by no means
meant to take the House unawares, nor to press the
question against their Lordships wishes; be there-
fore would postpone the further eunsideratioa of the
Motion till to-morron.
wiIrLORD CHANCELLOR said, he could
ave that House, without observing upon what
fell front the Noble Lord (Grenville) : he said 1c had
thrown a slur upon the 'Bill ; if the strongest pro-
test that his mind could suggest again..t Bach an
iniquitous Bill was so, he pleaded guilty. lLne-
ver, as the Noble Lord had postponed the furth,..r
consideration of the Bill, he also withdrew his
Amendment.
The Counsel and witnesses were then ordered to
attend at the bar to-nwrrow, .utd the House ad-
journed.