The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1821-05-15 00:00:00

4 Per Cent.

ill; N-111'• - '
v
glr
/4:- % -
‘. , •
V) ; i
~. W .
~
...r,, N 1
10\ "*.'- Pi •
"v. • • _ _

. • .
: . ofilteltD:FC ' •
.1 ' .:+t • .t.s.i. V. sliitv.-14 ern .., .--%-.; .0411440111.0.2 , •
, -he pone, slew. letegieeee •e! rikkomeget..4f, ' "
• •!, . Irflo %INN 110 • 10.9111111%-k MO' .rWitasai :4k,,,„, .
.5.., eat.s gavot/Omit itutolf et :wets 4 .ieji tile :•!. i .I. *
1161141 • 44,i.;. ye
. " ,Pertrig et eon etweetwo.l.lfte...,A..it ....1 .-,..4.4.-
• . q. 03.:nituispre:t yd.? eieuta_lttagok 241,-seci_zimi , -

•
• ••- 116 Ira .
''!lire.Mr Alper

. - - - - -
_
hold to the commie aIready.posIMIIINSKINIP •""
dom of Parliament ? Weft •skopika..irCeemoulto
principle tliot one outsell hod taigiiiy reptisoliutal r'.
lives, mitt another toeless.; UsatClidlisild bed pomp,
and Yorkshire bad leas *au earaitille Ite really
believed that theft wave in GoameNund Si
voters as any iii the kingdom,Arhous titer list
shout to deprive; batat uoy.rate, let their Lord- •
slims follow tip their own .psocesletti. lissiteould
not hurt much by so doing in this particular. ease.
Wheurver a case should. arise, autoiriert Attila to,
vary it, they r unit act otherwise. He gave Lis ..
assent to the mollolll,
The Earl of Livaseoot regretted Ilse difference
which bed unfortostaiely existed ketoses", himself •
and the Noble and Learned Lord on the-Woolsae*
noon the subject of Mitt like the present during
the *wale of their !white lifts. He took it for
Unfitted that the object of the maims was to defeat
'The Rill, 'itod tfis-quhfroii- Hove were arguing was
the seine which had been discussed on a former
. might—the propriety of going into a Committee on
the Bill. It had been celled a Bill of Pains end
seshies ; be it so; there were many good thing::
tient by bad names. But he looked to the mean-
ings not to the qualities of loupes. If the Consti-
tution allowed of Bills of Pains and Penalties—if
the practice of Perhanieest approved! them —the
only queasum remaining would be (if they must
call this a Bill of Penalties), was the remedy ap-
plicable to the case ? tie knew that theßill went
to deprive parties of rights and privileges ; but
what rights and privileges ? Such us were grunted
for the public benefit, uml not for individual pur...
poses. If the trust were abused, that. was equal
to renouncing it, and it must be tam away;
He thought he had conceded u greet deal,
when he put the rights of Corporations and
Peers on the same looting. If • Peer were
o
convicted of gross corruption in his duty, "04
would deprive him. " Yes," it was said, " but
then you deprive a guilty man, and not. sit .
iimoveist one." But the cases were the same with
respect to the argument. They could not 'glee
personal identity to a borough, and that was ttie. •
only distinction. If a majority of • boriosetande
corrupt, it was in the nature of things, oudetheyil
could not avoid that the minority must +lolliffetw:
with them. As to transferring the uncorrniitl.d
votes to the hundred, it was quite practicable,.
but it seemed to him to be a perfect mockery ;,Jet-
any one consider the difference made in the voluc
of a vote, when it became from one iie 100, °lselin.
1,000 ; still this was not without remedy. Give
the pure votes, by a special clause, sous for
county ; any one might propose that in a Clom-1
mittee ; he would not, because he did not dedalliid • .
necessary. But the plan itself could be de abloca.
tam to going tutu the Committee. Wird ditlftber,
argument of the Noble Lord amount to if followt4
out ? why that if there were only 30, 20, 10, 5,•..
or even I, uncorrupted elector in • borough, no
matter if the corporation contained 999 corrupt,
voter, the Parliament could not deprive them.
11 but monstrous effects would the admiseiou of sun,
a doctrine Lad to ? Ile had stated that this Dell

did not, as usual, convey the right of voting to thrc.
neighbouring hundred ; but that was no reason
for refusing to go into a Committee. He elisap-,
proved of the Bill as it hod been sent up from the
Commons, and he would propose an entirely dif-
ferent remedy. But these were considerations for
the Committee, and by no means arguments
against it. He was of opinion that systematic cof-
ruption had been proved which required a remedy.
He had always been an enemy to Parliamentary
Reform. He was of opinion that it mattered -nV
whet her a corporation consisted of 5, or 500, pr
5,000, provided the exercise of the franchisee were
kept pure. lie considered the variety of *or-
',oration rights an excellent feature us ethi con-
stitution, which was unattainable by new One'
%eminent,. His principle was never to 'Titans
on speculation, or with the hope of making thing.
better, but when once a ease of corruption teas. •
proved. they ought to obey the necessity of ii, and'
apply a remedy. Sift the proofs they might if they;
pleased, but if enough of evidence 'manned, there
was no more hut to admit such is Bill as that before
them. He would support that Bill, not as a Re-
former, but as a most anxious Anti-Iteformer.
was the strongest door which could be shut against
the principle of Reform. As to the difference be-
tween the principle of this and former Bills. he,
was rout of °porton that one • county hail temarnany
representatives and another too fear. He objected to•
transferring the votes to the hundred, because he'
wished to save the Cornish boroughs. At prevent
there was on locality in those boroughs, except in.
the case of Shoreham. lie conceived that u worse
case of corruption than Grounpound bud uev-r
been proved.
Earl BATHURST objected to the Bill, on priori-
ple, because it went to introduce chairge ;
wished that the House would at least adhere • ,
their own precedents. He objected to taking uses,. •
the rights of burgesses; he feared 111141 the proctor-'
might lead to parliamentary jobbing, as he had;
seen plenty of jobbing through Acts of Portia-r
went. He objected to the disposal of the borough
through the prerogative. If he were a freeholder"
of Yorkshire, he would object most strenuously.
to the seats being transferred to that county. Re-.;
perieuce proved that it was impossible to avoid at
contest where four Members were to be returned.
Lord lIRDESDALE objected to the Bill becaoiie•l
its principle was that of population, awl was tt.d
same as had beets adopted by the French Couree
inns iii dividing the nation into departments, toward)
which he considered the proposed division of the
comity-of York to be rather a strong overture.
The Matquis of luisDowit thought the detail!
of the nal. ought to be reliefs...l for the Cnrusuatter.
The Earls of LatLPSO.D.U.g..aud 114 —•THURST ex- .
plainsd. o
-,fht• motion was that noritived. •
Tire queation fur the House resolving OAK tote
aCoinenritee'wsis then put.
Lord huntourn rear to oppo'e the %lobo°. . As