The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-01 00:00:00

was, affected only the feelings and character of an individual
peer ; and however valuable the privileges and character of
emery member of their lordships' house, yet these considera-
tions were of far less importance than the protection that was
due to the individual who filled the hirrUst judicial situation
in the country, and who performss:s the judicial functions of
that house. He looked uposs a libel against the Lord C'sans
cellar, or any publicaeicn tending to degrade tht crearacter of
the individual filling that high office, as a lar graver offence
than any attack., however atrocious, made against an indivi.
Idual peer. Although, therefore, he was disposed to acquiesce
in.the general feeling of the house on the-present occasion, he
should certainly feel' better satisfied if a marked distinction
were made between this case and any other that had only re-
ference to an i dividual peer, as to the degree of punishment
that ought t be dealt out to the offender.
.The Earl*of RADNOR said that the publication that was
involved in Ate present discussion was not only a gross libel on
the Lord Chancellor, but a daring insult to their lordships'
house, for it !hoc! died their lordships' journals as nothing bet-
ter than a sot cif garbled entries. • He quite agreed that in this
case some grant at fk g ree of punishment than a mere reprimand
should be este tried to the person at the bar, whose proceedings
were perfectly unjustitieble. In all cases that had hitherto
come before their lordships of this nature the offending party
had always been Tither committed to the custody of the Usher
of. the Black _l6d, or to Newgate. There was no instance of
a -person thus offending having been discharged out of cus-
tody on the same day that he was brought to the bar, or without
petitioning tho house, and expressing his regret for the. offence.
He called upon the house to support its own privileges. The
libel in the present instance was the most groundless that was
ever published. It was based on tke most ridiculous and
trifling circumstances. The slightest inquiry of any of the
clerks of the house would have informed the writer of this libel
that he had no foundation for his attack. If the house. thought
fit that the Morning Post should every day abuse its privileges,
and set, their lordships' power and authority at defiance, they
ought to say so at once. (Loud cries of " Question.")
The LORD CHANCELLOR begged to inform their
lordships that their motion was already passed.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND wished to know what ques-
tion had been passed. He understood the noble and learned
lord to have moved that the individual at the bar be now dis-
'charged.
The LORI) e ANCELL OR--I said I wished that course
to be adopt.) , but the question was not put.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND—Did the noble and learned
lord make the motion, or did he not?
The LORD CIIANCELLOR—I really cannot answer
'with certainty.
The Earl of WI C OW—The noble and learned lord
most certainly did put the motion, that the person in custody
should be called to the bar and discharged.
The L 0 1t I) CII ANCELLOR—It is possible I did, but
I have no recollection of it. (Here there was much noise and
confusion amongst a number of peers who surrounded the
table, and general and loud calls of ." Order.")
Lord FARNHAM—The noble and learned lord has made
so many motions that he cannot recollect them all. (A laugh.)
It is quite clear that, according to the usage of the house on
such occasions, the individual at the bar must remain in cus-
tody until he presents a proper petition to the house. He must
purge hirnsel fof the contempt in which he at present is, before
he can hope to be discharged. He must present a petition.
It would have been better if the . question had not been put as
it has been by the noble and learned lord. His motion must
either be negatived or withdrawn.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR—It is very likely that I
may, as the noble lord says, have put so many questions that I
do not recollect them. I may have been irregular. The usual
course, certainly, is to petition the house before the individual
in custody can be discharged. I remember, in the case of
Gale Jones, that person had been declared guilty of a breach
of privilege, and, having refused to petition, he remained in
custody until the end of the session. It will be more regular,
perhaps, if I withdraw the motion I made.
Leave was thou given to withdraw the motion.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH—The motion that the noble
and learned lord made, and ha's now withdrawn, was made in
his capacity of an individual peer, and was not put by him as
Speaker of this house from the woolsack. There did not,
therefore, exist any motion at all before the house.
The Earl of HARROWBY—I move that your lordships
pass to the order of the day.
The house then passed to the order of the day, and conse-
quently Mr. 13ittleston remained in custody.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY put some question
across the table to Earl Grey relative to the affairs of Spain
and Portugal, but from the noise of peers quitting the house,
neither the question nor the answer could be heard in the gal-
Imy. The result, however, was, that
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved that their
lordships be summoned for Friday next on the subject of the
question to Earl Grey.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE rose to call the attention
of their lordships to a bill which had been sent up from the
other house of Parliament, and the object of which was to
make provisions for the more effectual prevention of bribery
at elections. The bill heal not been produced by his Majesty's
Ministers, but it had seceived the most favourable eonsidera.
tion of all parties ; said he was sure that it must be the wish
of that house to Tett an end as much as pos,sible to the practice
of bribery at elections. Whilst there did exist a system of
national representation all persons must acknowledge that it
ought to be kept pure, and unpolluted. (His lordship here
went into the prinaipal provisions and enactments of the bill,
as they have been reported from time to time, during its pro-
gress through the House of Commons.) The only alteration
which he proposed that the bill should undergo related but to
one point. He proposed that it should be enacted that when
an election committee was appointed in the house below, the
committee should address the crown, and upon that address
the crown might appoint a commission of inquiry into the trans-
actions of the borough, by evidence taken on the spot. Upon
the report of that commission the committee might hear coun-
sel and report the final result to the house. This was the only
amendment which he intended to propose to the bill ' • but if
any noble lord had say amendments to suggest, he -was
sure that he should \, most willing to pay them every
possible attention. A tecase of the borough of Carrick-
fergus had been investig ,siand reported upon the operation
of the present bill could us tbe said to bear upon it in the na-
ture of an ex post facto law and he could only observe that if
their lordships were themselv oireo the case of Carrick-
fergus it would delay the prop fiLe present bill most in-
conveniently. He should move the bill be read a second
time that evening.
Lord FARNHAM did not obje cite the principle of the
bill, though there were many of its provisions against which
he should protest. He could not but reprobate the house pro-
ceeding against the borough of Carrickfergus without a further
inquiry into the case at their lordships' bar ; and on a general
principle he never would consent to disfranchise any borough
without that house hearing the case.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE begged to observe that
the bill only made it optional in that house to comply with the
proceedings of the house below.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH was of opinion that the bill
ought to be referred to a committee up stairs. It was im-
possible that the house could go on for another session
treating Disfranchising Bills as they had treated the War-
wick Bill. The whole effect, object, and operation of the
proposed measure was to perform all the business of
inquiry by a committee of the House of Commons, and
to pass•by the House of Lords. He, for one, would object to
this altogether. The present bill admitted of no appeal,
of no review of any case of possible offence, and he
trusted that such a law would never meet the sanction of that
house. Let noble lords consider how the bill destroyed the
rights of individuals. Persons might complain against any
borough upon vague or general grounds of corruption, and then
give in a list of people charged with bribery, only fourteen
days within proceedings, and then the -accused were called
upon to rebut the charge by evidence. Nothing could be more
proper than this ; but in some cases the bill enabled persons to
bring charges of bribery without any notice whatever, and the
committee had no power to let them appear in defence, either
personally or by counsel. No notice was given to the ac-
cused, nor were they empowered tq cross-examine any wit-
nesses that might be brought against them, nor could they
without the special leave of the committee be allowed to
bring forward witnesses to support their defence. If the
case were gone into in the country, then the accused had all
these powers, but immediately the commission made its re-
port their privileges ceased altogether. The report of the
committee was to be conclusive against all persons charged
with bribery, and their names were to be forthwith posted on the
doors of the town-hall and church of the parish, so that the
parties might be exposed to derision and obloquy, and this al-
though they had had no previous. means of defending them- ,
selves. But what were the provisions of the bill with respect
to indemnification ? All those who brought such charges
might be indemnified ; but no similar indemnification was al-
lowed to those who might even successfully defend themselves,
unless indeed the committee might report that the charges
were frivolous and vexatious. With respect to those parts of
the bill that related to costs; their lordships could not make
any alterations in the bill, and if, therefore, they received it at
all, they would be compelled to pass it with all its imperfec-
tions upon this important part of the law. He objected to the
power given to the Speaker to reduce the list of thirty-three
members into eleven to form the committee. Such a pow#'
might be absurd, especially immediately before a dissolut4,o7u.
This was attacking a valuable principle, and it was to
giving a judge the power of reducing the general jury, list to
the number of twelve. What he would prefer was that t'4,, second
reading of the bill should be postponed for a weektwo, and
• in the meantime a committee should be appointc4 to consider
in what manner all future proceedings conressted with dis_
*franchisement bills might best be, conducted that
house.
..eed
The LORD CHANCELLOR consisle that the absolute
necessity of some such measure as that under consideration
was demonstrable on two grounds—ti it, on that of principle -
had had of on
that
their lordships
and secondly, on that affni dedorth
the present system in the
e inconveence by
0„..,
instance of the Warwick bon ;ugh. -Nothing could be more
cumbrous, inconvenient, ineffective, and, consequent on all
these qualities, expensive, than the mode in which their lord-
ships at present tools,. measures for the disfranchisement of
offending boroughs; and if the present measure did, as he
contended it did., remove each and every of those bad qualities,
it was impossible to deny that, as far as principle was con-
cerned, it was unobjectionable. But nothing could more
effectually prove the necessity of some such measure as that
proposed than the pending proceedings in the case of the
borough of Warwick. The bill for the disfranchisement of
that borough might prove an excellent measure when they
came to the end of the existing inquiry. At. present they
were at most-but in:the middle- of it : but surely, it was not
too much for him to say that such was the annoyancu and
fatigue that inquiry had given their lordships, that it
would be difficult, even though a stronger ciao was liade