The Sun.
London, England, 1804-06-07 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLI,INE,NT.

HOUSE OF PEERS.,,
• WEDNESDXI, JUNE .6., ak:
• ,
CouNsEL_Weie again heard in the .R Peertre
and the further healing „postponed.:till"TuSay.
AYLESBURY ELECTION BILL.
. Lord GRENVILLE rose to tllOvt the soind real.
ing of the Aylesbury Eledion Bill. A long and
uninteresting conversation "ensued, with re.ipeet to
the niaoner in winch the Counsel on built
to be called to the Blir; To enter into a ti`Fil;'6ll
on this ,topic,-would acipcar. totally unimpottlnt to
4 •
?ur, Reader...lv is sufficient. to mention, tlot -
The LO RD:ti Ai'vc ELLDn length • kit- the
Woolsack, with clew -of stating his' objelionc:
. .
nerally to the whole principle and 013 of :the. 11
It appeared to h iii a -measure founded hr such di .ft
opposition to the most ancient MaxitoS of EnOsh
LaW, that, it ought not tti be entertained even for
a single [-mita-int. He contended, that the evidence
produced before, the House ofColum-ms, and which
had, Vsosoasieoth:?: basin of the Mir, did not in the
stnafiat the girt :it issue bet ri ix
the different :parties, whose interests the m,a,ure
must necessarily affea. The question involved in
the Bill, was not one over which the Hiuse of Com-
trions'ought to have dire} influence. It had not
been referred to their consideration, and even such
of their Lordships, as 'thought that the Bill ought to
be entertained, must be &strolls of having the alle-
gations on which theitill professed to rest, distintilr
,proved at the Bar. For his own part, he 'was not pee--
. pared, even.if these allegatitios-were prOved, to give
his assent tdthe• ; even then he felt, that the Bill
'would not be divested of an appearance of unfairness
and injustice, It struck. him that the Bill-had its
origin from the efforts of men of power and influence,
who taking advantage of the miscondua of certain
individuals, wished to make that the pretext for
stripping the Eleaors of the Borough of Aylesbury
at large of their Sacred, important elective fran-
chise.—There were three Petitions on the -Table of
their Lordships, bur he maintained, that w ith,'regiarti
to two of the Petitions, which were in favour of the
Bill, the interest of the Petitioners were 'so feeble
as not to be worthy-ortheir Lordships' consideration.
It was true, that these Petitions purported to be from
persOns, describing themselves as having an interest
in the Borough of Aylesbury. But it was necessaryfor
their Lordships toexamioe- the Petitions, to see boat
far this allegation Was•eStablished'. If this exatnita-
Lion had been madeohe wits,pettuAi7d that the ?eft-
oions would not haveeven been suffered to be laid
6n'the was a Matter of some surprise, th it
-those who were so anxious to.prevent the r eptt•it
'.Of cerf;iin ;specified •abwes, connected with the lac
eleaionS, wee so, willing to give up the enjoy urn tor
their oven fra,c,cl-tisea, and to iOtr6dece otherg to the
_enjoyonent (Ith-col who hithertohad not been entitled
to this privilege. c.:ounie4l
for on. the principle that they
fines were hanging over their heads; and wishetl
di-satin subsequent charges,byadducing proofs of their
innocence at' their Lordships' •Bar. This, his Lord.
ship maintained, was not. an admissible sort of evi-
dence, or -one. that wag at all consonant with the
usages of English L' w. It was not for men, who
laboured- under a fear of punishment to appear' as
their own compurgators, to the prejudice of tile to •:-
nary course of justice. He argued that it the it-tea:Aire
was fit at all,. it ought to he adopted as one generally
conneaed with the state of the representation. • He
saw no-reason for picking and choosing 'particular
Boroughs, hut if :the. principle of the. Bill was to hi:
countenanced, why not go over Towns, Coutities,
Boroughs, with the application of the same regula-
tions. • Even then he should feel it his duty to op-

1

, •

pose the measure, as contrary to the best views ut
the Constitution, and founded on idle and thcoreti-
cal views' of .Refor;m: It would, -however, at least
have the merit of some appearance of consistency,
which was &tote than the Bill on the Table coul.t
lay claim to. • It was no argument for the Bill,.tloat
bribery and corruption had prevailed to a great 'de-
gree in the Borough of .Aylesbury. The, common
Law of the Country provided a sufficient remedy
for this evil, and independent of this there were sa-
lutary regulations fully adequate to the punishment
of these offences. .At this moment there were in-
dividuals suffering severely in consequence' of 'their
having transgressed these Statutes. The Noble and
Learned Lord concluded, after a few more observa-
tions to the same import, by declaring his decided
disapprObation of the Bill.
Ear! GROSVENOR supported the Bill, on the
grounds of an abso!ute necessity of supporting the
ptirity of the eledive franchise, which was one of the
Most important exercised by British Subjects. In
the present ingance, he did not see that' the Eledots
of Aylesbury would suffer any material injury. It
was a fad, however unaccountable, that Eleclori in
general did not SO, highly prize the eleaiye fran-
chise as the Noble and Learned Lord appeared to
suppose. Sirne Eledors would go a hundred miles
'to exercise this privilege, while others would -hard-
ly take the trouble to go across a room to be .en.
titled to- put iiT in pradice.. When instances of its
corrupt and vicious exercise occurred, it was neces-
sary to make same striking example to prevent the
recurrence of such scenes in future. This was Jr-
quisite, not only as a means of present punishment,
but as a terror against the approach of evilsofa still
mare enormous nature. His Lordship illustrated
this idea, by .referring to the miseries which the
Revolution of France'had exhibited. • If timely pre-
cautions hil- there- been, adopted, the innocent and
the gr.iity would not have been involved in the sum.:
-common calamities. It was with the view of takin;
evils at their origin, and •preyentiug their accumu-
lation, that he thought Bills of the_description now
on the Table, wgre.puljiarly worthy of the a tua.

tion of the Legislature. His Lordship, at the close
of his re►narks, referred to the cases of Shoreham and
Cricklade, both of which he maintained to be stri6l-
-in point. He sat down by giving his decided
vote for hearing Counsel on the Bill.
Lori GRENVILL& followed on the same side,
and in a Speech charafterized by his usual ability, sup-
ported the policy, the necessity, and the expedien.
cy of the Bill. He thought that even on the prin.
civics laid down by the Noble and Learned Lord,
the Petitioners in this case were entitled to have
their allegations brought to a fair issue. If these
Petitioners were threatened with intimidation by a
certain body of powerful individuals, it was proper
tat they should be allowed to explain the causes of
t.►is intimidation, and to ask of the Legislature the
adoption of means for removing it. He was asto.
nished that the Noble and Leorned Lord should op.
pose a species of Reform which he had often gloried
in declaring arose out of the very essence of the
British Constitution. This Reform was the power
of correeling an existing evil, without adopting any
theoretical views of Reform, starred by men who

acted on speculation rather than on experience. His
- Lordship particularly referred on this point to the
cases of Shoreham and Cricklade. The first of these
cases was decided on principles precisely similar to
those on which the present Bill was founded. The
general principle was, that as an evil had existed,and
was likely to continue, independent of interference,
measures should be adopted to prevent its repetition.
While an' existing evil was thus guarded against, a
warning was at the same time held out to other Bo-
roughs,that if similar praaices prevailed, a similar re.
suit might be expeCted. In the case ofCrickiade, the
execution of this threat of the Legislature became
necessary, and it was accordingly infiiCled. So it
was with regard to the Bill under their Lordships'
consideration, which was, in fact, neither more nor
less than the prosecution of the same principle, ap_
plicable to cases of gross Corruption in the exercise
of the elenive franchise. With regard to the case
of Ilchester, if a Report had been produced by the
Committee, and if this Report had been made the
ground of a similar measure, he should, on the same
grounds which induced him to support the present
Bill, have given that measure his hearty support.
That no such proceeding had then been instituted,
was no sort of argument against the measure now
under discussion. He did not see that any set of men
would have a right to complain of the hardship of
the measure. It was not at all, as described, a Bill
of disfranchisement. At present, every housekeeper
in Aylesbury had the right of voting at Elections.
At present there were, perhaps, four hundred and
ne Voters, but if one individual more built a house,
and obtained a right to vote, would that injure the
sight of the other Voters ? It certainly would not ;
and on the same principle, the introduction of the
additional Voters proposed by the Bib, would not
at all irjure the rights of those now in possession of
the right of voting. His Lordship added several
other considerations to the same effect, in support of
the Bill.
Lord AUCKLAND was decidedly for hearing
Counsel, as a matter of common justice, to all the
parties concerned.
Lard HAUXESBURY thought that, as the House
of Commons had founded the Bill on a large body
of evidence, it was at least but fair that the nature
and force of this evidence should be fully consider.-
1-1'• was therefore adverea
the Bill till it had met with due consideration, and
till it had been ascertained that circumstances did
not imperiously call for this or some similar mea-
sure, as the only means of reaifying a great evil.
He was always friendly to Reform, on the principles
which the Bill held forth. They were in the true
principles of Constitutional Reform, and afforded
the best answer to the theoretical Reformi,ts.
Llrel ELLENBOROUGH entered into a dry law
argument against the Bill. He thought that no
grounds were laid ler it, and that it unnecessarily
interfered with the EleCtive Franchise of a number
of EleCtors, against whom no charge of criminaii-
ty was ever attempted to be urged, far less sub-
etantiated.
The LORD CHANCELLOR reinforced the ar-
gu me nt s used in his former speech. and still more
earnestly contended against the expediency of the
Bill.

Earl ROMNEY, in a short speech, gave his rea-
,
sons for suoporti7, the Bill.
After some more conversation, Counsel against
the Bill were called to the Bar, and spoke at consi-
&rabic length.
Itntudeiately on the Counsel leaving the Bar,
Lord Grtv.sviLLA rose, and moved the second
reading of the Bill, deeming it unnecessary to adduce
any evidence in support of it more than that which
had been taken before the House of Commons, and
which now lay on their Lordships' Table.
The LORD CHANCELLOR expessed his asto-
nishment at the Motion of the Noble Lord; declared
that he would esteem the adoption of such a measure
as most iniquitow, and intimated his resolution, for
she sake of the dignity of the House in the eyes of
posterity, should the Motion be persisted in, to
.nove as an addition--" Although no evidence in
suppOrt of the Bill has been adduced."

Lord AUCKLAND declared, that he had left the
House under the persuasion that no step beyond the
hearing of Counsel would take place 'that night ;
and he was convinced other Noble Lords 110
done the same.

The LORDS CHANCELLOR arid GRENVILLE
:nutually explained; when

Lord GRENVILLE declared, that it was not his
wish ta push the matter precipitately through the
House. If, therefore, it could he supposed that
any Noble Lord had left the House under the idea
that no step would be taken to night, he should
ur.ve for the postponement of the Order. Ile shotild
ako move that the Witnesses do attend to:morrow,
declAting it, however, not to be his intention to
•hove for them beifT, cilled in, as he reckoned any
farther evidence in support of the Bill unneces-
dary•

The Order was accordingly discharged, and order_
ed to stand for to.morrow ; the Wittresses who had
attended to-day were also ordered to attend and it
was recommended to the Counsel also to be resent.
—Adjoarned„

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6.
Mr. DAV 2ES GIDEON took the oaths and his
seat for the Borough of Helston in Cornwall, in
room of Lord Viscount F/TZHAIt R
Certain Accounts, respeeding the Importation and
Exportation ( Corn, were presented and ordered
to be printed for the use of the Members.
SLAVE TRADE.
S:r Josue Avis Rso sr presented a Petition from the
Planters, Merchants, Annuitants, and others in.
terested in the British •West India Colonies, against
the Bill now pending before Parliament for the Abo.
lition of the Seise Trade.
On the question being put, that the Petition lie on
the Table till the second reading of the said Bill,
and that the Petitioners be then heard by themselves
ur Counsei,
Mr. WILBERFORCE gave it as his opinion,
that there could he no necessity for any particular
investigation into the merits of the question, as it
had been long a subject of discussion before that
House, and as all had already been heard that could
possibly be adduced by the different parties interest.
ed in this question. The opponents of the measure
had been fully heard on a former occasion when it
formed the subject of particular inquiry in the year
ninety-three. Nothing new, he thought, could be
advanced, and it would be therefore unnecessary to
lust the time of the House.
- Mr. FULLER contended that it would he ex-
tremely ungenerous to refuse a hearing to those who
had no Representatives in that House. The Coun-
try in the prosperity of which they were so much
interested, was not represented in Parliament. To
deny them, therefore, the privilege of petitioning,
or what was neatly the same, not to listen to their
Petitions, would be extremely hard indeed, parti-
cularly as he was convinced that not a single word
that had been said by that Hen. Geotleman the other
day was founded on rata.
Lord TEMPLE did not think it by any means a
good reason for waving the consideration of this Pe_
tition, that the subjeet had been formerly under
discussion. The discussion alluded to had taken
place some years ago, and the circumstances of the
Petitioners, as well as of the genera! subject itself,
might now be considerably changed. He would
move for Counsel being heard on the Petition.
Mr. FULLER eXplititiCd.
Mr. WILBERFW;CE argued, that no hlernher
of that House was more inclined than.he was to respecl
the right of Petitioning, but he thought the House
would do much better not to decide at present wile_
Cher any Petition should be heard by Counsel, but
to wait for some time tin the subject should come
; under farther consideration.
Mr. FRANCIS thought the Honourable Gen-
; tleman with whom the ohjedion originated, did not
wish that they should retuse to hear Counsel on the
subjeft, but only that further consideration was ye-
cessary. He thought besides, according to Parlia-
mentary usage, that notice should have been previ-
ously given.
The SPEAKER stated, that it had been the
custom of the House to order the Counsel to he
heard without any previous notice ; but when the
Counsel are called in, Gentlemen may (hen have
an opportunity to assign their reasons of dissent.
Sit J"M. YOUNG suggested, that there was a
Petition coming from Liverpool, and that the Hon.
',Jen tlemen ~,;,sot then oopor isooly of dis_
cussing the principle on which they now seemed
divided.
The Question was then carried.
Lord TEMPLE presented another Petition from
Mr. Lyon, Agent for the Island of Jamaica, against
the same Bill, which was disposed of in the same
manner as the former, after a short explanation from
Mr. WILBT,:r.voRcE, stating, that he did not
wish to prevent parties from being heard, but that
he could not iielp thinking the mode of disposing of
these Petitions premature, as the second reading of
the Bill was fixed for to-morrow, and Gentlemen
who might be appointed as Counsel could not, in all
probability. be prepared.
A Message was received from the Lords, announc-
ing their assent to several private Bills.
Lord PORCHEsTFR rose to renew the notice
which he had fermerly withdrawn, respeding our
East India Settlements. When he had withdrawn
this notice, it had been in the expekflation of an ante
and efficient Administration being speedily formed.—
But when he looked to the present Ministry, and saw
that more than the one half of them were the very
same men whom the other had described as incapa-
ble of the duties imposed on them, he could not help
thinking that his intended Motion was not less ne-
cessary' than formerly.
The SPEAKER here informed the Noble Lord that
it was not in order, to accompany a notice, with any
argue eots in support of the Motion intended. 4-111
that remained, therefore, fir the Noble Lord, was
to ftx any day that might be beet suited for his pur-
pose.
The CHANCE:4OIz, of the 14:xceseestsER was of
..,•
%noon that the Noble Lord had been so tar in order,
that he had not brought forward any argument what-
ever for the measure he proposed. He thought this
day sennight, which had been mentioned by the
Noble Lord, would be a very inconvenient day ; a
Bill now was pending before the House, that in all
probility would occupy its attention during most of
nent week.
Lord PORcx ESTER then fixed his Motion for Fri.
days