The Sun.
London, England, 1804-04-17 00:00:00

AYLESBURY ELECTION.

Sir GEORGE COIZNEW ALL moved the Order
of the Day for the second reading of the Bill for the
be:ter Prevention of Bribery and,Corroption in the
Borough of Aylesbury.
The question being put,
The Marquis of TITCHFIELD rose to oppose
the further proceeding on the Bill ; first, because he
did not think the advocates of the Bill had made out
a case sufficiently strong to warrant the adoption Hof
such a measure, which went to punish indiscriminately
all the Electors of Aylesbury, for the alledgcd crime
of_ only a portion of them ; and, secondly, because
the charge was only stated to he ..substantiated
against a le w,compared with the number who claimed
the right of voting. For the present the:Noble
Marquis did not feel it necessary to state any fur.
titer .arguments upon it, but concluded with moving
an Amendment, that instead of the words "be
now read," there be inserted- the words " this day
.three :months."

Sir JOHN NEWPORT. warmly supported the
Bill. He contended it was a measure :absolutely
.necespyy„ to mark: the just indignation of that
House.against the gross and flagitious delinquency
of the Borough of Aylesbury, and the infamous in.
stances,of the most foul and atrocious corruption,
openly, carried on with the Eleaors of that Borough,
at the. late Eledion, in defiance of the Laws—in
the most flagrant prostitution of Electioneering
-Franchises. It appeared from the Report of their
Commit tee, to - whose consideration the merits of
that F.le&ion had been referred, that. three houses in
the town had beer. openedfur the palpable and avow.
ed purposes of, bribery and corruption ; that upwards
of. zoo of the .Eleaors-had received the bribes, not
:only on one but of 411 the. Candidates ; that they
si',ned..their names to an address, soliciting a Can.
4rdaye, whom they had never known or seen, to
stand for their Borough, for no other purpose than
to raise the marker, and enhance, the price of cor-
ruption ;,. that in the public room _where those men
entered_ for. the purpose of receiving their bribes,
there was a bowl of 'punch at. one end of the
•table, apt' a bowl of guineas at another. Having
mentioned a variety of other instances, of a like na-
ture, he said it was impossible for earliament to
..pass ynpunished a case of 'such foul corruption, so
utterly obnoxious .ro .the,spirit of our Constitution,
_and. the purity,oi.. the. Commons, without abandoni.
ing both,,•and futnisning new and strong arguments
for Reformers out of (loots ; when the best and most
wholesome species ti reform was already in che-
'power of the House itself, by checking in the first
,instance, and branding, by the most exemplary
,punishment, every such flagitious instance oCcor.

',option, as that which marked out the Borough of
Aylesbury, as a fit example to deter other Boroughs
from acting with such baseness, and prostituting to
bribery the constitutional trust reposed in the Elec.
tors : he therefore supported the Bill.
Mr. HURST fully agreed in the sentiments of
the Hon. Baronet, as to the justice and necessity
of exemplary punishment to the persons actually
guilty of such foal and flagitious corruption as that
which has been stated, and to this the law of
the land was already competent to the full ex-
tent necessary, so far as utterly disfranchising,
and rattlOting, by heavy penalties, the persons who
should be proved guilty thereof, and against la hom
prosecutions were at this moment carrying on.—
Bot he never could agree to punish the innocent
iodiscriminattly with the guilty, in subversion to
the mild, just, and constitutional spirit of our laws,
as would be the inevitable effed of a Bill that must
eventually disfranchise the innocent, honourable,
honest, and unoffending Eiedors of Aylesbury and
Their postetity, merely fur the crimes of the guilty.
Lord OSSULSTON, whatever might be his
zentiments of the Bill, understood it was the in-
tention to throw open. parishes in the hundred sur-
rounding the Borough of Aylesbury, which, in his
romd, so far from remedying, would rather promote
the evil complained of, as it would let in the tights
of Eleaion to a description of persons without pro-
perty, and certainly more open to the temptation of
bribery than those already charged with it; beside, he
did not think that Aylesbury was so very singular and
insulated a case, as to call for peculiar distianchise.
mew, for a 'species .of corruption of which instances
ware, unhappily, but too numerous elsewhere. If
the Noble Lord would bting forward any general
measure for the more effedual prevention of bribery
and corruption, - and specifically declare any degree
of such delinquency which should hereafter subject a
bdi-piigh to disfranchisement, he should have no ob.
jeilion to support it. •
GEORGE CORNEWALL spoke in favour
of the Bill, and argued that the portion of corrupt-
. eti -.totes appeared lo -be as 271 to 37, and said he
should divide the House against the Amendment.
Sir ROBERT BUXTON supported the Bill, and
Mr. P. MOORE spoke against it. Me con-
tended that the law was alteady sufficiently strong
to punish the delinquency of the parties, against
whom the charge could be established, and against
whom adions were this moment in suit for penalties
,to the amount of a million sterling.
Mr. FRANC Is spoke against the Bill, and Mr.
CRENEELL 111 support of it.
The MASTER of the ROLLS, at considerable
length, and with much ability, opposed the Bill.
He was totally against the principle of punishing the
innocent for the sake of the guilty. It would be
saying a strong thing indeed, to alledge that one
man may forfeit a franchise for the at of another ;
but it would be say iog a touch stronger to al-
ledge,
_that a majority shall forfeit for the fault of
a minority. The preamble of this Bill did not even
state the proportion of the Aylesbury Elec.
tors, whether three.fourths, one,half, or one-third,
who had incurred that species of criminality
for which it was the purpose of this Bill to
disfranchise the whole. On this point the pre-
.amble left the 'louse to its conjectures ; and they
might either infer, that the guilt attached up.
three_fourths of the Electors, or a few in.
The law already was sufficiently strong
to punish the guilty parties, by heavy fines and
oiler disfranchisement. But in his mind, it would
be an alarming notice _indeed to the Eleaors
of every Borough in the kingdom that, for the
delinquency of a few individuals, who should secret-
ly or openly submit to bribery or corruption, the
on ifending m ijority must be deprived of their
fronehises under an Af of this sort. This would
iriteed be, to put it into the hands of the. Reformers
out of doors to effea. their own purposes, and by
mere trick and management, procure the disfran
chisement of eve?), .lorcr.)gtl in the kingdom ; and
thus, as it were, held out a premium to bribery and
corruption.
The SECRETARY at WAR spoke in support of
the Bill, and said the preamble rniglit easily be fitted
io the shape the Bill would bear when it came out
of the Committee.
Mr. Serjeaet BEST supported the arguments of
the MASI ER of the ROLLS, and added, the present
was the mast improper season at which such a Bill
• could be introduced, as, if it were possible for the
House to adopt it, its direel tendency would be to
prejudge Adions now pending to the amount of a
• million of money, and involve the utter ruin of
many families.
sir WILLIAM YOUNG supported the Bill, up.
on the principles of the GRENV !IL E Ads, which
`,gave to Committees emanating from that House,
the authority to propose and recommend measures
46r the punishment and future prevention ofsuch fla.
--grant instances of corruption, as those which justi.
fled the introduaiOn of the measure before them.
Mr. Serjeatit BEST rxl lained.
Mr. FOX. in a few words, expressed his opi.
nion that there was no fair necessity for the Bill.
He could see no reason why the case of the Borough
• of Aylesbury should be taken out of the general
rii!e, and not left to the operation of the existing
• law s to punish bribery and corruption.
• Mr. W. SMITH gave his concurrence to the Bill,
and contradided the statement of the Learned Ser.
*ant, that the penalties sued for amounted to any
thing like a million, as he had represented.
The House divided on the Marquis of Tvren.
'Eon's Arnendmen
Against it 69
For it 48

Majority - 21
On the Motion of Sir ROBERT BUXTON, it wag
ordered that Counsel should be heard at the Bar on
Wednesday next, for the Petitioners against the Bill.
' Several Members were added, on Motion, to the
• Committee on the Corn Petitions.

- Lord FOLKSTONE moved for "An Account of
the Number and Names of Captains in the different
Re intents of Militia, who were not possessed on
a certain day of the usual qualifications."
- The CUANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed,
That same of the Papers moved for by the Noble
Lord, were on the Table, and that the others would
be produced as soon as possible.

Mr. YoRKE brought up a " Bill for the rrtnre
speedily supplying and facilitating the filling up of
Vacancies in the Militia."

Sir JOHN WRorr ESL ET hoped that an indemnity
to Officers who had served, or were serving, with.
out qualifications, would make part of that Bill.
They were by the existing laws ;übjeft to a penalty
of 2001. against the exaaion of which he thought
they should be protefted.
The Bill was read a first time ; and on the Mo-
tion of Mr. YORKE, ordered to be read a second
time to-morrow.