The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-11 00:00:00

PARLIAMENT,

HOUSE OF LORTiSsrUAY 10.
TIMBER
The Earlof LAunctIDALE presented a Peti.;
tion from the Merchants' Company of Lith,
praying that the Timber Duties Bill might not
pass into a law.—Read, and laid on the table,
'The Noble Lord then seeing a Noble tarl in
his place, inquired when it• was` his intention to
move the second reading of the Timber Duties'
Bill?

Earl BATHURST took this oprortunity of giving
notice, that to-morrow .sehmig-ht he should pro-
pose the second reading of that Bill, and of
• moving that their Lordship be summoned for
that day.—Agreed to. -
NEWPOUNtit*7'.
The Earl of DARNLEY recalled to their Lord-
ships' mind the Petition which bad lately been
presented from Newfoundland'by a Noble Friend
of his (Lord Holland,) stating a most atrocious
case, in which no redress -had been obtained.
He was anxious to obtain some assurance from
his Majesty's Government that steps would be
taken to afford such redress as the case required.
Earl BATnuasT entered into an explanation,
which, from the low tone in which his Lordship
spoke, was almost entirely inaudible below the
Bar. All that was understood was, that consi-
dering corporal punishment liable to abuse, his
Lordship had sent directions to that colony two
months ago, when he heard of the case mentioned
in the Petition, to have the practice discontinued,
and that the Commanding Officer to whom blame
had been attached, was -a man of such humanity,
that he had twice volunteered, in the midst of
winter, to go into the interior of , the country to
relieve the natives who had been driven back
into the woods by the settlement of Europeans
on the coast. With respect to the government of
the island, it was so far improved, that whereas -it
was formerly the practice for the Governor to
repair to the colony in May, and return in (31-
tober, he now remained the whole yei'r at his post.
After a few .words of explanation from the Earl
of DARNLEY, the conversation dropped.
GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

The order of the day having been read,
The Earl of CARNARVON rose to move the
second reading of this Bill. He was aware that
many Noble Lords objected to the particular
provisions of the Bill, whilst others amongst•their
Lordships were hostile to the whole principle,
not only of this Bill, but of all measures of a
remedial nature growing out of the evidence
given at the bar of the House. He would not
however, enter at any length on the' general part
of the question, because, by having already passed
three Acts of Parliament of a similar nature to
the present Bill, and having entertained every
Bill of the kind which had been presented to
them, their Lordships would seem to have recog-
nized the principle, thut when the Rouse of
Commons sent up any such Bill as the 'present,
they would hear evidence for the purpose of re-
gulating their cc-induct thereby. It would only
be necessary, therefore, for him to endeavour to
convince their Lordships that the evidence which
had been given on the present occasion was sufficient
to justify the passing of the Bill. Those Noble
Lords who might vote for the second reading of
the Bill would only pledge themselves to this,—
that some .change was necessary to be adopted in
the manner of exercising the elective franchise in

particular parts of the country, either according
to the words or the spirit of the present Bill.
None of the evidence which had been given in
support of the Bill led been impaired by oppos-
ing evidence. The Noble Lord then stated that
at the end of the last Session two Bills for the
disfranchisement of Grampound and Penryn haa
been sent up to their Lordships from the other
House; which Bills, after all the evidence in
support of them had been gone through at the
Bar, were prevented from being passed by tl►e
dissolution of Parliament. The Noble Earl op-
posite, however, had given it to be understood,
that if either of those Bills should lie sent up
from the Commons during the prest,nt Session, it
should be considered to Stand on the same foot-

ing as when formerly before their Lordships. In
consequence of this understanding, he (Lord
Carnarvon) had thought it unnecessary to go.in-
to the evidence at the same-length as on the for-
mer occasion. He could state, however, that the
evidence on which the Commons had passed this
Bill was the same as that on which the former
Bills were founded. The' Noble Earl here
proceeded to take a review of the evidence which,
had been given before the IrouSe of Commons, in
order to shew that it was sufficient to authorize

the adoption of the Bill. It appeared that 50
out of 63, the whole number of voters, had been
influenced in their votes by means of bribes given
in the shape of loans, secured by notes of baud,
which were cancelled at the end of the election.

That the object of the notes was to bribe the
voters could not be denied. It was also proved
in evidence, that a person who had:formerly been
a Mayor of Grampound, had offered to procure
a _Majority of votes upon recr..iving the sum of
7,0001. lie had stated these facts to show what

had been the general practice of the borough.
For the enormous evil against which it was their
Lordships' duty to guard, the Bill provided the
most expedient remedy,' by increasing the num-
ber of suffrages, and extending' them to another
species of voters. In legislating for the particu-
lar case of Grampound, it became their Loid-
shißs to take a wider vieiv of the question of
transfer contained in the. Bill, and to consider
whether it did not afford a remedy for the evil,
if the right of election were given to populous
towns. It bad been mistakenly said that Corn-

wail possessed.an undue share of the representa-
•tion ; but the fact was, that though Cornwall
had hitherto returned a large number of Members
through these boroughs, the persons chosen Iverte
not connected with that county ; they were, in
reality, more the Representatives of Manchester
and other great trading'or manufacturing towns ;
but if the system of confining' the representation
to. the hundred prevailed, the objection to the
State of the representation of Cornwall would
,then be Ivell founded; for in that case, when`
other. boroughs. in the same manner, came under
the animadversion of Parliament, instead of the
representation being distributed, as it ought,
over the different classes of which the Commu-
nity was composed, the only result would be that
of introducing 30.0 r 40 more Cornish 6entleMen
into' the Hous'ar Commons. He was not pre-
pared to say that the existing balance of the Con-
stitution was the best that could possibly be con-
structed ; but of this he was certain, that no
better had ever been tried or as yet suggested.
To give. security to a system, it was necessary
that it should be pure; and be was therefore
most desirous to remove all those blots and ano-
malies which disgraced the Constitution. This,
it was obvious, could only be done by timely and
prudent reforms. Where, be would ask, was
the point at which human institutions ought to
stand still ? Since the beginning of the world
every thing had been subject to change. No
proceeding took place in the Legislature which
did not, in some degree, alter the state of the
Constitution.. Every Enclosure Bill their Lord-
ships passed had an effect on the existing state of
society. The prerogatives of the Crown were
daily altering. Was the state of the Crown or
of the 'House of Commons the same as a century
ago ? If their Lordships really wished to pre-
serve the practicable identity of the Constitution,
They must be content to do it by renovation and
change. When every thing else was altered, was
it reasonable to insist upon one point remaining
unchanged ?
The LORD CHANCELLOR would not have risen
to say a word on the present occasion, had it not ,

ppeared that the &oble Lord considered the

louse pledged to entertain this Bill. He, there-
'ore, felt himself bound to state, that he reserved
o himself the.right of.discussing the principle of
he Bill, and that he conceived that their Lord-
ships were not pledged to any thing by the ex-
amination of witnesses, or by any step which had
yet been taken in this measure. Be did not.
mean to detain their Lordships at present ; but
while he rose to say " not content" to the motion,
he must claim for himself the right of debating
the principle at another stage.
The Earl of WEsTMORELAND objected to the
Bill both on account of the injustice of its prin.,
ciple, and because it tended to secure indemnity
for future offences of the kind of that which it
was intended to punish. For when persons who
had acted honestly in an election should find that
for giving assistance to bring the guilty to pu-
nishment, they were to be deprived of their own
rights, they would no longer be disposed to yield
that assistance, without which guilt could not be
proved, and corruption might be carried on to
any extent without 'a check. The principle of
tir,t measure was inconsistent with the British
%Constitution, and in direct violation of Magna
Charta itself. He then contended that no' cor-
rUption whatever had been 'charged against
thirty-two of the Grampound electors; that the
innocent should not be punished for the guilty,
and that the part of the Bill which related .to the
disfranchisement of Grampound ought not to pass.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL wished briefly to state
the grounds on which he should vote for the se-
cond reading of the Bill. Whether his opinion
were right or wrong, it was one which he had
long entertained. For though in the second Ses-
sion in which he had sat in the other House be
had opposed the general plan of Reform bronght
forward, yet he had supported a Bill for.remov-
ing the elective franchise from Saltash. lie consi-
dered the right of election as a public trust, grant-
ed, not for the benefit of the individual, but for
the public good. He admitted at the same time
that it was attended with great advantages to
the individukls by whom it was enjoyed; and
than was the reason why he should never vote
for the disfranchisement of any place on grounds
of expediency alone. But if a case of abuse
were proved on the part of those whom it was'
intended to disfranchise, then he could have no
hesitation in giving his vote The elective fran-
chise had no analogy to the right of property.,
though it had some to the rights of their Lord-
ships as Peers, because they sat in that House,
not for their own benefit, but for that of the
public, and Might be deprived of those rights if
they were abused.. The same principle might be
applied to a borough., If it had abused its'

trust by gross corruption, Parliament was autho-
rised to deprive it of the exercise of its rights
hereafter. The only difference was, that in one
case the deprivatio►i would apply to an i►idivdual
alone, and in the case of the borough to the
whole; the act of a corporate body being for
good or bad, the act of the whole. If, the ques-
tion were, whether a case of abuse had been

made out, on that ground alone be should vote for
the second reading of the, Bill. For if ever a case

of general and systematic corruption had been
proved against any borough, it 'was against the
borough of Grarripotind: He had
,opposed tine
Bill for disfranchising Barnstable, because he
had not considered the case established to a •slif•

licient extent to justify such 'a measure. ^ But
if ever corruption had been exposed, it was in the
present instances. The usual practice had hit her-
tobeen not to transfer the ,dective franchise, but to
extend it to the hundred. In the cascsin which