The Sun.
London, England, 1821-05-22 00:00:00

-134
• • A.

put the question on the Earl of Liverpool's
amendment.

Lord SIDMOUTII then rose and spoke strongly
against the principle of the Bill, in so far as it
applied to the disfranchising of Grampound.
He advised the House to follow the example set
in the cases of Aylesbury, Shorehani, and Crick-
lade. He preferred imitating what had been
done with respect to Shoreham. In that case the
names of the individuals who had been guilty of
corruption were recorded in the- Act of Parlia-

ment, and they were declared incapable of vot-
ing, not only for Shoreham, but for any other
place.

The Earl of WESTMORLAND spoke against the
Bill, which he considered altogether unjust and
unfit to be entertained by the House.
The Earl of HARROWBY spoke again in favour
of the Earl of Liverpool's amendment.
Lord MELVILLE also supported the same
amendrnerit, and defended the principles of the
Dill. It was no sufficient objection to the mea-
sure to say that it involved the punishment of
the innocent. Such punishment was already
known to the law. There were many cases in
which the public welfare rendered this hardship
necessary. Ia the case of the hundred being
sued for damage done to individuals during riots,
the innocent might be said to suffer, because the
exacting of the damages from the hundred was
not merely meant as an indemnification for the
loss sustained, but as a punishment for not pre-
venting the riot. Cases had occurred in Scot-
land, which were applicable to the present.
Some years ago a corrupt agreement was proved
to have been entered into by certain members of

the corporation of the borough of Kinghorn.
They were sued before the Court of Session, and
that Court decided that the corporation could
not be I.cluced. This judgment was brought by
appeal before their Lordships' House. What
was then done ? Why, their Lordships reversed
the decision of the Court of Session. Sometime
after, three individuals belonging to the borough
of Stirling were proved to have entered into a
corrupt agreement, and this question came again
under the consideration of the Court of Session.
That Court, profiting perhaps by the decision of
the House of Lords in the former case, reduced
the corporation. This judgment was also ap-
pealed against ; but their Lordships affirmed the
decision of the Court of Session. These cases,
which were on their Lordships' Journals, proved
that they had already acted on the principle laid
down in the present
Lord REDESDALE opposed the Bill on the same
ground which he took on the second reading.
His objection to its principle was, that it had a
completely revolutionary tendency.
The Earl of LivEnrooL spoke again in sup-
port of the principle of the Bill. With regard
to the objection of punishing the innocent, that
occurred, as _his Noble Friend who had spoke
last but one had said, in many cases. At the
time of the Revolution, were not the innocent
punished for the guilty ? Were not all the innocent
posterity of James 11, punished for his offences ?
Why was this done ? Because the kingly govern-
ment was considered a public trust which,could
not with safety be left in the possession of the
Stewart family. On the same principle he and
other Noble Lords had acted with regard to the
Catholic question. He had opposed the claims
of the Catholics because the question was not
whether they should enjoy their personal rights,
but whether it was consistent with the public
safety that they should possess political power.
He did not now mean to say whether he was
right or wrong in this view of the Catholic ques-

tion ; and only mentioned it to illustrate 'the
ground•hL took in supporting the present Bill.
Grampound had hitherto been a close borough ;
and the existence of such boroughs had been ad-
vantageous, by facilitating the entrance of indi-
viduals into Parliament, who were connected
with classes in the community, the interests of
which would not other Wise have been sufficiently
represented. But if Grampound were thrown
into the hundred, local interests would prevail in
the election. Thus the plan which some of his
Noble Friends favoured, instead of preventing,
as they supposed, a change in the state of the re-
presentation, tended to produce a very great one.
The Loitn CnANcp,Lon re-urged his objec-
tions to the Bill. He could not agree to a mea-
sure which must have the effect of confounding
the innocent with the guilty. He did not con-
sider the cases referred to by Lord Melville as
having a bearing on the question. Ile -had con-
curred with Mr. Fox and Mr. Ellis in opposing
the 13111 for the disfranchising- Stockbridge, and
conceived that the same objections applied to
the present.measure. In order to disfranchise a
borough, nothing more would in future be neces-
sary, but to get a majority of the electors to take
money. The place would then be deprived of
the right of election and the innocent punished
for the 'guilty,
The Marquis of LANsnowN said, that Par-
liament had through a long course of legisla-
tion, acted on the principle that the rights of the
innocent might be involved in the same fate as
those of the guilty. The Noble and Learned
Lord, and other Noble Lords who had taken up
this ground of objection, 'might recollect that in
the year 1805 Parliament passed an Act for levy-,
ing fines on stills in Ireland, making the pecu-
niary penalties be paid alike by the innocent and
the guilty .wherever the stills might be found.=:
A Noble and Learned Lord had called this Bill
a revolutionary measure ; and so he *might, with"
equal justice, many other expences. He would
ask the Noble and Learned Lord whether he had
supported the Union with Ireland ? And whe-
ther he did not, on reflection, discover that mea-

PRITE SEVENP'ENTE.

sure to have been far more revolutionary than
this Bill ? Infiszitely more rights were sacrificed
by that measure than could .be affected by this or
any other Bill brought before Parliament. But
that measure was doubtless supported by Noble.
Lords on the same ground that their support was
claimed to this, which was that of public benefit
and national advantage. He was as much against
acting on theory as any of the Noble Lords who
had opposed the_Bill; the effect cf which was
not to make, but to prevent change by keeping in
view the spirit'of the constitution. lie approved
of the Bill as it stood, but would net run 'the
risk of losing it by objecting to any alteration
that might be suggested with respect to the
transfer. lie would make no capricious oppo-
sition on the_ ground that one place was better
than another.

"Earl BATHURST thought, if the House adopted
the principle of depriving a body of electors of
the right of suffrage, they should proceed upon a
principle as little arbitrary as possible. He was
of opinion that it was bettor to extend the elec-:
tine franchise to the adjoining hundreds, as was
proposed by the Bill which was presented to
their Lordships last. lie could see no reason for
proceeding upon a new principle with regard to
the present Bill, the two cases being exactly
similar.

The Earl of CARNARVON rose to vindicate him-
self from the charge of inconsistency, which had
been brought against him by some Noble Lords
for having adopted a different principle with re-
gard to the present Bill, from that on which the
former Bill on the same subject proceeded. One
Noble Lord who had thus upbraided him seemed
to consider that the only real consistency was to
be found in changing from one extreme to ano-
ther. For his part, he (Lord Carnarvon) would
not pledge himself that in all cases he should
consider the plan laid clown in the Bill as the
specific remedy that ought to be adopted. If the
amendment of the Noble Earl should be agreed
to, the Bill would then go out -of the House as
his (Lord Liverpool's) Bill. However, he was
happy to find that in the course of his discussions

on the present measure, something like _conces-
sion had taken place, and that the general prin.
ciple of remediable Bills would not again be or:.
posed -as ,it had heretofore been.

The Earl-,of LAUDERDALE, in reply to some
observations which had occurred during the de-
bate, asked whether any Noble Lord thought
that it was an act of inconsistency in him to
change 'his opinion when he was convinced that
he was wrong. If any Noble Lords thought it
was not praiseworthy for an individual to retrace
his steps when he was, convinced that he had
acted erroneously, he (Lord Lauderdale) begged
leave to• differ. from them on that: point. He
knew, indeed, that certain Noble Lords had not
always been of this way of thinking. He re-
membered the time when some of their Lord-
ships considered the veto to be absolutely neces-
sary previously to the granting of any coacessions
to the Roman Catholics ; yet who had heard a
word on the subject of the veto upon the late oc-
casion? The Noble Lord concluded. by observ-
ing, that should their Lordships act on the prin-
ciple laid down by the Noble Earl .oPposite
(Liverpool), namely, that the elective franchise
was given as a trust, and might be abrogated on
the ground of expediency, they would concede
every thing the reformers could possibly wish.
The Marquis of CAMDEN. was of opinion that
the Bill. went to establish a new principle of le-
gislation. lie thought. Parliament should mark.
its sense of the gross corruption which had ex-
isted at Grampound ; but he could not see why
it should alter the mode of legislation which had
been adopted.in all cases similar to the present.
The House then divided on. Lord Liverpool's
amendment.
For the Amendment - GO
Against it - - 26

Majority - - —34
Uporr re-entering the House we found the
Earl of LIVERPOOL urging the propriety of grant-
ing to the county of York the privilege of hence-
forth sending four Members to Parliament in-
stead of two.. He thought it was best in the
first instance of departing from the principle of
"extending the right of suffrage to the hundreds
to transfer it to the county -of York, which was
above competition for its wealth, both landed-
and commercial. lie also--,preferred to extend
the right of voting to York, in preference to
Leeds, because the change would involve no
principle of a new mode of election. The Noble
Earl concluded with moving, that it should stand
as part of the Bill that it be enacted, that if dur-
ing the present Parliament a vacancy should
occur. in the representation of Grampound, ah
additional Member shOhld be returned for the
county of York, and that at all future elections
after the disselution of the present Parliament
the said county of York should return 4 knights
of the shire instead of two.

The Earl of CARNARVON would not oppose
the amendment of the Noble Earl; bathe hoped
if other Bills of a similar nature should come
before their Lordships, they would grant the
elective franchise to large towns, which would
be the means of removing one great existing cause
of discontent.

•
The Earl of IIAREwoon was of opinion that
the proposition of the Noble Earl would, if acted
upon, create gr,eat inconvenience to the county of
York. 1.,t would afford an opportunity for any
individual, whether in earnest or not, to offer
himself as a candidate, and, by keeping the poll
open, put his opponents to considerable expense,
and in a great degree to suspend the business of
the inhabitants of the County.
The Marquess of LANSDOWN suggested that
the evils contemplated by the Noble Earl might

ire avoided by causing two Member 3 to lie re-
turned for the North Riding of the County, and
two for the remaining parts„
Earl FETZWILLIAM expressed his objection to
the transfer of the Elective Franchise' to Leeds,
in the way proposed by the Bill when it came up
from the Coinnions. Ile, however, wished to be
understood as
.not objecting to the principle- of
bestowing the right of suffrage to large towns.
Alluding to what had fallen from the Noble
-Marquess who spoke last, he observed that it
would be impossible, without completely altering
the Constitution of the country, to diiide it in the
manner proposed.
Lord REDESDALE thought the suggestion of the
Noble Marquis (Lansdown) might easily be act-
ed upon, as the'county was already divided for
'every purpose except that of election.

Thu Earl of LivEttrow.'s motion was then car-
ried without a division.

• Upon the motion of the Earl of LIVERPOOL,
the report was ordered to be received to-morrow,
and the Bill, with the amendments, to be printed.
The Bill was then appointed to be read the
third time on Thursday, for which day their.
Lordships were oiderod to be summoned.—A,!-
journed at TEN O'CLOCK.