The Sun.
London, England, 1828-06-21 00:00:00

he was therefore called upon o oppose the Bill. In
the case of Shoreham, which had been alluded to
the Noble Earl knew that there were but 140 voters'
92 of whom it had been dearly proved had actually
received bribes at the election--that they had formed
a regular chtb, and bound themselves tinder heavy
penalties to act in concert—that they had formed
a Committee to carry their nefarious plans into effect,
and stipulate that the candidate who was disposed
to give the largest sums of money should have their
support. He (the Lord Chancellor) rias not pre-
parednst Penryn, he would oppose the to say that, had such proof of corruption been
The case of Cricklade was the
brought fiai
pre-
sent Bill.—(ifear,)-.-
next in which the Legislature 1110 recourse to disfran-
chisement. In that borough there were 200 voters ;
172 hadvated for the successful candidatel62,of whom,
more than three-fourths of the whole number had
been actually bribed. The third case was that of
Aylesbury, which had possessed 450 voters, an
equal nut*ber to Penryn. It had been proved, in
that instancei that regular meetings were convened
by beat of drum, at which the voters assembled for
the express purpose of receiving money. Three
• hundred and fifty of these had sold their votes. In
this case it was proved that 350 electors bad as-
sembled to share the bribe—but there were proved
no more than three clear cases of bribery in the pre-
sent. In the other case—Granapound—out of 58
electors 47 were proved to have participated of cor-
ruption : many were prosecuted, most convicted,
and few escaped unpunished. These were the only
cases in which boroughs were disfranchised, and it
was the duty of the Noble £zrl to have stated what
Parliament slid in these several cans rather than in-
dulge in general observations. ..&e n, he would
ask the Noble Earl what reason he had W think
that he (the Lord Chancellor) would not in this
case act in the 'tanner Parliament had dealt with
the convicted boroughs, it a general case ,of corrup-
tion had been clearly proved, Mit in this case, in
the election of 1826, there were only 14 cases of
corruption proved, while the whole number of elec-
tors was 400—and of those 14 cases three were not
satisfactorily proved in evidence, so that eleven after
all were the cases of bribery. The Noble and
Learned Lord then detailed parts of the evidence,
observing, as he went along, that no case of bribery
which he quoted bad been satisfactorily made out
in evidence. For these reasons lie should oppose
the Bill.
Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE declared his opi-
nion that there was no proof of general corruption
sufficient to warrant the disfranchisement.
The Earl of ELDON addressed their Lordships
with his back to the bar, and was with difficulty
understood to declare his concurrence in the argu-
ments of the Noble and Learned Lord on the Wool-
sack. He never witnessed a case so utterly desti-
tute of evidence to support it.
Lord DACRE said, that no case of general cor-
ruption had certainly been made out to warrant a
judicial tribunal in disfranchising the borough; but
the question was not only merely of a judicial nature,
but rather a Constitutional one, to be decided on
various Constitutional grounds of policy and ex-
pediency, and general notoriety for corruption, such
as the public mind attached to the conduct f the
electors of Penryn. Personal property was the only
means by which the commercial classes could obtain
seats in the House of Commons, and where there
were so many rich and flourishing towns unrepre-
sented, their Lordships would find that these opulent
communites would not be longer kept without a re-
presentation in the Legislature. The time must
come when the franchise of decayed or convicted
boroughs must be given to those great manufactur-
mg towns. He should oppose the present Bill, on
the groond that it went to to transfer the forfeited
franchise from personal to landed property, thus
depriving the commercial order of the only means
which they possessed of entering the House of
Commons, namely, personal qualification.
The Marquis of SALISBURY wished to point
out an objection in particular he entertained against
the Bill; namely, that the preamble reciting the ex-
pediency of conferring the elective franchise on Man-
chester, on account of its great wealth and popula-
tion, tended to introduce the principle of Radical
Reform. To this way of smuggling on that prin-
ciple, as well as to the principle itself, lie should ever
be opposed, as laying down a doctrine he could not
recognize—that population was the basis of repre-
sentation.
Lord CARNARVON observed, in reply, that
that principle of Radical Reform was acted on by
the ancient Monarchs of the country, and by that
Radical Monarch, King Henry Vlll.
The motion for the second reading of the Bill was
then negatived without a divion, and the House
adjourned.