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

GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT PILL.

On the Order of the Day for committing this
Bill,
The Earl of LAUDERDALE Dbserygi, that he
would not oppose the motion for goin9„into the
Committee, as he wished to see wherker it was
possible that it could be so amended as to render
it at all palatable. If that should be found im-
practicable, he would, in another stage, move that
the Bill be postponed to that day six months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, if the Bill should
come out of the Committee in a shape any thing
like that which it now wore, he should oppose it
in every stage.
The Bill was then committed, on the motion
of the Earl of LIVERPOOL. The Noble Earl
then observed, that the first enactment declared
that the Borough of Grampound should cease -to
elect and return Members to Parliament. With
this enactment he entirely agreed, and it was a
distinct propoSition from the remainder of the
clause which proposed to provide for supplying
the deficiency created. This latter part might
form a subject of discussion : he, would therefore
propose that all that part of the clause which fol-
lows" the word " Parliament" should be left out.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that although he
objected totally to the principle of this Bill, yet
as Parliament had frequently passed Bills for dis-
franchising voters, he thought that he should be
doing more than he ought to do, if he proposed
any thing more than to make this measure con-
sistent with the precedents established by former
Bills. Those who had not been proved guilty
should not be punished. He therefore proposed,
as an amendment, that there should be inserted'
in the clause these words—" That henceforth
the Burgesses of the Borough of Grampound, not
convicted, shall be the only Electors for that
Borough."
A long discussion arose on the form in which
the should be put, some Noble Lords
preferring Lord Liverpool's amendment, and
others the Lord Chancellor's. The. Earl of Lau-
derdale argued strongly in support of the latter
amendment._

Lord ERSKINE had heard what had already
been.said on this Bill with great satisfaction, be-
cause he was always glad to hear the rights of
the subject defended by the great talents of his
Noble and Learned Friend ; but he must also
observe, that much of that which had been said
had no application whatever to the present mea-
sure. It was indeed strange that this Bill should
be objected to on the ground of its being a Bill of
Pains and Penalties. It was purely a remediable
measure. The whole question was this :—Had
there been such a course of systematic corruption
in the Borough of Grampound, that the 32 per-
sons unconvicted, even supposilg them uncorrupt,
could not be expected to exercise the elective
franchise in a way beneficial to the public ? lie
was satisfied that they could not return Members
of Parliament purely and independently ; and
therefore he was bound to vote for the Bill.-
14heir Lordships had not before them a question
of personal rights, but of national policy; and he
supported the Bill because he saw in it a regula-
tion which it would be for the benefit of the pub-
lic to adopt. When their Lordships saw a dis-
position to revile and disparage the Ilouse of
Commons, which could not be done without mak-
ing the Constitution suffer in every part, they
ought to be sensible of the necessity of adopting
a measure which was calculated to remove objec-
tions to the Constitution of that House, which
existed in the minds not of the persons called
Radicals, but of the most respectable classes of
the community. He therefore hoped that the
Bill would be allowed, to pass.

The debate again turned on the form of the
questibn to be put.
The Earl of WESTMORLAND wished the sense
of the House to be taker on the disfranchisement
of the Borough of Grampound.
The Earl of LIVERPOOL thought it would be
more convenient to have the decision of the House
on the amendment he had proposed, namely, that
all the words of the first enacting clause after the
word " Parliament" be left out. _ •

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if those
words were -moved to be left out, he must say
" not content" for the purpose of having the op-
his opinion against the
portunity of recording
principle contained in the clause.
A long conversation folloWed on this subject.
in which the Earl of Lauderdale,. the Earl of.
Harrowby, Earl Grey, the Lord Chancellor, Earl
Bathurst, the Earl of Donoughmore, and the
Marquess of Lansdown repeatedly spoke.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE and the LORD
CHANCELLOR objected to the Earl of Liverpool's
amendment.

The Earl of ITARROWBY and other Noble
Lords argued that those who voted for leaving
out the words in the latter part of the clause,
might do go without giving any opinion on the
first part. This view appeared to prevail ; and
the Earl of Shaftesbury, who was in the Chair,