The Sun.
London, England, 1819-05-11 00:00:00

BARNSTAPLE BRIBERY BILL.

Lord Ceive moved the Order of the Day for
the second' reading of the Barostaple Bribery 8111.
The question being put 'from the Chair, •
Mr. BERNALL stated his real ,ns- for °prosier.; it.
lie was sorry to differ from several Gentlemen
whom lie highly respected ; but lie was convinced
that a case sitj'deiently clear bad not bees' made
out to disbant hist' the Borongh of Bar:staril:,..—
He referred to tliicc notorioGs • rai,es,
those a Crickliade, Aviesherv. In
Crichlade, their privl:ges had been put up to sale
as any commodity at a market In e%tering
into parti• 'liars, the Hon. Menther ieskted ;hat
these had been eo Ceidenee before the House which
would warrant them to deprive the electors of their
privileges, which remaio:d in :heir possession
since the times of Henry 1. who hail given them
their charier. The House shotild not decide pre-
cipita7ely on the rights of Englishmen. He ,siis
not standing up in support of corruption, but as
an advocate for justice. The Hon Member con-
cluded by moving as an amendment, " That this
Bill be lead a second time this day six months."
A MEMBER under the Gallery, whose name
could not be learned, did nor the evidence
before the Committee justified the severe mea-
sures proposed in the Bid.
Mr. N. CsevERT thought there was sufficient
ground for inflicting exemplary punishment upon
the burongli. .The Bill would only put the voters
into a situation to prevent them in future from
'selling their country.
Mr. BENNET Went into a detail of particulars,
as a' Member of the Committee. Out of GO or
61 votes, 39 or 40 of the electors had received
bribes in the most gross and scandalous manner;
and one bad acted so intamously as to receive
bribes seven times over. It was the constant
system of the voters of that corrupt borough to
say, '' let us wait till the turtle comes down P'
meaning till the highest bidder should appear be-
fore them. There were few individuals who had
refused the wages of their iniquities. In allusion
to a memorable instance, of a very wicked one to
us (Swim), 'if he (Mr. Bennet), could. have
found one dozen of righteous men in Barnstaple,
he would not be for destroying it.
Sir R. Wiesost announced, that as soon as the
present question was disposed of, be would move,
that the Borough of Barnstaple be disfranchised ;
and thst its privileges be transferred to some one
of the large towns.
Mr. BARHAM pressed upon the House the ne-
cessity of inattstig,ating the subject deeply, before
it came to a decision.

Mr. BATHUBST coweuded,. that, although no
particular case of bribery had been made out, it
was clearly proved that the whole system of Elec—
tion in the Borough of Barnstaple was, corrupt.
Unless the House interfered, it would be vain
to expect any remedy from an application to a
Court of Law. Wherever such practices as the
present had prevailed, boroughs bad justly for-
feited their franchise. But in the present instance
the burgesses were treated with peculiar mildness,
for they did not lose their franchise entirely, but
were made to share it with' others.

ryfr. BARHAM explained.
Sir J. NEWPORT read several passages from the
Report of the Committee, to show, that although
large sums had been paid at several Elections, at
Barnstaple the Bribery oath had never been ten-
del ed or taken. Did not this prove that there was
a mutual understanding between the Candidates
that the seats were to be procured for money ?
Mr. BERNALL explained.

Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) contended, that Utile
Bribery oath had been administered, the Electors
would not have taken the bribe, that they might.
swear they had not been bribed, He should
therefore propose, as the best remedy, that the
Bribery oath be always tendered.at Elections. He
objected to depriving the freemen of Barnstaple
of their franchise, because the punishment 'Would
extend to their children—and why Shonld the in-
nocent suffer for the guilty ? He should therefore
vote for reading the: Bill a second time this day
six months.

Lord MiLTot defended the propyiety of the
Bill, antlmaint mined that it did not deprive the
Barnstaple Electors of their franchise. It ex-
tended it to others, and tbus rendered bribery im-
practicable, but it left them in possession of all
their rights. This Bill had his hearty concur-
rence, and he trusted that the event of this night
would prove that the House of Commons was not
lax in prosecuting thoie corruptions which were
but too well known to prevail in many places.
Mr. Alderman WAITUMAN expressed his Concur-
rence 'in the sentiments of the Noble Lord—(hrre
loud coughing interrupted the Speaker.)—But
the Worthy Alderman expressed his resolution
not to compromise his own rights or those of his
constituents, by declining to deliver his senti-
ments in that !house, however disagreeable those
sentiments might be to particular persons. He
declared himself a friend to the Bill before the
House, observing, however, that he could not
see why the right of voting which the electors,

of Barnstaple had forfeited by their corruption
should be transferred to the freeholders in the
vicinity of that borough, instead of being trans-
ferred to the copyholders, or to the house-
holders of Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester,
or Sheffield, who had no right of voting at all.
.The absence of that right- front such persons, was
an evil in the elective system which called loudly
for correction. 'But it was also a serious evil that
the freeholders of London bad no vote. To re-
ttwdy such injustice, was, he felt, the peculiar
duty of that House, and the people called for the
performance of that duty.. He was an earnest
advocate for Reform, and therefore he was ad-
verse to such a system of election as at present
existed in some Boroughs, where the mere rabble,
"here out-voters, brought from distant places at
the.expence of Candidates, had the right of voting,
while the respectable residents of property where
wholly excloded. To establish a Reform in suelt
cases was always his object , while he could never
subscribe to the visionary plan of Annual Parlia-
ments and iritiversal Suffrage.

Mr. V. BLAKE was understood to argue against
the Bill, and to object to the introduction of non-
resident Freeholders.

Sir J. MACKINTOSH maintained that the object
of the Bill was not to punish the Freemen of
Barnstaple, but to protect the House against the
continuance of corruption and abuse in the elec-
tion of some of its Members. He shotild never
support any plan of Reform where he did not per-
ceive a great practical evil and an attainable reme-
dy. He approved of tite present extension of the
elective franchise in the case of Barnstaple, with-
out debarring himself, where circumstances might
require it in other places, from removing that po-
litirsl trust altogether from the hands which had
abwed it; to transfer it to those by whom it had
not yet been enjoyed. As to the. objection of the
Micinber who spoke last, to the admission
of non- resident Freeholders, it was totally un-
founned ; for non-resident FEeeholders had always
been in possession of the right of voting at all
other Elect ions.

After a few words from Mr. FORMS and Lord
CintP. in reply, the gallery was closed for a divi-
sion, but none took place, and we understood the
Bill to have been read a second time.

Mr. J. P. GRANT moved that a message be sent
to the Lords, to request a copy of the Report of
the Secret Committee on the Buck.—Ordered.

Mr. J. P. GRANT then gave notice, that he
should call to-morrow for the, production of cer-
tain papers respecting the Optirahnic iablish-
ment.