Star.
London, England, 1830-07-20 00:00:00

INPEIII.II. PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LOlt!)':N Jrt.Y
liia R,,:1 IliLthocss th: Doke of Ctunberl tn.l, the Duke of
Matl.eirough, and Viscount Arundel. took the oaths of alle-
ianco.
Petitions wt.if presented from Pembroke against the Welsh Judi-
cature
The Duke of WI:I,LINGTON said, that as the evidence in the
case of Sir Jonah Barrington had been only laid upon the table that
day, he would move that the further consideration of the case be
postponed until to-morrow (this day.) Agreed to.
The Archbishop of CAN rERBURY brought up the report of
tlo Commissioners for Building Churches.
Earl GROSV ENO It complained that the question of Colonial
Si had not been taken into consideration during the Session.
He had hoped that something would have been done this Session to
do away with slavery in the Colonies. The growing feeling of the
country against slavery was now quite manifest, and the Govern-
ment would be obliged to bow to that feeling. He begged to in-
form the House that it was his intention at an early period of the
next Session to bring before the House a motion, having two ob-
jects, namely, that all children born of slaves should be free, and
nest, after a stated period, all slaves should be free.
The Duke of WELLINGTON hoped that the noble lord would
so frame the bill upon this subject, that a provision would be made
for those slaves that would be set free. He suggested that it would
be better to wait until the recommendation of parliament on this
subject, which government were trying to carry into effect, had had
a fair opportunity of seeing how far it could be effective, before any
bill should be brought into parliament. The recommendations of
parliament were, he was happy to say, likely to be carried most
fully into effect. The efforts of government had, in a great mea-
sure, been successful.
Earl GROSVENOR said a few words in reply; and adverting
SO the subject of the game laws, said that he regretted that those
laws had not come under the consideration of the house this session.
Lord CALTIIORPE denied that the measures of government,
respecting the abolition of slavery, had produced the effect intended
by parliament.
After a few words from Earl BATHURST,
Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that the reason he had notbrought
forward any motion on the subject of the game laws was, that he
expected that a bill upon the same subject, which was introduced
into the Commons during this session, would have come up to that
house, when he would have had an opportunity of giving it his
support. Owing, however, he supposed, to a press of business in
the other Ileum. the bill was overlaid.
Earl BATHURST brought up the reports of the committees
upon the East India affairs and the coal trade.
The Marquis of LONDO DERRY adverted to the latter re-
port, and congratulated the country on the nature of it. From this
report it appealed that 1,6001. a year was paid to the corporation of
London for duty upon coals coming into the port of London.—
The report added that coal-whippers were unnecessary. The report
contained a great mass of information, and it proved to the country
that the sole cause of the high price of coals was owing to the tax
levied upon this necessary article of consumption by the corporation
of London. He regretted that the committee had not said anything
upon the King's duty of 6s. a chaldron on coals.
Lord TEYN HAM, in presenting a Petition from a person named
Hutchinson, relative to a claim which he had upon the East India
Company, said that that Company acted with great illiberality
towards those persons who had been in their service, and the Noble
Lord, in support of his observation, instanced the circumstances
connected with the Registrars of Madras Bill, now before the
House.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH said that the East India Company
were not to blame in the case of the Registrar of Madras business;
the fault lay with the Judges of the Supreme Court, in not taking
security for their officers.
EAST RETFORD BILL.
The Marquis of SALISBURY, in moving the second reading
of the East Retford Bill, alluded to the cases of Grampound and
Crieklade, in which instances their Lordships were required to go
much further than they were asked to do with respect to this Bill.
The principle on which Parliament acted on in the cases to which
he had alluded, was that a corporation ought to be held responsible
:or the acts of the majority of its members; and he was prepared to
contend that, by the evidence given in this case, corruption had been
dearly established. The Noble Marquis then proceeded to com-
ment upon the nature of the evidence, and said that the only ques-
tion for the House to consider was this, was there or was there not
corruption proved against those electors ?
Upon the question that the Bill be read a second time being
put,
Lord DURHAM said he was opposed to the bill. He objected
to the rights of freemen being taken away upon the evidence given
support of this bill. They were to decide upon the bill in a
strict and legal manner ; they were sitting upon it in their judicial
characters; and, judging of the evidence as a Judge, he must say,
that he saw no one charge found against the freemen supported in a
kgal manner. The noble lord then read several authorities, to show
Ono there must be positive and direct proof of corruption against
the freemen, before their rights could be taken away. Now no ac-
tual bribery had been proved in this case. The only evidence given
r:terrcd to conversations that had taken place in taverns over the
pot of beer. and not in support of any positive proof of bribery.
By the law of the land, it was not bribery to take money after an
election, provided there had been ne previous promise. Ministers
frequently gave their support to places under the government. Was
this corruption ? The Minister also gives his adherents situations
worth 3,0001 or 4,0001. Was the man who took 201. or 401. for
his vote to be disgraced, dishonoured, and disfranchised, and the no-
bleman or commoner who received 3,0001. or 4,0001. for his vote in
favour of Ministers, to be lauded for his conduct, and congratulated
for his good fortune. Ile condemned the course adopted by the
house, in obliging the voters of East Retford to betray confidence,
and disgrace themselves at their lordships' bar. It was a course
only to be equalled by the Star Chamber, or the Inquisition of
Spain. He was anxious that all die corruption connected with the
representation of this country should be investigated and done away
with ; but while he was anxious that this should take place, he was
not willing that a single borough should suffer, while so many others
were equally corrupt. He should, under all the circumstances,
move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he could not resist the
opportunity of addressing their lordships upon this bill. It was
clearly proved by the evidence given in support of this bill, that
from the year 1796 up to 1820, a specific sum of money—namely,
20 guineas—was paid for every vote given to the successful can-
didate. Money had not been paid in 11126, simply because a
petition had been presented against the return. He conceived
that it had been clearly proved that the money had been paid to the
majority of the electors.
'the Earl of ELDON said that he never heard of such a principle
laid down by any legal character as that now advanced, that they
should judge of previous acts in support of an existing case. They
were trying the circumstances connected with the last election, not
any previous election ; therefore why advert to the previous acts of
the electors of the borough of East Retford to the period of 1826 ?
It was the election which took place in that year they were to con-
sider, and if no bribery was committed during that election, then
no case had been proved against the electors. Their lordships
could not infer from the fact of some of the electors having been
guilty of bribe's., that all electors had been guilty of a si-
milar crime. If their lordships thought it consistent with their
duty to pass this bill, he (Lord Eldon) could not say that
they were not right, but he felt in duty bound to vote against
the bill.
Lord WYNFORD observed that the attempt to bribe was, in his
apprehension, as criminal as if the bribe had been given, though the
fact of bribery had not been completed. If the preamble of the
Bill had been established to their Lordships' satisfaction, he
thought that they ought to' pass the Bill. He felt satisfied from
the evidence on the.sable, that a system of bribery bad been practis-
ed in that borough at every election, which took place since 1796.
Them were no questions asked at these elections respecting the po-
litical principles of the candidates, whether they were whip or
toile'. The only questions asked, related to the security of the pay-
ment for their votes. The crime did hot consist in the giving of
money, but in the corrupt contract. His Lordship then referred to
the evidence, which went indirectly to establish acts of bribery at
all elections since 1796. It was almost impossible, he observed, to
get direct evidence of a corrupt agreement between the electors nd
the candidates; but it was clearly proved that money had been paid
to the majority of the electors on all such occasions, and was it not
evident that such monies hakbeen paid to them for their votes' He
had no doubt but that if the Borough should be continued in its
present state, the same system of corruption would be practised.
The only way by which, in his apprehension, the system could be
arrested, was by introducing into the town such a number of elec-
tors, as would put them beyond the reach of bribery. He denied,
as asserted by counsel at the bar, that the franchise was a property;
it was a trust, to be exercised for the benefit of the public. This
Bill should not be termed a Bill of Pains And Penalties, for it de-
prived no person of any right which he possessed. Was it not a
great evil in this country, that persons who were invested with the
trust of voting for representatives for Parliament, should abuse that
trust through corrupt motives. His Lordship looked on it as the
the best mode of Parliamentary reform, to correct abuses for the co-
ncise of the franchise, whenever they were detected.
Earl GREY observed, that when corruption was as evident as ,'
the noon day in the majority of the boroughs throughout the nu-
pire, he could not avoid protesting against this mode of pointing out
some particular borough for the legislature to exercise its ven-
geance on. " Give me a bill of indemnitiony, and allow me to pas has
ursue
. the same mode of establishing corrupt In other boroughs
been practised in this," said the noble lord, " and I'll pledge my.
uelf that I. shall disfranchise the majority of boroughs throughout
die kingdom." He contended that, as their lordships were sitting