The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-07 00:00:00

SEATS IN PARLIAMENT.

Mr. A. BARING said, he rose, in consequence
of the notice which he had given some time since,
to move for leave to introduce a Bill for the purpose
of vacating the seats of persons taking office under
the East India Company, and who shall embark for
India to take possession of the places to which they
may have been appointed. In moving for leave to
bring in this Bill, he intended to trouble the House
with very few observations on the subject; because
he was aware that it would be extremely inconve-
nient to many gentlemen if he drew on a discussion
on the present evening, and it had been suggested
to him that all discussion should be postponed to the
second reading of the Bill. He understood that no
objec>ion would be made to his proposition; and,
indeed, he could not suppose that it was intended in
any quarter to offer any very serious opposition to the
measure. At all events, he did not believe that there
wetild be any objection to the introduction of the
Bill. But, although lie did not wish to provoke any
kiiscussion on this evening, it was due to the House
that he should briefly state the object which he had
in view. And first of all be would state, what he
was sure gentlemen would believe, when lie told
them that he took this step without any communicae
tion with, or reference to, the city of Canterbury,
although that city would certainly be affected by the
proposed measure; and that he took up the s=et.
with no feeling of hostility to the gentleman whom
peculiar case rendered it necessary that an alteration
should be made in the law. He alluded to Mr.
Lushingtort, who was at present Governor of Madras,
whom he liad known for many years, and for whom
be entertaated much respect. That particular case,
however, had made the necessity of such an altera-
tion as he meant to propose so perfectly manifest,
that he need not expatiate at any length on the sub-

ject. The House,lte was sure, could not resist the
several petitions from the city of Canterbury, com-
plaining of the situation in which the electors were
left. It appeared, that since the year 1827, Mi.
Lushington, who was member for the city of Can-
terbury, had accepted the office of Governor of
Madras, and had, in consequence, gone Out to India,
leaving the city with only one represeutative. Now
they all knew, that in towns, generally, there were
two political parties, each of which had its favourite
representative. This was tie case in Canterbury,
and therefore, by the absence of Mr. Lushington,
portion of that city lost the expression of its senti-
ments, through the medium of one of its representa-
tives. For though he admitted that no person could
represent the place better than the other Hon. Mem-
' her for Canterbury,—though he admitted that, in
this case, the Hon. Member's great attention to the
interests of his constituents rendered the injury
sustained much less than it would be under ordi-
nary circumstances,—still lie could not View the
situation of the electors of Canterbury but
as a great grievance, and one which they had a
right to complain of. He here begged leave
to state, that he was not acquainted with a single
individual in Canterbury, and he hardly knew one of
the electors even by sight. Therefore, in proposing,
this measure, he was not impelled by any know-
ledge of the local politics of Canterbury, or by any
reference to the gentleman who might be returned,
if the Bill were passed. As he was unacquainted
with the feelings of the place, and possessed no
knowledge respecting it, be must be acquitted of
being actuated by any party motives. As the Hon.
Member who now represented Canterbury ordina-
rily voted with his Majesty's Government, it was
clear that he (Mr. Baring) had no political object
in view ; and he was sure, if the seat were vacated,
and leave were given to elect a new Member, he
would sit as close to those benches opposite as the
present Hon. Member did. The House would
therefore see, that in adopting this proceeding, he
was doing a mere act of public duty; and it would
be for them to judge, whether they ought to agree
with him in the absolute necessity of the case, and
allow the Bill to be brought in for the purpose of
correcting the evil. As he did not suppose that
any objection would be offered to the introduction
of the measure, he would not take up their time in
explaining why he applied it particularly to persons
taking office under the East India Company, and
why it would be right, as he conceived it would, to
make it apply to the particular case which he had
mentioned—that was, to give the Bill not merely a
prospective, but a retrospective operation. He
should feel it to be his duty to press on the House
the necessity of making this an Act that would ope-
rate on the present state of the city of Canterbury.
Ile here wished to observe, that this particular case,
in his view of it, rested on grounds perfectly distinct
from any supposed influence of the Crown. Parlia-
ment had repeatedly legislated with respect to specific
offices, which allowed individuals to hold seats in
that House; and also with reference to those offices
which excluded them from sitting in Parliament.
He therefore did not mean to venture on that
point. Indeed, he was not one of those who
complained of any great influence of the Crown
in the house of Commons at present; and ti:at
being the fact, he did not introduce the MIL with
any reference to that influence. It was tine that,
in some respects, the influence of the Crown was
concerned, as :those situations were filled with the
joint approbation of the East India Company and
the Board of Controul. But it was not on that
ground that he rested the case; but or' the single
ground stated by the petitioners—namely, the im-
possibility of a Governor of Madras, or any other
person holding office in India, performing his Par-
liamentary duties. It was quite clear that the situa-
tions were incompatible with each other. It
might be said, that many Members of Parliament
absented themselves voluntarily from the country,
and that others were employed by the Crown in
the army and navy, and could not attend to their
duties in Parliament. But the case of persons ac-
cepting office in India appeared to him to be dis-
tinct from both the one class and the other, and
therefore it was necessary to make a specific provi-
sion for it. He should also state to gentlemen, who
were fond of precedents, and who cherished affec..
tionately the wisdom of their ancestors, that those
ancestors were most particular in insisting on per-
sonal attendance ; and new writs were over and over
again issued, in cases where individuals held offices,
which were incompatible with the discharge of thsir
Parliamentary duties. He would not trouble the
House by enumerating any of those cases, until the
second reading of the Bill; but he alluded to them
to show that he was introducing no novel principle,
but rather legalizing, by Act of Parliament, that
which their ancestors had effected in a different
way. It was the object of our Constitution, in ge-
neral, to get rid of the more loose operation of the
prerogative of the Crown on one side, and of the
privilege of Parliament on the other, by reduc-
ing to a specific law any particular proceeding
which it might be desirable to carry into effect;
and therefore, although there were precedents,
which would enable the House to cause seats to be
vacated in consequence of absence, still he conceived
that it would be better to have an express law on the
subject applicable to cases where it was to be pre-
sumed there would be a permanency, or am extended
permanency, of absence. There were, undoubtedly,
other cases of a more uncertain kind, ill-health, for
example, which might incapacitate an individual
from attending, but he thought it would be very un-
wise to attempt interfering with those cases ; and
therefore it would be better to follow the piovisions
of a specific Act. In this instance the complaint
had been made to the House—the evil complained
of was notorious, and it was one which the House
had formerly attended to, though in a shape different
from that which he now proposed. The House, he
thought, could not object to the provisions of the
Bill. This was no speculative legislation with re-
spect to what might hereafter arise, but was direct-
eel to a case which had arisen, and en which a com-
plaint had been made to the House. He did not
intend to have said so much on this Bill; and re-
serving to himself the right, on a future occasion,
to reply to any objections that might be urged
against it, he would simply move that leave be given
to bring in the Bill. Rut before he concluded, he
would just say one word as to the retrospective
pert of the measure, lie had not heard any objec-
tion to the general principle ; but undoubtedly some
gentlemen, hp believed, would consent only to ap-
ply the Bill to a prospective acceptance of office,
and would not agree that it should touch any ex-
isting case; or, in other words, they would not con-
sent to touch the only case, that of Mr. Lushington;
which at present existed. Now he thought that
the Bill ought to touch that case, and that Mr.
Lushington should be obliged to give up his seat in
that House, he being incapacitated from performing
the duties incidental to it, But still, if the measure
were brought in, nothing would be more easy, if the
House should think proper, than to make the alte-
ration. The Hon, Gentleman then moved, " That
leave be given to bring in a Bill to exclude persons
accepting offices under the East India Company,
from being Members of the House of Corareems,"
Co peel LUSHINGTON considered that retroi-
spective legislation ought not to be encouraged. If
this Bill were passed into a law, it would affect only
one individual, the Hon. Member for Canterbury,
who was at present Governor of Madras. He was.
sure that that gentleman would not retain his seat
contrary to the wishes or desires of his constituents.
But the fact was, that he. had acted with
the perfect coecerrence of his constituents. That
part of the voters who' elected him did not dis-
approve of his conduct, which wag censured only by
those who had always opposed him. lie cik:d the
attention of the House to the Act of the 43ri
Geo. 111. cap. 52, which provided for vacating seats
in that House, and it would he found that its clauses
were all prospective, and did not extend to persons
then in Parliament. He thought the Hon. Member
was applying the general principle in an extremely
partial manner; because officers in the army and

navy were frequently absent from Parliament ; and •
he believed instances could be adduced where some
of them were absent during a whole Parliament,
and yet the measure would not interfere with them.
Mr. FERGUSSON could see no reason if this
measure were adopted, why it should he confined
solely to persons taking office under the East India
Company. The only possible cases to which the
Bill coald apply were these—namely, where
.Mem.•
hers of Parliament happened to be appointed go-
vernors
to the three presidencies. The Legislature
had said that it was fit and proper, as no doubt it
was, that persons taking office under the Crown
mast vacate their seats ; and they did, by the mere
act of accepting office, vacate their seats; but then
they might return to their constituents, and be re-
elected. If the freemen of Canterbury were satis-
fied with a Representative who took office under the
Crown, they might re-elect him but the Bill of the
Hon. Gentleman would, in this case, prevent them
from re-electing their present Representative, be-
cause he had taken office under the East India
Company.
Dr. LUSHINGTON said, that it did not seem
to be understood that the measure of the Hon.
Member for Callington would apply only to offices
which ex necessitate incapacitated Members from
performing their dudes in Parliament. It was now
seven years since this principle had been conceded
by the House, in the measure by which masters in
Chancery in Ireland were rendered incapable of
filling seats in Parliament. As to the measure
being made retrospective, he confessed that he felt
very great difficulty in that. Before his lion. Re-
lative went out, he asked him why he retained his
seat ? and the answer of his Hon. Relative was,
that he had been requested by his constituents to
retain it. As to the petition from Canterbury, it
was signed by those who voted for the other Mem-
ber, and against his Hon. Relation. He must say
that when a man accepted an office which gave him
the power of retaining his sear, it ought to be a very
strong case which deprived him of it.
Mr. PEEL said, that he was favourable to the
Bill, so far as it regarded three offices connected
with the Government of India. These offices were
of peculiar nature, and not exactly colonial; but as
a colonial Governor vacated his seat, and as the
Crown exercised a veto on appointment to these
offices, he was willing that persons filling them
should vacate their sews. He doubted, however,
whether they ought to be incapacitated from being
re-elected if their constituents chose to re-elect
, them. So also he doubted the propriety of making
the measure retrospective; for, as it was the uni-
, form practice of the House not to vacate seats
. without proof of delinquency, he did think that it
, would seem to imply something like censure if the
operation of the Bill were retrospective, and that it
would also be a hardship upon an individual who
. had !eft the country under the impression that he
might retain his seat. He would, however, defer
the consideration of these points till the opportu-
nity which the I-lon. Member for Callington had
, named for taking the measure generally into dis-
cussion.

Mr. BRIGHT took it to be clear, that Pa►lia-
ment had the power already of vacating seats, if it
thought proper to do so. The Bill, therefore, could
not be retrospective, and the gentleman when he
accepted this office, knowing that a resolution of the
House would deprive him of his seat, could not be
said to be hardly dealt with. The House, then
having this power, he thought it would be better to
leave such cases to the good sense of the House
than to proceed by Bill. As to the constituents of
the Hon Member for Canterbury requesting him not
to vacate his seat, he could only say that he had al-
ways understood the principle of representation to
be this,--that when a man wus once returned to
that House, he became a representative of the
people generally, and not merely of his own consti-
tuents. The assent, therefore, of the people of Can-
terbury ought to have no weight at all.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
said he should reserve the observations he had to
make till a future opportunity ; but he must now
say that he could not consent to the operation of the
Bill being retrospective.
Mr. HUME concurred with what had fallen from
the Hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. Bright), but
hoped that if a Bill was to be introduced, ►t would
include all offices which prevented a man attending
to his duties in Parliament.

Lord CLIFTON thought it right to state now,
once for all, that in his opinion it would be better
for him to abstain from taking any part of this ques-
tion. . .

Dr. PHILLIMORE thought that, from what had
fallen from the Hon. Member for Callington, the
measure about to be introduced was framed in the
best possible manner. As to whether it should be
retrospective, that was a delicate question, and re-
quired deliberation. He confessed that he had
heard with the greatest jealousy of the combination
between Mr. Lushiugton and a part of his consti-
tuents.

After a few words in reply from 1111.. BARING,
leave was given to bring in the Bill.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' BILL.
Mr. PORTMAN said that it had been his in-
tention to have entered on this occasion at some
length into the principle of this Bill; but on a day
such as this, and particularly at such an hour on
such a day, he should say very few words upon it.
It had been his object to leave to these societies the
power of transacting,their own affairs, and merely
to demand from them those restrictions which every
society ought to be ready to submit to, and which
the state ought to require from every society. All,
thetefore, that he had done was, to restrain the
abuse of their funds, and to prevent their meeting
for any other purposes than those for which they
pretended to meet. He had several amendments
to propose, and he should therefore move that the
Bill be reprinted, and reconsidered on a future day.
Mr. T. P. COURTENAY said that, generally
speaking, he approved of the Bill, but that he
thought that when the state was called upon to
give peculiar sanction and peculiar privileges, it
ought to require peculiar security. His Hon. Friend
might take his own course now; but at a future op-
portunity he should take the sense of the House on
the point to which he had alluded.
The House went into a Committee, and the re-
port was ordered to be taken into further considera-
tion on Monday next.