Star.
London, England, 1819-05-11 00:00:00

• r

1

+. 4 •
A •

• a.
A

should enter into a full esplapation. He censured' form, tittered a single sentence in, favour of Ar.nua;'
the Honourable MeMbev fcarg4rtherbeiliiedit. l'ailinitents and Universal Suffrage: others might,'
cussion, the-word " fitt*Orth, 401 rabbi, at* however, honestly entertain se sentiments, though
to him or his Nobleilietid. •f"3'' • • '7'. 91L' ot plialant tothe House. He "ceirtainly, •linsvOier,
Mr. HUME denied chat he liar eiiet itsei stiell's 'Teo in sfiteour of die Motion of his Hen: Friend, to.
Word as "unworthy," and challenged tie" Ilittianchise from Barnstaple and give It to
tion of any other Member en the Occiiiton: In &alio-. • Slfeffithi—(//ear, hear.) lie could see no advantage
ing his deductions, he stated one instance in whieft I'd be derived from extending the soffeikee to the fire-
the revenue (if Malta had amounted to .€115,0* holders of the hundred, men who already bad votes,
and the expense of the establishment amounted to whilst the copyholder, merchant, and man of pro-
£6o,ooo only. Then what became of this surplus ? perry, remained without a vote. lie thought that
Mr. COULBOURNE, finding no specific charge, the House ought not to lose thi..opportunizy of shew-
but general assertion., declined any further reply. Mg to the people, that whenever a case was brought
P. The original Resolution for £lll,OOO was then put before them, they would not fail; as for as lay in their
and carried.—When the Resolution respecting Me- power, to keep themselves pure—(/P:ar, heat.) Ile
diciget was pot, could not sit down without again adverting to the
Mr. J.T.-611ANT announced his intention of mov- reception which he had more than once met 5),411
.ifig to-morrow in the Committee a proposition relit- when be rose to deliver his sentiments. Ile felt that
rise to the Ophthalmia.—The remainder of the Re- on his own account he had Ito claim to the indul-
solutions were then severally put and carried. gene of the House—Wear, hear, /rear,)—but he
BARNSTAPLE BRIBERY BILL. trusted he would not be treated with disrespect when
'en the Order of the day for the second reading, he bad vindicated his own right to speak—(Hear,
Mr. LIURNALL stated his reasons for opposing it. hear, hear.) For if Members were deprived of the
Ile was sorry to differ froth several Gentlemen whom freedom of speech, the People might think proper to
he highly respected; but he was convineed that a express their sentiments in another place; and through'
case sufficiently clear had not been made out to dis- a different mediam--Wear, hear/)
franchise the Borough of Barnstaple.' He referred to Mr. V. BLAKE wished a milder course, if possi-
three notorious cases, namely, those of Cricklade, ble, to be adopted than throwing the Borough open,
Shoreham, and Aylesbury. In Cricklade, their pri- and objected to the introduction of non-resident free-
irileges had been put up to sale as any commodity as holders.
any commodity at a market town. In entering into Sir J. MACKINTOSH supported the Bill. If the
particulars, the Honourable Member insisted that House suffered such instances of gross abuse as the
there had been no evidence before the House which present to pass, and not mark its sense of it, the po-
would "(arrant them to deprive the Electors of their pular part of our Constitution, the House of. COM-
privileges, which remained in their possession since mons, would soon lose all its • inguence with the
the times of Henry I. who had given them their People, who would soon cease to entertain any re-
charter. The House should not decide precipitately spect for a body that had so little respect for its own
on the rights of Englishmen. Ile was not standing honour and character ai to tolerate avowed corrup-
up in Support of corruption, but as an advocate for tion among them.
justice. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, After a few words from Mr. FORBES and Lord
as an amendmet, " That this Bill be read a second Cuve, the Gallery was cleared for a division, but
time this day six months." none took place, and the 'Bill was read a second time.
An Honourable, HER, whose name we could POOR'S SETTLINF.NT BILL.
not learn, was in favour of disfranchisement, as Upon the motion of Mr. S. BOURNE, the Report
the Electors of Barnstaple, by gross acts of bribery on the Poor Settlement Bill was taken into further
and corruption, had forfeited their privileges, which consideration.
ought to be tranferred to Dirniinglram. General GASCOYNE moved that the Bill be re-
Mr. N. CALVER'f condemned the three instances committed. Ile wished to extend the time necessary
adduced as the most scandalous on record—with the to acquire a settlement to five years for natives, and
exception of the present. By depriving the Electors to seven for foreigners.
of Barnstaple of their privileges, they would prevent Mr. PHILLIPS saw no good from the Bill; and
'them from selling their country on future occasions. should the gallant General withdraw his motion for
Mr. BENNETT went into a detail of particulars, the recommitment, he should move that the Report
as a Member of the Committee. Out of 60 or 61 be taken into further consideration on that day six
votes, 39 or 40 of the Electors had received bribes in months.

1 the most scandalous manner ; and one had acted so

Lord GRENVILLE SOMERSET opposed the Bill

infamously 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
dower meaning till the highest bidder should ap-
pear before them. There were few individuals who
had refused the wages of their iniquities. If he could
have found one righteous man in Barnstaple, he,
would not be for disfranchising it.
Sir ROBERT WILSON announced, that as soon
as the present question was disposed of, he would (in
the Committee) move, that the Borough of Barnstaple
be disfranchised ; and that its privileges be trans-
ferred to some one of the large towns.
Mr. BARHAM pressed upon the House the neces-
sity of investigating the subject deeply, before it
came to a decision.
Mr. BATHURST contended, that, although no
particular case of bribery had been made out, it was
clearly proved that the whole system of election in
the borough of Barnstaple was corrupt. Unless the
House interfered, it would be vain to expect any re-
medy from from an application to a Court of Law.
Wherever such practices as the present had prevailed,
boroughs had justly forfeited their' franchise. But in
the present instance the burgesses were treated with
peculiar mildness, for they did irot lose their franchise
entirely, but were made to share it with others.
Sir JOHN NEWPORT read several passages from
the Report of the Committee, to chew that although
large sums had been paid at several elections, at
Barnstaple the bribery oath had never been tendered
nor taken. Did not this prove that there was a mu-
tual understanding between the Candidates that the
seats were to be procured for money?
Mr. MARTIN. (of Galway) contended that if the
Bribery Oath had been administered, the Electors
would not have taken, the bribe, that they might
swear they had not been bribed. He should there-
fore propose, as the best remedy, that the Bribery
Oath be always tendered at Elections. He objected
to depriving the freemen of Barnstaple of their fran-
chise, because the punishment would extend to their
children, and why should the innocent suffer for the
the guilty? He should therefore vote for reading
the Bill a second time this day sir months.
Lord MILTON defended the propriety of the Bill,
and maintained that it did not deprivethe Barnstaple
Electors of their franchise. It extended it to others,
and thus rendered bribery impracticable, but it left
theca in possession of all their rights. This Bill had
his hearty concurrence, and he trusted that the event
, of this night would prove that the House of Com;
mons was not lax in prosecuting those corruptions
which were but too well known to prevail in many,
places--(May, hear.)
•Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN rose to offer his
sentiments to the House—(A cry of" questionnhen
rose, mfreda:ith loudfits of coughing, trhkh continued
r some tisne.) If he was trespassing unfairly upon
the time and patience of the House, he should bend
to the expression of its wish, and remain silent. But
when he saw on all occasions a disposition to cry
him down, he could not so far compromise his rights
as a Member, nor the rights of those who had sent
him to ti:e House, to submit to such dictation. He
,remembered heariag with,delight the Speaker at the
Illar of the House of Peers claim the liberty of speech.
gut what would become of that liberty of speech of
a Member of that House, if one of the Representatives
of the Metropolis of the Empire, was beaten down
when he attempted to rise, net by fair argument,bnt
by elantour--(licar, hear, hear,)—ar.d that•too on s'
qnestion respecting the People's rights Wear, hear.)
. however. satifzed he might be to remain silent him-
li
self' he had. a duty to perform to those who sent him,
and on their parts he sholif,t,claini the protection
1 which he was certain would not.fail him—trcan the
1 i' Cha r--(lfeee, hear, heart) : Haoieg made this di-
, greasion, tie should sway eptut shortfy to the subject.
i lle had never, thqusb a blind to•PoxliArneutary ke-

Mr. F. LEWIS defended the Bill, and contended
the present system was the cause of much more hard-
ship to the pauper, and injustice to the property on
which the POor Rates were levied, than would be
experienced under that which this measure would in-
troduce. He feelingly pointed out the evili atten-
dant on the removal of the pauper in his old age
from the parish in which he had been accustomed to
reside, and insisted that residence ought, in fairness,
to give the poor man settlement.
Mr. ALLEN was in favonr of the Law of Settle-•
ment as it at present stood, and deprecated the pro-
posed alterations.
Colonel WOOD thought the Bill would add to
the number of paupers, and thought the Law of Set-
tlement should be wholly done away t that the lower
orders should not be chained to one particular spot,
and that Parliament should retrace its steps. A poor
man who had' rented a small tenement, at the rate
of £7. 10s. for eighteen years, had the misfortune to
become a pauper, and was sent to a parish where,
eighteen years before, he had been a hired servant
for a year and a half.
Mr. HUSKISSON agreed with the last speaker,
-that every facility ought to be given to the circula-
tion of the poor mans labour ; but he differed horn
him as to the means by which this was to be accom-
plished. They were told that they ought to do away
with the Law of Settlement, but he did not see hew
-this could be done, unless they put an end to the
Poor Laws altogether. 'fhe present system tended
to degrade the population more and more every day,
and to make the peasant a burden to his parish, al-
most from his cradle to his grave. It was because
he thought the present Bill went to lift the labourer
from this degraded state that he supported it, as in
his opinion the evils anticipated, as likely to flow
from it, were far outweighed by the 1 dva4tages
which it offered.
Mr. GEORGE LAMB considered the variety of
settlements, as they existed by the present law, as a
positive advantage. As to removal of paupers to the
place of their birth, he considered it as one of the
cruelest removals that could be practised. He op-
posed the Bill.
Lord MILTON supported it, because now there
were fix or seven ways of gaining a settlement ; this
Bill proposed to reduce them to one.
• Mr. CANNING had only one objection to the Bill,
namely, that the period for acquiring a settlement
should be fixed at three years, by which, in Liver-
pool, the lower orders of the Irish would be induced to
remain that time, to gain a settlement. He hoped the
House would treat with indulgence this, the first
fruits of the labours of a Committee, whic'i had been
assailed by more remonstrance than argument ; but at
the same time he would vote for the re-committal of
the Bill,
Mr. A.*WROHT shortly opposed the Bill.
' Si: G. CLERK requested his Honourable Friend
to withdraw his motion.
General GASLIOVNE said, he could' not consent
rto withdraw
Mr, S. BOURNE said, that he expected the greatest
good from inducing the Poor to be careful, thawhen
they knew they must be returned to their native
places, they might lay up something to make them
respectable among their friends in their old age. He
had no objection to tbe re-commitment of theEill.
• Mr. W. SMITH said, he lots in favour of the Bill;
ifint, as his Constituents thought-it would be burtheti-
ocene to them, he would, in compliahce with their
~wish, vote against it.
The House then divided—For the re-committal of
the Bill, 62—Against it, 92—Majority, 30.—The
Bill was, thereibre, lost. •
• Upon the Motion of Mr. J. P. GsA.; a meqsare wa.4 fir-
tOrell.to-be bent to the Lords, ttlatistittg At espy of the ti;port '
picitioted to their Lortibbiro by the tlinantittoe appet neu to to-
fore intn the Afrgirs of the Rink.
The Itotisitg.tbk Gcoliti:o. then pre arstis!:, that to-31"" I