Star.
London, England, 1821-05-15 00:00:00

BOROUGH OF ORAMPOUND.

On the Order of the Day for the House to resolve
itself into a Committee on the Bill for disfranchising
this Borough,
Lord LAUDERDALE said, that before proceed-
ing to the Order of the Day, he should move for the
production of the names of the Mayor, Aldermen,
and Freemen, of the Borough of Grampound, as
well of those who had been accused, as of those
against whom not a tittle of evidence had been pro-
duced. The Bill appeared to him to be one of the
most unjust ever brought into Parliament. Only
eighteen of the accused were now in possession of
the elective franchise, and against thirty-two no cvi-
dence had been produced; so that for the delin-
quency of a few the whole of the Corporation was to
be punished ; on account of the misconduct of eigh-
teen, thirty-two Electors were to lose the elective
franchise. And this proceeding was said to be un-
impeachable. A Bill that •tended to -deprive the
humblest individual of his rights was as much *.Bill
of Pains and Penalties as one that went to affect any
of their Lordships. He had at one time been a Par-
liamentary Reformer ; but since he had seen cause'
to alter his opinion. The People had heard of a cla-
mour for Parliamentary Reform, and,• like men in
distress, imputed their distress to a cause that had no
connection with it. The House should know the
real state of the case, and he should move for the
appointment of a Committee to report to the House
the names of the accused and unaccused Freemen
of Grampound.
Lord CARNARVON had never in the abstract
been a Parliamentary Reformer, but shciuld always
give his opinion in favour of Reform when a gross
abuse had been proved, as in the case now before
the House. Out of 55, he understood, 48 had been
accused of corrupt practices, and 41 had been proved
guilty. Three years had elapsed before the trial had
taken place; and in order to disqualify the voters, it
was necessary the action should have been brought
within two years.

The LORD CHANCELLOR could not refuse his
assent to the Motion of the Noble Lord. He had
been always of opinion, that nothing was more dan-
gerous than a partial reform ; and it appeared to him
to be most alien to the Law and the Constitution to
take away the rights of innocent men. The Bill was,
to all intents, one of Pains and Penalties, and an ex
post facto law. In this case, innocent men would be
punished in a more severe manner than the law had
appointed for the guilty. The offences of individual
Corporator could never be visited upon the Corpo-
ration itself; and that had been held by the most
eminent Lawyers, in the case of the Borciugh of Col-
chester, and others. Had the innocent Freemen of
Grampound been refused the right of voting at the
last Grampound Election, they could have brought
an action for damages in a Court of Law. The trust
was reposed in-the Corporation after the guilty had
been disfranchised. Such a proposition had never,
been made before; and why was the franchise to be
transferred to Leeds, or to the County of York ? He
believed there were thirty-two as pure voters in
Grampound as any in the kingdom. He should also
object to extending the right to the Hundred ; though,
if an alteration was to be made, he should prefer that
to any other.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL was sorry. to differ
from his Noble and Learned Friend ; and he con-
ceived that this motion would go to defeat the Bill
altogether. As to this Bill being one of Pains and
Penalties, be must say, that a public trust, intended
for the public benefit, had been abused, and Parlia-
ment had a right in such case to take away that
trust. Should a Peer of the House be proved guilty
of abusing his privileges, he would be deprived of
them by a vote of that House; and such cases had
taken place. In the case of the innocent voters, let
them have votes in the County. Though he was an
enemy to Parliamentary Reform, he was a friend to
Bills of this nature. The argument of his Noble
Friend went to this, that, though out of 1000 Elec-
tors 999 had been proved to be corrupt, yet, because
one was pure, the place could not be disfranchised.
At the same time, he did not approve of the remedy
proposed by the Commons, and should propose
another in the Committee. In the case of evident
corruption, what necessity had created, necessity
could limit; and the reason why he supported the
Bill was, not because he was a Reformer, but be-
cause he was an Anti-Reformer. A general measure
appeared to him to be the most unwise and inexpe-
dient ; it was the particular case that called for re-
medy. He should vote against throwing the fran-
chise open to the Hundred, on account of the other
Cornish Boroughs. A case of systematic -corruption
had been proved, not at one, but at many successive
Elections, and none called more loudly for remedy.
The principle of the Bill had been recognised in the
cases of Cricklade, Shoreham, and Aylesbury, and
even in those Bills that the House had thrown out.
He should vote for the Bill going into the Committee.
Earl BATHURST said, that the object of the Bill
was completely to disfranchise the Borough of G ram-
pound. Had the same principle been adopted as in
the case of Barnstaple; it should have had his suppoi t,
as he saw no reason fur a deviation from the course
that the House had formerly adopted. l'bete was
nothing in this case to distinguish it from Cricklade
and Shoreham. That had been a principle of ame-
lioration, while the present was one of extinction and
of total change, and a change, too, uncalled tor by
the circumstances of the case. In this case, the
House was about to confer a great privilege on those
who had not enjoyed k before; and the gleatest care
was needful to guard against partiality, for which
a wide door was opened, and to something like Par.
I liana:atm y jobbi..g,„ 'f,) throw this power iu:o the

PRICE SE\ 1::• ! r.

hands of the Crown, he conceived would be more
dangerous. By adding two new Members to the
County of York, no new right would be conferred
on voters, and that perhaps would be the least objec-
tionable plan ; but were he an inhaiiitant of the
County of York, he should never assent to it, from
the perpetual contests it would occasion.

Lord REDESDAI.E opposed the Bill as one which
resembled the principle of the Representative system
once adopted in France, %%hen Representation was
fixed according to the population ; and nothing could
be More dangerous than a principle of this kind. It
was the beginning of a new system which might
grow up to the utter destruction of the present state
of Representation in this kingdom..
The Marquis of LANSDOVVN observed, that if
the right of voting was to be extended to the Hundred,
as the Noble Secretary of State recommended, or if
any other alteration was to be made, it could only
be done by sending the Bill to a Committee.

The Earl of LAUDERDALE spoke in reply.
Earl BATHURST observed, that all he had said
was, that if the Bill had proposed to extend the fran-
chise to the Hundred he should support it; but that
could not now be done by sending the Bill to a Com-
mittee; for in that case, every clause of the Bill
must be altered.

The Motion of Lard LAUDERDALE was then put,
and negatived without a division. On the question
for committing the Bill,
Lord SIDMOUTH said he would have no objec-
tion to the extending the right of Election to the
Hundred ; but he could never consent to the dis-
franchisement of the Borough.
The Marquis of LANSDOWN wished- that the
Committee on the Bill should be postponed to Mon-
day next ; because, if it had been anticipated that
this unexpected discussion was likely to take place
to-day, several Noble Lords, not then in the House,
would have been prevent.
The LORD CHANCELLOR had no objection to
the postponement.
The Earl of WESTMORLAND said he should
oppose the Bill in every stage.
The motion for postponing the Committee to Mon-
day systs then put and carried, and the I.Ords were
ordered to be summoned for that day. At Half-
past Seven the House adjourned.