Star.
London, England, 1820-02-26 00:00:00

moment when the country was involved in a state
nf discontent? How was it possible that their Lord-
ships could miss so excellent an occasion of remov. I
ing discontent and complaint? Their Lordships
would recollect that this Bill asked nothing more
than what could have been effected by the House
of Commons themselves, of their own authority, in
case no dissolution had taken place ; and it was his
opinion that the Ministers who advised that disso-
lution, were particularly bound to countenance the
Bill. Assuredly, there could be no objection to
hold, as it were, these delinquent Boroughs to bail,
seeing that they were only deprived of their privi-
leges for the period of fifty-three days. His Lord-
ship then, adverting to precedents for such a pro-
ceeding as was then proposed to be adopted, with
respect to the three Boroughs, noticed particularly
the case of the Borough of Shaftesbury, and con-
tended that the distinction as to a prorogation and
dissolu ion, could not affect the principle upon which
Parliament acted in the former case. The principle
was this, that dining an investigation, the object of
which was, to ascertain whether or not the Borough
was in too corrupt a state to be entrusted with a
continuance of the franchise, it should be deprived
in the meantime of the privileges of electing. This
was the principle acted on with respect to Shaftes-
bury, and this was the principle proposed to be acted
on with regard to the Boroughs mentioned in the
Bill. Having said so much, he should next proceed
to notice the extraordinary proceedings of last night.
He begged to apprize the House, that it was his in-
tention to move to rescind the order for the hearing
of founsel at their Lordships' bar. This was no pri-
vate Bill, hut a Bill of temporary necessity. It did
not involve the question whether or not Barnstaple
should be disfranchised, but it was merely intended
to provide that the investigation into the state of
the Borough should be resumed next Parliament,
precisely in the same circumstances that it stood in
when the investigation was deemed necessary at all.
I low c,Aild it he supposed that the hearing of Coun-
sel could be made consistent with that inquiry which
the House of Commons seemed to think necessary
when they passed the Bill through several of its
stages in one day ? He entreated their Lordships
that they would not interpose their chilly negative
to disappoint the hopes of the country. His Lord-
ship then said, that he would move that the order for
hearing Counsel be rescineed.
Lord LIVERPOOL said, he did not wish that this
question :,bould he got rid of by a side wind. He
thought that their Lordships were not bound by the
practice u: Parliament to hear Conine! on the Bill;
bat Ire believed it would be expedient to let Counsel
he heard, without entering into evidence in a case'
lik" the present, where there was a strong attack
srade upon a body of individuals. He. begged their
l.ordsl:ips to attend to the distinction between suspend-
ing the right of a Borough upon proof had, that
such a proceeding was proper, and suspending
the same rights, pending the discussion of the ques-
tion, whether or not the rights ought to be impended
or taken away ? He always regarded the power of
the House of Commons to suspend the issuing of
Writs to Borinighs during the existence of Parlia-
I lent, as a very strong power indeed ; and if it was a
new and unprecedented assumption on their part, he
should feel it his duty to oppose it; but such being
the law, he would not attempt to disturb it. The
case of Shaftesbury had been alluded to by the Noble
Earl; but after all, that case went no further than
affirming the power of the Commons to suspend the
Writs for Boroughs during their own existence. But
could that doctrine apply to a case where the House
of Commons was not inexistence ? If the Writs were
suspended during dissolutiott, the consequence was,
that the power of the Crown would be taken away,
and to take away the power of the Crown to issue
its Writs was specifically the object of the present
Bill. The House would mask the progress of a bad
precedent. First, the Commons exercised and con-
firmed in themselves the right to suspend Writs
during their existence, and now they wished to go
the length of taking away the power of the Clown.
Another curious circumstance was to be noted also,
that the Bill contemplated the suspension of the
powers of four Boroughs, whilst, at that very mo-
ment, four Members from these very Borer,ghs sat
'and voted in the House of CoMmons, and if no dis-
solution took place, would have retained their seats.
Such being tote nature of the Bill, Ise could not sup-
port it. He saw no reason for supposing that there
would be any impediment in providing remedial
measures next Session just as well as at this moment.'
Why then suspend the rights of a body of persons
against whom they had not ; tittle of evidence to
"import any charge? While they wete zealous to
do justice to the Constitution, they ought to be cau-
tious that they committed no injustice against indi-
viduals. He thought, under all the circumstances,
*tat the ease might be left in precisely the same "state
it stood in at that time, seeing that the proceedings
could be resumed with all the advantages, next Par-
liament, which might be expected_ to attend them
after the interposition of this Sill.
Lord DARNLEY gave his assent to the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR opposed the passing
of the Bill this Session. Several Noble Lords had
urged upon the House the necessity of obeying the
lettings of cite People. The best way of consulting
Ilse feelings of the People would be by doing justice
to all, and if justice be rendered to the People, sooner
or later the People would do justice to their Lord-
skip,. What then was the justice of the present case?
It was sought to take away the right of returning
Members to Parliament from four Boroughs. He
would ask why ? There was not a tittle of evidence
whereon to ground the suspension. No man was
more ready than he was to express his respect for the
opinion of a Committee of the House of Commons.
But their decision as to a particular Election, was
not a complete justification on the part of the Legis-
latare, to take away the power of Election in a body
where partial corruption was proved. The question
was, were they to take away the right of the Crowell
to issue Writs, and that too at a time when :Vern
bets held seats in Parliament, representing these eb.
noxious Boroughs? He would reserve his opinion
as to the ultimate questioo. The Shaftesbury case
WAS truly a case in mugs because, though the Writs
were suspended, stilliultimately, the franchise was
continued to that Borough, and thus the Parliament
declared there was no ground for suspending the
Writs sit all. Here, tam was a case which should