Star.
London, England, 1828-02-26 00:00:00

was founded on * Petition of the burgesses, stating that
no bribery occurred at the last election. This Petition
was, however, a tacit confismation of the former practice.
It might be said that there was no precedent for distrait•
chisi ng a place in consequence of malpractices at former
elections. It appeared to him that Shoreham was a case in
point. But even admitting that a case for disfranchise-
ment could not be made out, still there was sufficient
ground at least for regulation. Forty or fifty witnn,es
were examined before the Committee, who all stated
that corruption was quite notorious—that they them-
selves h4d received money for their notes—( Here
the Honourable Member read the depositions of. man)
of the witnesses). It was no answer to this .to say,
that at the last election no money had been paid.
The Hon. Member expressed a hope that the House
would pursue the inquiry farther, and concluded by
moving the second reading of the Bill, for the purpose of
going into a Committee and hearing further evidence.
Mr. F. CLINTON considered the Bill objectionable
in principle, and therefore could not concur in the
second reading. In every case of disfranchisement
of Boroughs, especially in the cases of Cricklade,
Grampound;and Penryn, it had been proved that the
majority of the electors were guilty of bribery. In
the case before the House, the Borough of East Ret-
ford had been acquitted of bribery at the last election.
Softie facts relating to forma. elections had been
introduced. The Hcn. Member could not consider
those remote charges the ground of disfranchisement at
the present day. The accused had not the means of
defence which they might have procured at the time
wren the alleged offences were committed. The Bill
carried the principle of disfranchisement too far. if it
passed, they might disfranchise any Borough by proving
a corrupt practice had occurred on a former election. He
could tell the Hon. Member for Bletchingley, in limine,
that if the Bill went to a Committee, the House would
not disfranchise the whole of the voters because some
might have taken bribes. A great portion were per-
fectly free from bribery, and they could not be disfran-
chised without great injustice.
Mr. STUART opposed the second reading, and moved
that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. N. CALVERT supported the Bill. He con-
sidered voters to be placed in the situation of a Jury. They should
act conscientiously In the discharge of their duty, and where the
elective franchise was abused it should be taken away.
Mr. H. BANES said it would be disgraceful if the
House deprived the voters of East Retford of their elective franchise
upon the evidence as it then :tend. The Hon. Member thought
further inquiry was necessary.
Mr. Secretary PEEL considered it necessary to have
a clear view of the course the House should pursue. If lie could
believe the object of the Hon. Gentleman was to decide at once
whether East Retford should forfeit the elective privilege it had
so long enjoyed? he should vote against the second reading of the
Rill; but the Right Honourable Secretary understood it was the
intention to go to a Committee only, for the purpase of intro-
ducing further evidence, and enable the House to come to a
correct conclusion. If they were to make due inquiry into the
extent of the corruption in East Retford, and come to a just con-
clusion, It would not become the House to refuse to go to a Com-
mittee. The Bill was before the House last Session. It was then
understood that further inquiry would be made, and he saw good
reason in this instance for giving his consent to the second reading,
in order that further evidence might be brought to the bar.—
There was one point to which the Right Hon. Gentleman thought
the attention of the House ought to be directed. No one ought to
determine in which way they should dispose of the elective fran-
chise before it was actually withdrawn from East Retford. All
those who were for the transfer of the elective franchise to any par-
ticular place would come to the discussion with a bias. His wish
was, that the Holt. Member would look whether more justice might
not be dime 'lda, went into Committer, without saying where the
elective franchise was to be transferred. _ _ _ _

Mr. LITTLETON begged to remind his Right
Honourable Friend, that the practice had been to state where the
transfer was to be made. Iu the Grampound Disfranchise.
went Bill, the privilege was to be given to Leeds. In the
case of Penryn, the Bill was certainly one of the most extraor-
dinary measures ever known in Parliament. A 13iii to disfranchise
that borough was sent up to the Lords without stating where the
privilege was tb be transferred. By the omission, the Lords were
left at liberty to supply the deficiency, and return two Members to
seats in that House. In the Cabe before the House, they had eel-
deuce to prove that the Burgesses of East Retford had received so
guineas for their single votes. That fact was in the report of the
Select Committee. There was a prissefacin ease which the House
could hot pus over. He was ready to proceed to the disfranchise-
ment of a corrupt Borough by due inquiry in Committee, and would
not meet the case with jesuitical evasion. The House of Commons
should do its duty openly and featlessly.
' Mr. Secretary PEEL explained.
Mr. BATLEY opposed the Bill, but did not object to further
inquiry.
Mr. SLANEY opposed the Bill.'
The question was then put; and the Amendment having been
negatived without a division, the Bill was read a second time, and
committed fur Monday next.
A Petition was presented, complaining of an undue return for
Dover.--Ordered to be taken into consideration on the 13th March.
The• other Orders of the Day were disposed of, and the House
adjourned at Twist.ve o'Clock.