Star.
London, England, 1828-03-15 00:00:00

PENRYN DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

The Order of the Day fur the second reading of the Penryn
isfranchisement Ball having been read,
. _

Mr. MANNING hoped the House would pause be-
fore they passed a Bill for which, according to the evi-
dence, he contended no case had been made out.

. - ..
Mr. STEW ART also opposed the Bill, as it went to
punish the present Electors of Penryn fur the faults of
their predecessors.

Mr. D. BARCLAY also resisted the Bill, contending
that from the eviJence taken belore the Houle it ought
not to pass into a law ; and further, that it had origi•.

!sited in a conspiracy to defraud himself and his k
Colleague of several thousand pounds.
Mr. PEEL rose, with a view to state a mode of "
seeding which would prevent the protraction ot
debate. The obj ct of the Bill was, first to disfrancloe
the borough of Penryn ; and, secondly, to transfer ik
for'eited franchise to Msachester. The Hon.alembeit
for the borough were of opinion that neither usammit
should be adopted. Now hew ould take an intermeAgt
course—he would acquiesce in the propriety of disfrio
chising Penryn, but was not at that mon ent prepoti
to vote for transferring the franchise to Manchester,,
The present Bill combined two objects—the creel,
execution of justice on the delinquent botough, to
other a question of policy relative to the transit" 10
Manchester. He was not prepared to contend against
t';e di•franchisement of the borough, and for this reason,
that the House had already decided the questionisa
year, had given the deepest attention to the Bill throeo
all its stages, and pronounced their deliberate judgmeo
on it in favour of the disfranchisement. The votes were,
for the disfranchisemest 45, against it Si, leaving
majority of 114, or about four to one in favour of tio
Bill. If ever there was to he an end to the litigatith
of the question in that Howse, surely such a majoriii
was enough to decide the question, particularly when it
was remembered that the decision was given after the
heating of evidence. Yet now the Hon. Members for the
Borough called on the House to oppose the FIN, when,
the details of the evidence being nearly forge rtes, the
House was the less prepared with reasons to rescind their
deliberate decision of last year. After reading the to
ports of the Committee on the conduct of this borough,
be could not avoid coming to the conclusion, the
notorious corruption and bribery had been practised is
it a long time. There might be innocent parties cos.
netted with Penryn, but where cases of general delis.
qsiency are proved, the innocent must take the cone.
quence of the general misconduct. It should never be
forgotten that hrib ry vas proved t have existed
long time in this b rough. The case of Penryn hat
been considered by Committees of that House three
different times—in 1607, 1819,. and 18:?7. In 180;
the Committee reported that Sir Christopher Hawkins
had committed acts of corruption in the election of that
year; and that a petoon named Sooner and ooh is were
found to have been guilty of bribery. In 1819 the
Committee reported that Mr. Swan, a Member of that
House, had committed acts of bribery and corruptina
in the preceding election, and that eighty persons were
proved to have rece:ved bribes. In 1827 the Committee
reported that gross bribery had ptev ailed ai the list
election. After these repeated cases of conviction lot
bribery, he could not think of opposing the disfranchise.
ment of the borough—if t!-e corruption had been
limited to one election, for is Circe the last, there would
in his opinion be much less reason for disfranchising it.
As to the assertion that the evidence that had beet
given before the House of the delinquency of the
borough, had been brought forward in consequence of
a conspiracy by some persons to extort money Iron
those connected with the borough. such a conspiracy
was, no doubt, a base and deteoable thing—but thee
the existence of such a conspiracy was no reason why
the House should have refused credit. to the strong and
overwhelming evidence of bribery that appeared
before it. The transfer of the torfeted franchise
of this borough to Manchestar was quite another
consideration; and as it was probable the House
would soon have two boroughs to dispose ot, he
should wish that part of the bill relative to the
transfer to be postponed until after the House should
have disposed of the borough of East Retford—lor
this reason, that lie should wish to know, before the
House decided on the place to which the forfeited fran•
chise of Penryn should •be transferred, whether they
were to have one or two disfranchised boroughs to dio
pose ot ? It would be inconsistent with the rules d
justice to pass a Bill, which not only took away the for.
felted franchise, but which also determined what place
should get that forfeited franchise. The House ought
in the first place pass the Bill of disfranchisement, and
then, alter further evidence, proceed, by a new measure,
to consider the proper place to which the franchise
ought to be transferred ; and this proceeding he would
etommend in the case of the East Itetford Bill also,
namely, to pass the disfranchising Bill first, and accom-
pany it with a tesolution of the House, as to the place
to which the forfeited right of election should be given.
The circumst ince of coupling the transfer with the dio
franchisement produced this unfair effect, that it excited
the exertions of a powerful party, locally interested, to
contribute all their aid to p ins the Bill, for this sole
reason, that they expected the lot feited franchise would
come to themselves. He was tesely now to vote for the
second reading of the entire Bill, on the understand:eg
that the clause transferring the franchise would be
postponed till after the committal of the Bill, until Le
should have ascertained the iesslution of the House 01
the East Retford Bill ; otherwise he should take the
sense of cH, use on the whole Bill.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL declared his readiness to
acquiese in the course suggested by the Right Hon.
Secretary, namely, that the committal of the Bill should
rake place after the disposal of the East Retterd 13111.
)Jr. O'NEILL said, he had last Session voted against
the first reading of a Bill similar to this, •in ceampany
with the lion. Gentleman Mr. Peel. On the second
reading, however, that Hon. Gentleman was opposed
to him, although he (Nlr. O'Neill) still maintained his
opposition to the hill. This might be consistency in
Minister of the Crown, but he did not think that there
was much consistency displa)ed on the part of the Hon.
Mt.mbers who supported the present measure. He
would affirm that te.o-thirds of the 145 Members, who
voted for the measure last Session, hai got into their
seats in the state manner as the Members for Penryn—
that borough which they were sl desirous to distrait.
chise—(llear). Let every Hon. Member come forward,
and laying his hard to his heart, declare ti:at he bad nut
expended a single shilling in prowling his election,be•
yond his mere lawful expenses, and that he had never
been guilty of any of those acts for which punishment
WAS now inflicted on Pent yn. Until such declaratios
should be made, he would consider them unfair judges
in a case like this. All England regarded with indig•
nation the Members of this House inflicting punishment
for bribery at a single election, while the thing sro
notorious at every election throughout the country.
In answer to a question from Mr. G. noun,
Mr. PEEL reiterated his former statement. Ile
wished the committal of the present Bill to be put et
till after Easter, when the fate of the borough of East
RetfOrd should be known; and, should that place be
disfranchised, he should then be ready to state the plate
to which) in his opinion, the franchise shoirld be ex.
tended.

After a few words from Mr. Srxwaer, the STRAKER, Mr. D.
BARCLAY, and Mr. O'NKILL, the Bill was read the second time, aud
ordered to be committed on Tuesday nest.
The Westminster Sessions Ball went through a Committee. The
Report was received, and the Bill ordered to be read a third time
on Monday next.
The Steam Vessels (Ireland) Bill went through a Committee.—
Report on Monday.
The Killiney Chapel ( Ireland) Bill was read the second tiwe. ath:
ordered to be commuted.