Star.
London, England, 1820-07-12 00:00:00

Slit MANASSEIf LOPEZ.

Lord JOIIN RUSSELL lose, pursuant to notice,
to move an Address to the Crown for shortening the
imprisonment of Sir M. Lopez. The Noble Lord,
in proposing to recommend the extension of mercy
.to this Gentleman, on the ground that he had already
suffered quite enough to answer the ends of justice,
disclaimed any, intention whatever to impeach the
sentence, or to cast any imputation on the Judges.
From the nature of the laws, indeed, which Pat iia-
meat had enacted against bribery and corruption at
elections, the Judges must naturally consider it us
their duty to visit any offence of that descriptioa
which was brought before them with Fectiliar
rity. It was not for the Judges to lock to anythi;:g
but that which regularly came before them in cr.
dence. There were, however, some considerations ia
this case which formed a strong appeal to mercy.
Yet this was a case in which, perhaps, it would not
be so becoming-in his Majesty's Ministers to advi
•the exercise of the Royal Prerogative of mercy, zs
'the prisoner had usually supported Ministerial me.!-
sures, and as the prosecution against him had is--
'nateci with that House. For-these reasons it aprea
proper that the House should interpose, in order
least to do away any idea of corrupt motives on tLe
part of.Ministeks in this instance. The consikie:atiens
-which pleaded for a mitigation of the sentence were
these: Sir M. Lopez was now far advanced in lift,
:being about 64 yeari of age, and imprisonment icr
such a period as two years must be deemed a very
severe infliction upon such a man, comprehending,
as it did, at least one-fifth of the time that he could
naturally be expected to remain in existence. Sir
M. Lopez had also paid ten thousand pounds fine.
—lt was also to be considered that this Gentleman
might have been ignorant of the magnitude of his
offence. For, from the general practice of the Corn-
wall Boroughs, as well As from the (harmer in which
that practice was talked of in that House, which
ought never to be mentioned but with detest.ttion, it
was not improbable that the prisoner did not regard
his conduct in the proper light. The practice
bribery at elections was indeed spoken of in such
terms by all parties in that House, as well as by those
of no party, that it was not matter of surprise that
the prisoners judgment should have been misled, and
that instead of being deemed more guilty, he should
rather be considered as less guilty than others.—
Having then been already nearly twelve mouths in
'prison, he submitted, that on the grounds he had
stated, the prisoner was a proper object for the cle-
mency of the Crown. 'Therefore, he felt it his duty
to bring forward the motion with which he meant to
conclude, and particularly in consequence of the part
which he had taken with respect to the corruptions at
Grampound. After stating that he meant, early in
the next Session, again to bring forward the proyo-
sition for disfranchising Grampound, the prosecution
of which, he had, -from cei tain unfortunate dreier,
•stances, been under the necessity of declining in the
present Session, the Noble Lord concluded with
moving " An Address to the Throne, praying that hi;
Majesty would be graciously pleased to shorten the
period of Sir Manasseh Lopez's imprisonment, in sue::
manner, and at such time, as his Majesty may think
proper."
Mr. W. WYNN could not agree to this motion.—
He thought the House were too ready to interfere
with the Executive. The present case was one of tl:e
last-in which the House should interfere. The Crowa
had the full exercise of its function of mercy in this
case as much as it would have in any case, and ought
not to be interfered with.
Lord CASTLEREAGH strongly opposed tl:e
motion. It was the first time such an interferet:re
with the Crown had been sue sted ; and he trusted
it would not be repeated, as it must be attended wi;:i
great inconvenience to have the House of Commas
interfering in the administration of justice. Tie
Noble laird had now expressed his opinion ; he hoped
.his Lordship would now withdraw his motion, and
he might be satisfied that the individual referred
would not be by this discussion placed on a less ad-
vantageous footing than he stood before.
Sir T. ACLANI) saw no reason why the House,
which had in this case been the prosecutor, should
not, as in other cases the prosecutor frequently did,
recommend the offender to mercy ; big an whatever
manner this motion should be disposed of, he con,!-
dered the path to be, rendered much mote open and
unembairassed than it was before his Noble Friend
brought forward his motion.
Mr. 11. GURNEY supported the motion, and ex-
pressed his desire that Mr. Swami's name should be
added to that of Sir M. 'Ape; •
Sir JOSEPH YORKE also urged the mitigatioa
of the sentence against Mr, SIV3II r., whose delinquency
was light indeed compared to that of Sir M. Lore"-
Yet the' Noble Mover thought proper to prefer ;,:e
goose to the Swann—(Larry • • ;141.
.:..,,r)—intustnc; the c