Star.
London, England, 1829-06-03 00:00:00

perhaps, as he (Sir John arydges) did upon AU occa-
sion, that the interests of this great town were suffi-
ciently protected and advanced by the two excellent
Members for the county in which Birmingham was
situated, and that it would willingly dispense with the
expense ai well as the feuds and heart-burnings that too
frequently ensued after a contested Parliamentary elec-
tion. He said the argument that had been made use
of in this debate, that, by a decision one sway, the agri-
cultural, and by the other the trading, interest would
be forwarded, was an invidious and a false one; it
was drawing a distinction between two interests, neither
of which could flourish if the other decayed ; and it
was the duty of every Member of the Senate, whether
a representative of the landed or the commercial inte-
rest. to endeavour to uphold an equal balance of pros-
perity between the two. As this House had. he 'aid,
already decided that bribery and corruption had been
proved against East Retford,consequently that as a bo-
rough it ought to be disfranchised, he should vote
against the motion now under discussion ; and, consi-
dering it immaterial w the general benefit of the Em-
pire whether representatives be appointed in Bitmtng•
ham or the hundred of Bassetlaw. he should, whenever
that question came under the consideration of the
House. give his vote for the latter, because he consi-
dered this was to inflict a lesser punishment upon East
Retford than to deprive it altogether of any shale in the
elective franchise.

Lord OXMANTOWN was decidedly hostile to Par-
liamentary reform. The House of Commons was not
inadequate to its representative duties. The House
did not all require reform. As to this borough, he
could not consent that it should be disfranchised on ac-
count of receiving consideration money for elections,
inasmuch as there were many able men who notoriously
owed their seats in that House to the influence of money ;
the theory that was so beneficial in practical working
could not be defective; while, on the other hand, he was
unwilling to recognise the
.influence of money as a
means of obtaining seats in that House. Between these
two objections he should decline supporting the motion.
If the borough should be eventually disfranchised, he
should tote for giving the franchise to a large and opu-
lent town like Birmingham—(Cries of "Question.")
Mr. DUNCOMBE supported the motion for the new
writs. The charge of corruption against the borough
was not clearly made out. It ought to be tried instantly,
and decided without postponement. Yet the investiga-
tion bad been postponed till next Session, and the
borough was, during that period, to suffer disfranchise-
ment. •In tact, vacillation was the order of the day—.
Ministers had no decided opinion upon any subject;
their only object sod plan was to postpone every ques-
tion till the neat Session. If the borough could be
proved to be guilty, it was but justice to prosecute the
investigation through the ether House of Parliament,
and to arrive without delay at an immediate decision,
but if the parties against the borough were not prepared
to prove its guilt immediately, the House was bound
cis assume its innocence, and grant to the borough the
benefit of that assumption in the restoration of its elec-
tive franchise—(Cheers).
Mr. SYKES deprecated any further postponement
of this question. It bad been under the consideration
of the House for the last four years, and if that period
were not sufficient for its determination he would beg
to ask what time would be ? Let the House. however,
take whatevertime it would, he had no hesitation in
saying, that it would finally determine to restore to this
unfortunate borough the right of election which it had
formerly enjoyed, for he was convinced that the evi-
dence which had been laid before the House was not
sufficient to lead it to come to the conclusion that the
borough of East Retford had been guilty of corruption.
Mr. EWART saw no reason why the question should
not be postponed again because it had happened to have
been postponed before. He denied that the House was
bound by any limitation of time; it was not compelled
to settle a question at any given time merely because it
bad not settled it before. He differed in opinion from
the Rousso:able Member who had last addressed the
House with respect to the conclusion to be drawn front
dye evidence which had been adducesl in reference to
this question. He was decidedly of opinion that the
'corruption of the borough had been proved beyond
dispute.
Sir .1. SICBRIGHT said, that although he believed ha the ear.
insidoss of the borough be idtould vote for the writ, because he
shoe* the House could de nothing so bad u to transfer the fun-
d*, to the hundred.
lir. N. CA Li/ EMT said that In consequence of what had fallut - •
tram his Honourable Weep* be felt it necessary to make a single
abeervatioa. He thought that the only object that the electors of
Ibe borough bad io causing the present motion to be nude was, that
time/ might have a second opportunity of putting forty pounds each
into their pockets.
sir. BRIGHT expressed his determination to support the mo-
tion for the writ, since be thought that the question hal not yet
been properly investigated by the House.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, that although the present
question had already been discussed at great length on
previous occasions, and although it might now be con-
sidered as a worn out subject, he nevertheless felt him-
self bound to state the reasons which induced him to
support the motion of the Right Honourable Member
for Lymeßegis. He did not vote for that motion upon the
ground that it was hopeless ever to transfer the elective
tranchisefrom the borough of Eastßetford to the town of
Birmingham; but he entertained very sanguine hopes
that in the course of another Session the House would
be enabled to legislate upon this question prospectively,
as had been done in the Grampound case, and some
others. He thought that the seats now empty should
be filled up by tire return of two Members for East
Retford, who should retain their seats until the ques-
tion of the propriety or impropriety of disfranchising
the borough was terminated. It was one thing to
vote that the borough had been corrupt. and to
attempt to disfranchise it in consequence, but quite
another thing when they (the House of Commons) bad
so acted, to follow it up by irking the borough into
their own hands without the concurrence of the other
branches of the Legislature. He contended that the
House bad no power to prohibit the issuing of a new
writ for any borough, unless they had previously re-
ceived the sanction of the other branches of the Legi,.
latore for so doing. There were constitutional objec-
tions to such a course; for it was provided by the
Constitution that no part of the representatve body
of the kingdom should remain unrepresebted.—
It was true that if that Legislative body had been
found corrupt, their franchise could be taken from
them; but it must be taken from them by a decided
Act of the whole Legislature, and not by the House of
Commons alone. No such Act bad been passed with
respect to the present borough. It had thereforeoot
het been disfranchised, and that House consequent!,
ad no right to withhold the writ which was now. moved
for. He thought, indeed, that the Amendmeht pro-
posed by his Hon. Friend was one of so mean a nature
se almost to amount to paltriness. It assumed a &tat
dog of mock dignity and affected much good; but it
was calculated to do neither one nor the other.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that in his opinion there
oferld be less ineonvenksee In adopting the amendment of the