diminish, on my account, the amount of the reductions incident to my accession to the throne, I can have no wish, under circumstances like the present, that any addition whatever should be made to the Settlement adopted by parliament in the year 1816. "My Lords and Gentlemen; Deeply as I regret that the machinations and designs of the disaffected should have led, in some parts of the country, to acts of open violence and insurrection, I cannot but express my satisfaction at the promptitude with which those attempts have been suppressed by the vigilance and activity of the magistrates, and by the zealous co-operation of all those of my subjects, whose exertions have been called forth to support the authority of the laws. "The wisdom and firmness manifested by the late parliament, and the due execution of the laws, have greatly contributed to restore confidence throughout the kingdom; and to discountenance those principles of sedition and irreligion which had been disseminated with such malignant perseverance, and had poisoned the minds of the ignorant and un wary. "I rely upon the continued support of parliament in my determination to maintain, by all the means entrusted to my hands, the public safety and tranquillity. "Deploring, as we all must, the distress which still unhappily prevails among many of the labouring classes of the community, and anxiously looking forward to its removal or mitigation, it is, in the mean time, our common duty, effectually to protect the loyal, the peaceable, and the industrious, against those practices of turbulence and intimidation, by which the period of relief can only be deferred, and by which the pressure of the distress has been incalculably aggravated. "I trust that an awakened sense of the dangers which they have incurred, and of the arts which have been employed to seduce them, will bring back by far the greater part of those who have been unhappily led astray, and will revive in them that spirit of loyalty, that due submission to the laws, and that attachment to the constitution, which subsists unabated in the hearts of the great body of the people, and which, under the blessing of Divine Providence, have secured to the British nation the enjoyment of a larger share of practical freedom, as well as of prosperity and happiness, than have fallen to the lot of any nation in the world." In both Houses the address was voted without a dissenting voice. Indeed, the royal speech was so general in its language, and kept so completely clear of every thing which the spirit of party might lay hold of, that it was impossible to refuse to re-echo its senti in favour of sir William Curtis and the lord mayor, was a signal triumph. Upon the whole, the new House of Commons found itself, in its composition and its attachments, little different from the former. It had gained no new ornaments; neither had it lost any of those, who were accustomed to take a large share in the management of business in it. In the course of the session, however, it was deprived of one of its most eminent members. Mr. Grattan had come over to take his seat once more, for the especial purpose of again advocating the claims of the Catholics. Upon his arrival in London, he found himself in a state of health, which rendered him incapable of exertion; his infirmities increased; and he expired, without having again appeared in that House, which he had so often instructed and delighted. The claims of the Catholics was the last subject which occupied his thoughts: and in his dying hour, he exhorted them, how oftensoever they might be disappointed, to abstain from taking any part in the dissentions that might be occasioned by existing differences in the royal family, and never to make common cause with the abettors of radical reform, or of annual parliaments and universal suffrage. Mr. Grattan may be regarded as the last of those celebrated parliamentary orators, who dignified the close of the eighteenth and the commencement of the nineteenth century. He had been the contemporary and the rival of Pitt, of Fox, of Sheridan, of Windham; and, if he did not surpass them, he exhibited at least a peculiar species of eloquence, (brilliant in itself, though sometimes too profuse and too effeminate in its ornaments), in which no one came near him. In losing him, the House of Commons was deprived not merely of one of its most distinguished individuals, but of the last member, as it were, of the most illustrious band of orators, which it had ever possessed at any one time. Sir James Mackintosh (June 13th) in moving a new writ for Dublin, paid the deceased that tribute of admiration to which he was so well entitled; and, ardent as the eulogy was, both sides of the House agreed with it in its full extent. Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Charles Grant, and Mr. Wilberforce, expressed their sentiments at length, with a warmth of admiration not inferior to that of Sir James Mackintosh. In the survey of the public services rendered by Grattan to his country, and of the modes in which his various talents had been displayed, two circumstances were more particularly deserving of attention. He was the only individual of the age, to whom, though in the situation of a private gentleman, and without either civil or military honours, parliament had voted a recompeuse for services rendered to the country; and he was the sole person in the history of modern orators, of whom it could be said, that he had arrived at the first class of eloquence in two parliaments, differing from each other in their habits, tastes, opinions, and prejudices. Confessedly the first orator of his own country, he came over to England at a time when the taste of the House of Commons had been rendered justly severe, by its habit of hearing speakers, such as the world had rarely before witnessed; so that he had to encounter great names on the one hand, and unwarrantable expectations on the other. These were his difficulties, and he overcame them all. He outstripped the affectionate expectations of his friends, and made all bend before the acknowledged splendor of superior genius. Mr. Grattan's son came forward as a candidate for the vacancy in the representation of Dublin, occasioned by his father's death. He was opposed by Mr. Ellis, one of the masters of the Irish chancery. Mr. Ellis was successful. It happened, however, that, at the very time of the contest, a bill for the regulation of the Irish chancery was in its progress through the House of Commons; and, on the 31st of June (a fortnight after the writ had been issued to Dublin, and when it was known that Mr. Ellis was a candidate), Sir John Newport moved, that a clause should be introduced into that bill, by which no master in the chancery of Ireland was to be elected, or was to sit or vote in the House, while he held such an office. The ground, on which the clause was defended, was, the incompatibility of the duties of a master in chancery in Dublin, with those of a member of parliament; and that incompatibility was proved by the evidence of Mr. Ellis himself, who, in his examination, had stated, that the duties of his office required a regular attendance of ten months in the year. The clause was adopted into the bill; and an attempt which was made to exempt from its operation all persons who should be elected be fore the act was passed, failed in the House of Commons. In the mean time, Mr. Ellis had been elected; and, according to the bill, as it then stood, his election must have been vacated, unless he chose to resign his office. In the House of Lords, however, on the motion of lord Redesdale, supported by the chancellor and lord Liverpool, the bill was modified, so as not to extend to Mr. Ellis. A considerable number of petitions were, as usual, presented against the elections of successful candidates, who had been returned; but the petition relative to the return for Grantham, is the only one which produced, in the course of the session, any discussion of general principles in the House. The committee, appointed to try the Grantham return, after reporting that one of the sitting members had been guilty of various acts of treating, communicated to the House a resolution, by which it was declared, that a practice had subsisted for several elections, in the borough of Grantham, of paying sums of money to out-voters, under colour of indemnifying them for loss of time, and that such a practice was highly illegal, as being subversive of the freedom of election, and as tending to the most dangerous corruption. the following day (July 12th) Dr. Phillimore moved, that the House should adopt the resolution. It was opposed, on the ground, that it was by no means clear that the payment of voters for their loss of time was illegal; and that, if it was illegal, the motion was superfluous; but if it was not, no vote of that House could make it The motion was carried by a So. On majority of six. Though, in general, one branch of the legislature ought not to presume to declare what is the existing law on points relative to which any doubts prevail, yet, such a case as this, stands upon peculiar ground of its own, and may, with good reason, be looked upon as an exception. For, as the House of Commons is the only tribunal competent to determine whether its members are duly elected, it must necessarily have the power of interpreting the laws relating to elections; and, in declaring the sense in which it understands them, can scarcely be accused of exceeding the due limits of its authority. Sir Manasseh Lopez, having been convicted of bribery in the election, for the preceding parliament, of members for Barnstaple, had been condemned, by the Court of King's-bench, to two years imprisonment, and to pay a fine of 10,000. The fine having been paid, and eight months imprisonment endured, lord John Russell moved, that the House should address the throne, to remit part of the punishment. The topics urged in mitigation, were Sir Manasseh's great ageupwards of sixty-five-and the frequency and notoriety of such offences, which were talked of in the circles frequented by mem bers with such levity and so little reserve, that a man, not conversant with the law, might fall into them, without being aware of their heinous nature, or of the heavy penalties annexed to them. On the other hand, it was resisted, as an improper interference with the exercise of the royal prerogative. But it seemed to be admitted by all, that Sir Manasseh was Sir a fit object of compassion, and that his situation should be brought under the consideration of the crown; and, finally, the motion was withdrawn, on an understanding, that the propriety of showing mercy to him, should be taken into consideration. Manasseh Lopez had an extensive borough-interest, and was a steady supporter of the administration. As he had been prosecuted by the express order of the House, ministers would naturally feel, that it was a matter of delicacy to extend to him the royal clemency. In mitigating in favour of one of their own partisans the punishment inflicted by a court of justice, in consequence of a prosecution commenced by the direction of the Commons, they might have been charged with a wish to screen corruption from the vengeance of the law, and with abusing, to purposes of party, the most sacred prerogatives of the crown. Lord John Russell's motion, and the discussion which took place upon it, removed this difficulty, and left the way clear for the merciful consideration of Sir Manasseh's case. We have already mentioned, that, in the former parliament, the grossest corruption had been clearly proved to have long existed in the borough of Grampound. It had been ascertained, that nearly all the electors sold their votes; and a great number of them had been convicted on indictments preferred against them. To correct this corruption, lord John Russell had introduced a bill for disfranchising the borough, and transferring the franchise to Leeds; but the dissolution which followed the death of his late majesty, put an end to his proceedings for that time. He, therefore, now revived his bill; and the previous steps having been gone through, on the 19th of May he moved, that it should be read a second time. The measure involved two points entirely distinct; the one, the propriety of disfranchising Grampound; the other, the mode of supplying the deficiency in the representation, which such a disfranchisement would occasion. On the former point there was no difference of opinion. Lord Castlereagh and Mr. Canning admitted, as readily as Mr. Tierney or lord John Russell could assert, that the elective privilege ought not to be left with Grampound; and the unanimity which prevailed on so important a principle, probably arose from the excess to which corruption, in this instance, had been carried. Grampound was not a mixed scene of good and evil; it did not present a medley of voters, of whom some were corrupt, and others were either incorrupt, or, at least, gave them selves some pains to throw a veil of secrecy over their transgressions; it was one mass of notorious corruption; all the electors received money; all received it openly, and without shame; and the utmost that one of their own aldermen could say for the voters was, that, perhaps, there might be two or three who had not received bribes. Here, therefore, a bill of disfranchisement was not liable to the objection which, in most cases of the sort, is not easily gotten rid of-that of punishing the innocent with the guilty; for, as all had participated in, and profited by the guilt, it was fitting that the punishment should extend to all without exception, The mode of disposing of the franchise, occasioned much greater difference of opinion. In the preceding cases of New Shoreham, Cricklade, and Ailesbury, the right of voting had been taken away from the individuals against whom corruption had been proved, and had been extended to the adjacent hundred; and the ministers, especially lord Castle, reagh and Mr. Canning, were desirous, that the same plan should be followed now. They said, that by adopting this course of proceeding, corruption would be discouraged and punished, without lending any countenance to wild notions of parliamentary reform; and that the measure would thus have the greatest chance of ultimate success; because the Lords, who, it was well known, looked on such bills with no favourable eye, would be less averse to concur in a plan, which involved no principle beyond what had long received the stamp of parliamentary sanction. With these views, lord John Russell, and the keen friends of the bill, did not coincide. In all the preceding cases of disfranchisement, there was a considerable number of the voters against whom no corruption was proved, and whom, therefore, it would have been unjust to have visited with punishment; and it had been thought, that there was no better method of doing justice to all parties, than by transferring the franchise to the district in which the borough was situated; so that the voters, against whom no offence had been made out, might enjoy, as inhabitants of the hundred, an indemnification for what they had lost as members of the borough. In Grampound, |
