Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

courts of law or equity there was no remedy; and this he was prepared to show. The only courts to which application could be made for redress, were the courts of Chancery and the King's-bench; but neither of these had jurisdiction in the case he had stated to the House. The hon. member then cited the cases of the corporation of Colchester, and the corporation of Yarmouth, to shew, that in the one the court of Chancery, which had been applied to, pronounced that it had no jurisdiction in similar questions, though it intimated that the court of King'sbench probably had it; and the court of King's-bench decided, that it possessed not the jurisdiction in question, but referred the parties to the court of Chancery. This was the doctrine laid down, after all legal argument on the matter had been exhausted by such men as sir Samuel Romilly, sir Arthur Piggott, Mr. Horne, and the then Attorney-general, in one court; and Mr. Erskine, Mr. Justice Ashurst, and others, in the other. Was he not, then, justified in saying no remedy was to be found in a court of law or equity? Both courts were applied to on a case similar to that of Northampton, and no redress was obtained. Under these circumstances it was the duty of the House to interfere. This was not a question between subject and subject: it was a question between parliament and the offenders; and in no such case had it refused the aid of its authority. Let them recollect, too, the inequality of the parties. If an individual had to contend with a corporate body, with what unequal weapons did they

resolutions relating to corporate purposes; and that, as the sum proposed to be vested was not fairly applicable to corporate purposes, such a resolution was not binding upon the whole corporation. That no corporate purpose was to be answered was manifest, from the circumstance of the right of the corporation being in no manner questioned of their interests being in no degree attempted to be invaded. So far, therefore, there was no proof of a corporate interest requiring the illegal and unconstitutional interference, which, he contended, was, in the present instance, introduced into the affairs of the corporation, by the vote proposed. What were fairly to be considered corporate purposes? Judge Blackstone-no mean authority upon constitutional subjects-said, that corporations were instituted for the peace, good order, and good government, of the town. The late sir Samuel Romilly adopted this principle, and even enlarged upon it by saying, that corporations were not only instituted for the good government of particular towns, but for the good of the kingdom at large. Other eminent constitutional authorities confirmed this opinion; but no sound precedent could be produced in favour of the disposal of the funds of the corporation, in the manner in which they had been disposed of in the instance to which he referred. But let the House consider the mischief of this conduct, as it operated as a ground for several towns uniting together for the return of several members of ministerial principles. If the majority of the borough of Northampton were permitted to unite in one instance, why might not that ma-meet! The one had to pay all the exjority unite and coalesce with the majority of the borough of Leicester, or of any other town, for the support of any member for each of those towns in whose support their majorities might agree. If one, why not all? Why not, also, public companies? On the same principle might the Bank of England, the East India company, and other wealthy bodies, unite their interests and patronage for the purpose of influencing elections. And thus might the purity of election be destroyed by bodies whose funds were legally and constitutionally applicable for local or general benefit only. He was aware that the investigation he sought for might be denied on the ground of his having a remedy elsewhere. To this he would reply, that his only remedy was in the interposition of parliament, In VOL. XVI.

penses of the contest out of his own pocket, while the other, backed by the funds of the body, was enabled to support one malversation by the commission of another. On such considerations, even if the law afforded a remedy, the House ought to interpose its authority in favour of the unprotected individual. How much stronger, then, was his claim, when no other remedy was to be had! It might be said, that such interference was unprecedented. He was prepared to show the reverse to be the fact. In the Irish parliament a petition was presented on one occasion, from a freeman of Limerick, complaining of certain acts of malversation committed by the corporation of that city, and the petition was referred to a committee, which afterwards reported upon it. In that X

case, several resolutions had been passed, I ampton had been such as he had described, and money had been voted for public pur-it ought to be made the subject of serious poses. The corporation had also made investigation; and that, if neither a court leases of the corporate lands, at very small of law, nor a court of equity, had any rents, and finally a resolution was come to, jurisdiction in the case, it should then be that the interposition of the House was brought under the consideration of parnecessary. In 1819 and 1820, a com- liament. If neither our courts of law nor mittee was appointed respecting the same our courts of equity were competent to city of Limerick, and the House came to enforce a restitution of funds, which, aca resolution, that the practices of the cording to the hon. gentleman, had been corporation were such that the House so grossly misapplied, then, indeed, he should interfere. The hon. gentleman should arrive at the conclusion of the hon. here read from the minutes, one of the gentleman, that the House of Commons resolutions of the Limerick corporation, should throw its doors open to the comto this effect:" Resolved unanimously, plaint. But he dissented entirely from that, as a vexatious petition has been pre- the hon. gentleman's premises. The hon. sented to the House of Commons, against gentleman had divided the question into the return of major Vereker, the chamber- two parts. He first asked whether there lain do defend the same." And then came was any remedy in the court of King's-bench, an order to reimburse the chamberlain, lord or in a court of equity; to which the hon. Gort, for the expenses incurred by him in gentleman himself answered, no; and he that defence. The course adopted on that then said, that it therefore became the occasion was, that his hon. friend the duty of the House to interfere. In supmember for Limerick (Mr. Spring Rice) port of his first proposition, the hon. moved for the appointment of a committee, gentleman had cited two authorities. The to examine into the disposition which had first was sir William Blackstone; but it been made of the corporation funds of was well known that Blackstone did not that city; and that numerous malversations contain any statement materially bearing were brought to light. The decision of on this question. The next authority that committee had been recognized and quoted by the hon. gentleman was the acted upon by the House. The legisla- dictum of a very eminent person, once a ture had, in fact, invariably asserted its member of that House; a man eminent as right to interfere, and put an end to similar a abuses. There was no instance in which the House had not so interfered. He trusted that he had made out a prima facie case for their interference on the present occasion and that his motion would be agreed to. If it were rejected, the freedom of election would receive a deep wound; the character of parliament would suffer; justice would be denied; and offenders, instead of being punished for a gross act of malversation, would triumphantly escape. The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, "That a select committee be appointed to take into consideration the petitions presented to this House, complaining of the conduct of the Corporation of Northampton."

scholar and a lawyer; but by no means deficient in zeal as an advocate; and therefore a man whose dictum in the court of Chancery it would by no means be prudent to adopt as the cool and deliberate opinion of a judge. What, then, were the hon. gentleman's real authorities for his premises? One was, that in a case in which a corporation were charged with applying 2,000l. directly or indirectly for electioneering purposes, the matter being brought into a court of law, it had been laid down, and properly, that a court of law could not determine whether the act was right or wrong, and that, unless it was established that the money was criminally applied, the court could not deal with it. But Judge Ashurst said, on that occasion, that if a breach of trust had been committed, the proper place for the consideraThe Attorney-General (sir Charles We- tion of the subject was a court of equity, therell) rose to express his dissent from to whose peculiar jurisdiction it belonged. the hon. gentleman's premises, although, if The hon. member had asserted, that in he did not feel himself obliged to do so, he the case of Colchester the lord chancellor should perfectly agree with him in his con- said, that he had no jurisdiction. If so; clusion. He perfectly agreed with him, that if the court of King's-bench had sent the if the conduct of the corporation of North-matter to the court of Chancery, and the

The Clerk having read the said Petitions,

court of Chancery had repudiated it, then It was a most inconvenient course to indeed the hon. gentleman had made bring that which was a fit subject for a out his case. But what were the facts? court before the House of Commons. To He had himself been of counsel in the consent to such a proceeding would be Colchester case; and, although it was to admit that the ordinary courts were too some years since its occurrence, he had a weak to go on with their proper business. recollection of the main facts. There had It was the practice of every day to file inbeen many electioneering contests for the formations in the court of Chancery for borough of Colchester, in which the breaches of trust. In order that it might mayor had espoused one side. In order not be supposed that he had the slightest to pay the expenses of that side the sum wish to screen delinquency, either in this of 2,0001. had been voted by the corpora- or in any other case, he willingly declared, tion to Mr. Lowten, a solicitor in London, as attorney-general, that if a paper, stating who had been the solicitor of the candidate this case were put into his hands, and he whom they favoured. This sum was found upon inquiry, that the statements secured by bond. Some question arose were founded in truth, he should not respecting the interest, and the point hesitate to put the case in the form of an having been referred to an arbitrator, he informationin the court of Chancery, in determined that it ought to be paid by the order to compel the corporation in question corporation. The whole sum, interest, &c. to refund the money which they had so was then charged as a mortgage on the improperly applied. corporation estates. A considerable time afterwards, the party in the corporation with whom this proceeding originated, having become weaker, a bill was filed in the court of Chancery to set aside the mortgage. The right of the corporation to make the payment was discussed. The hon. gentleman said, that lord Eldon had declared that he could not take cognizance of such a case. By no means. What he said was, that he could not undertake to say that the original vote of 2,000l. was so obviously improper, as to constitute a breach of trust; and on that account, he could not deal with it. Instead, there fore, of denying that he could take cognizance of the improper use of corporation funds, lord Eldon had laid down quite an opposite doctrine; namely, that if a breach of trust had been made out, he could have dealt with the transaction. With respect to the Limerick case, to which the hon. gentleman had referred, a select committee had been appointed to investigate the misapplication of 8001. But the committee only reported the fact. It did not appear that any subsequent proceeding had taken place; so that the case was no authority on the subject. With respect to the transaction now under consideration, he had no hesitation in saying, that if it was such as had been described it was a clear and undoubted breach of trust; which would be a very fit subject for an information in the court of Chancery. He could not therefore concur in the hon. gentleman's motion for submitting it to the investigation of a committee.

Mr. Spring Rice, after apologizing for his presumption in rising after the very clear and able statement of his hon. friend who had brought this subject under the consideration of the House, said he was desirous to show the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, that he had fallen into an inadvertent error. In the first place, he wished to disembarrass the subject of a great portion of the legal subtleties by which it had been surrounded. It was a question which involved considerations of a much larger and more important nature, than the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to imagine. If it were merely a complaint from the town of Northampton that the corporation had, for their own benefit, or for any undue purpose, misapplied their funds, it might be a question, whether the House ought to agree to a motion for inquiry. He for one might be disposed, in such a case, to acquiesce in the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned gentleman, that, if the petitioners had a clear legal remedy, the House ought not to exert its authority on the subject. But, what was the actual complaint? In the older and better times of parliament, if it had been alleged that a corporate body had misapplied their funds, for the purpose of procuring the return of a member to that House, he doubted whether an attorney-general would have refused an inquiry on legal grounds, or have told the complainants to go to a court of equity, in order to ascertain, not if the money of the corporation had gone to A or B, but if it had been applied to influence the

menced in this case in the court of Chancery, was there a man living who could tell when there would be a judgment given in the case. Would an application to the. court of Chancery produce the cheap and speedy justice to remedy or control such cases, and provide against their repetition? Was this the remedy which was so liberally tendered by the attorney-general? If a private individual had a purse long enough to undertake a Chancery suit, the attorney-general would be kind enough to lend his name to the proceedings. Was this the mode of redressing a great public abuse? He implored the House, as they valued their own character and fame-nay, as they wished to guard themselves from the supposition, the shame, the reproach, of sanctioning that abuse which was to buy a ministerial candidate, not to pass over the offence so lightly. He hoped that the House would not cast their rights and privileges at the feet of the courts of law, from which their ancestors had so often rescued them, and where those rights and privileges never could be trusted with safety.

election of a member of the House of Commons; and that not merely as between two individuals, but with regard to the two great political parties into which the country was, and ever would be, divided. The corporation of Northampton had entered into this crusade, not in defence of their corporation interests, but simply in support of a ministerial candidate for the borough of Northampton. This was not a question merely concerning the corporation of Northampton: it affected the corporations of all England. Suppose the case brought before the court of Chancery, what was the utmost that could be expected?-merely that the parties who had misapplied the money would be obliged to refund it. This was not the duty of the representatives of the people. The House had only one of two courses to pursue either by a bill, or by a standing order or express declaration, that they viewed the proceeding of the corporation as an infringement of their rights and privileges, and of the rights of the electors of this country. If corporations were allowed to apply their funds to election purposes, what individual would ever stand a contest? Whose pri- Sir George Robinson rose, merely for vate purse could compete with the funds of the purpose of supporting the motion of a whole corporation? "In the Limerick case, his hon. friend and colleague. He did the misapplication of the corporate funds not consider this a fit case for a court of was to the extent of 800%. The fact came law. It ought to be taken up on constiout accidentally before an election com- tutional principles, and decided in that mittee, which merely reported that the House. He would only further state, that minutes should be printed. Two years the returning officer belonged to that body after, a select committee was appointed, who had supplied the money; and this of upon petition, which received evidence, itself implied such a partiality, that the selected documents, and produced a re-election could not have taken place under port. A bill was then brought in, which him with fairness. was referred to another committee. This committee sat twenty-one days, counsel were heard, and the bill at length passed. His gallant friend looked at protection for the future, more than at punishment for the past, in bringing the subject before the House. Did the Attorney-general only mean to state what no attorneygeneral would refuse to say, "that if abuses of trust were made known to him, as attorney-general, he would allow his name to be used in prosecuting the offence." Or did the learned gentleman's proposition amount to this-that he would proceed in this particular case?

The Attorney General, across the table, -No.

Mr. Spring Rice:-Then the learned gentleman's proposition amounted to nothing. Suppose proceedings were com

Mr. Hudson Gurney said, that the hon. member for Limerick had so entirely demolished the speech of the attorney-general, that he would not trouble the House at any length. This was not a case of nice legal distinctions, as to the cognizance of what court the offence ought to be submitted. It was a question of mere plain common sense. If the petition before the House stated the truth, the corporation had committed an open and enormous malversation on the funds of the community of Northampton, for which they were trustees, in the misapplication of the common property to purposes which brought them distinctly and clearly before the House. He was one who thought the system of open corporations, under which the inhabitants of large places elected their own magistrates, the very best that could

possibly be devised, or had ever subsisted, I could declare, that he was entirely indiffor their municipal government. But it ferent as to what the merits of the sitting was obvious, that its attendant evil was members might have been. To him, it was more or less of temptation to tamper with a consideration of the most complete inthe public property committed to their difference, whether the individual referred charge; and, whenever any corporation to belonged to the ministerial side or to had thus betrayed its trust, and applied that of the opposition. If the act, which the funds of the commonalty to improper formed the subject matter of the petition purposes, no occasion of repressing these could truly be considered a legitimate exmalversations should ever be lost. It was ercise of a right-if the support of the quite evident that the law here would candidate, who had been supported by afford no remedy. An appeal to the law corporate funds, was in itself a legal, a must be made at individual expense; and proper, and a constitutional act, it mattered the case would be defended at the expense nothing to parliament, or to him, wheof those very funds on which the fraud ther that gentleman sat on his side of had already been committed-the com- the House or on the other. If the corpomunity twice paying for having been once ration, or a majority of that body, were plundered. There was one part of the of ministerial politics, who would queshon. member for Limerick's speech, which tion their right to support, by all lawhe had heard with great regret; namely, ful means, the candidate that agreed in his allusion to this money having been sentiment with them? He would ask, taken for the support of a ministerial what odium attached to ministerial memcandidate. This was mixing a party feel- bers, or the support of ministerial caning in that which was any thing but a didates? The question then before the party question. It was nothing to the House had nothing to do with party; and purpose, whether the candidate were on he was determined to view it without the the one side or the other. The case, as slightest reference to any consideration of stated, was one of misapplication of com- that nature. If the act were in itself mon funds to the election of members of legal, the particular object of it was a parliament, and he could not see how it matter of no moment to the decision of was possible that the House could abstain that House. But, it remained to be confrom instituting an inquiry on such an sidered, whether it was or was not a legal allegation. and constitutional application of public funds. There appeared to him to arise a material distinction between some of the allegations contained in the petition which had been printed, and that which had last been presented to the House. Considering the subject as stated in the printed petition, he conceived that the question presented for the decision of the House, was contained in a passage of the printed petition, which set forth, that certain charitable funds intrusted to the corporation, had been by them most improperly applied, to forward election purposes. If that were a true allegation, then nothing could be more obvious, than that the application of the money was illegal, and his hon. and learned friend had most fairly and judiciously said, that there existed a legal remedy, or equitable one, and that he was perfectly willing to lend them the use of his name, in asserting that right in the court of chancery. Nothing that he had heard could raise a doubt in his mind, that if a corporation, being the trustees of a charitable fund, are induced, from any considerations of a po

Mr. Secretary Peel said, he much regretted that before he came down to the House, it had not been in his power to make himself more perfectly acquainted with the circumstances of this particular case. He had only been fortunate enough to hear the last two speeches, and to read in the votes of the House one of the petitions referred to. He could very sincerely assure the House, that, in coming to a vote upon this subject, he would solely exercise his own judgment, and decide, without reference, in the slightest degree, to any party considerations. He had reason to regret further, that in the course of what he understood his hon. and learned friend near him to have said, some observations should have escaped, calculated to excite prejudice, and interfere with an impartial decision. Agreeing, as he did in the main, with what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend, he the more regretted being under the necessity of making this exception. It was an exception, however, which he owed to candour, and a sense of justice. For himself, he

« ForrigeFortsæt »