Page images
PDF
EPUB

the existence of identical privileges in the sons, we may adduce the fact, that the member who represents an English county, and the member who is only qualified to represent an English city or borough, possess in an equal degree all the rights and privileges of Parliament; yet by the 9th Anne, the eldest son of the former has the privilege of sitting in the House of Commons without that landed qualification which is required of the eldest son of the latter. Again; it is agreed on all hands that the Sixteen Peers returned for Scotland, enjoy all the privileges of Parliament as fully as they can be enjoyed by any Peers of England; yet the eldest son of one of the Sixteen Peers does not enjoy the privilege of representing his native country in the Commons, while the eldest son of an English peer possesses this valuable right. It is to be further remarked, that the claim set up by Lord Binning goes to establish for the eldest sons of Scottish peers not only equal, but greater privileges than those possessed by the eldest sons of English peers. The eldest son of an English peer, if he be at all eligible to represent a Scotch county, must possess a landed property in such county; and yet it is contended, on the part of Lord Binning, that the son of a Scottish Peer may represent an English county, though not possessed of a landed qualification in England. But it is absurd to suppose, that at the period of the Union, the Legislature intended to grant to the sons of Scottish Peers, privileges with respect to the representation of England, which it refused to the sons of English peers with respect to the representation of Scotland; for this would have been destructive of all just reciprocity, and instead of rendering the heirs apparent of the Scottish peerage equal, would have rendered them superior in point of privilege to the heirs apparent of the English peerage.

Such, Gentlemen, I conceive is the law upon the question, the trying of which has been pronounced vexatious. Both the letter and the spirit of the Act are in our favor. It is evident from the rules of grammatical construction, and the established usage of the language, that in the words "Peer or Lord of Parliament, the phrase of Parliament limits the term Peer, just in the same way that it limits the term Lord, and that, therefore, the obvious and literal meaning of the proviso, contained in the 9th Anne, confines the exemption from the necessity of producing landed qualification to the eldest sons of Peers of Parliament, or of Lords of Parliament. Now the obvious and literal meaning of an Act of Parliament is always to be received, unless we can show, from its acknowledged purport and intention, some special reasons to the contrary. But the purport and intention of the 9th Anne, furnish no reason whatever why the literal and obvious meaning of the

words in the proviso should not be received. This act was passed to strengthen the English counties against the preponderance of the numerous English boroughs; and it excluded Scotch property and Scotch inheritance, from being a qualification in England, as the provisions of the Union had prevented English property, and the inheritance to English property from qualifying for Scotland.

These objects can be in no conceivable way promoted by departing from the literal meaning of the proviso. Allowing the character of the eldest son of a Scotch peer, to qualify for English representation, would not give the landed interest of England any superiority over the trading interest of England; while it would be in direct violation of the intention and the spirit of those provisions of the Act, which go to prevent Scotch property and Scotch inheritance from having an advantage with respect to English representation, which English property, and English inheritance, cannot possess with respect to the representation of Scotland.

Having thus stated what I conceive to be the law with respect to the qualification given in by Lord Binning, I shall proceed to notice, very briefly, some of the arguments which his Lordship's counsel, Serjeant Bosanquet brought forward before the committee, and which Mr. Sturges Bourne is reported to have repeated, when the question of the Rochester petition was discussed in the House of Commons.

[ocr errors]

It was insisted on, both in the committee and in the House of Commons, that the arguments of the two counsel for the petitioner, completely contradicted one another. Now to what did this alleged contradiction amount? Mr. Harrison argued the question on the spirit, intention and object of the 9th Anne; and contended, that these were so evident, and so clearly defined, that even if Lord Binning had been the eldest son of one of the Sixteen Peers of Scotland, and consequently within the letter of the statute, he could not establish a claim to sit in the House of Commons for England without a landed qualification. Mr. Warren, on the other hand, argued the question on the letter and wording of the Act; and though he agreed with Mr. Harrison, that the eldest son of one of the Sixteen Peers of Parliament for Scotland, was evidently excluded by the spirit and object of the law, he yet conceived that such eldest son was so distinctly included in the terms of the proviso, that he should be considered as entitled to participate in its benefit. Thus, then, with respect to the eldest son of one of the Sixteen Peers, Mr. Harrison interpreted the law by the spirit, and Mr.Warren by the letter; but the case to be decided was not the case of the eldest son of one of the Sixteen Peers. The Earl of Haddington is not a Peer of

Parliament, and the two counsel completely agreed that both the letter and the spirit of the law was against the qualification contended for by his eldest son. Their difference of opinion was confined to an hypothetical case, not before the committee, and on which the letter and the spirit of the law are obviously at variance. The process of reasoning, by which such a difference could be brought to bear up the question which was before the committee, on which the counsel were agreed, and respecting which the letter and the spirit of the law were in complete agreement, can be made apparent to those only, who are initiated in that sublime logic, which could discover in Tenterton Steeple the cause of the Goodwin Sands.

Mr. Bosanquet labored with 'great assiduity, and it must be confessed with complete success, to prove that a Peer might not be a Lord of Parliament, and a Lord of Parliament not a Peer.-But neither the learned Serjeant, nor Mr. Sturges Bourne, who is reported to have repeated him in the House of Commons, attempted to show how this argument bears upon the question of Lord Binning's qualification. Though "Peer" and "Lord of Parliament" never were, and never could be employed as different expressions for one and the same thing, yet still, in the words "Peer or "Lord of Parliament," the phrase "of Parliament," would limit the term "Peer" as well as the term "Lord," aud consequently the exemption from the necessity of producing a landed qualification woutd not be extended to all Peers in general, but would be restricted to the eldest sous of Peers of Parliament. And yet the difference which occasionally exists between the character of a Peer, and that of a Lord of Parliament, though such difference had no conceivable connection with the point at issue, was stated as one of the reasons why the Rochester petition was pronounced frivolous and vexatious !!

Another reason reported to have been given by Mr. Sturges Bourne for voting the Rochester petition vexatious, was, that he conceived the Act of Parliament to be so perfectly clear, that no one could entertain a reasonable doubt as to its meaning. Yet two of the most able and experienced parliamentary Lawyers of the day took a view of the Act, directly opposite to that taken by the Right Honorable Gentleman; and Mr. Tierney, whose acuteness never was surpassed, declared that it was a subject on which he had changed his opinion twice.

Mr. Sturges Bourne is reported to have declared in his place, that if ever a Committee was to pronounce a petition frivolous and vexatious, it was fit to do so with respect to that of Rochester, when a candidate, confessedly in the minority, raised doubts before unheard of, for the purpose of seating himself in the House,

in opposition to the majority. This statement you all know to be contrary to fact. Both Mr. Warren and Mr. Harrison, had given it as their opinions, that as the freemen had not been individually warned of Lord Binning's want of qualification, the next best upon the poll could not be declared the sitting member. As I repeatedly told you, I expected nothing from the success of the petition except the chances of a second election contest.-Nay I proposed to become a candidate only upon the event of my being able to unite in my favor the several divisions of the blue party; and I distinctly told the freemen, at the last general meeting, that if they did not think me sufficiently strong to fight the battle of independence with success, I should without hesitation retire from the ground, in favor of that more powerful individual who might command their confidence. It was not until after the decision of the Leominster case, and until a very few days before our petition was tried, that the counsel gave it as their opinion, that I might be declared the sitting member, upon the principle that where there are only two legal candidates there should be no poll. may be said that Mr. Sturges Bourne had no evidence of these facts;-be it so,-but neither had he any evidence of that, which according to the report, he erroneously assumed to be fact, and stated as a reason why the Rochester petition has a peculiar claim to the verdict of frivolous and vexatious.

It

Much more might be urged upon this subject, but I have fatigued your attention too long, and shall come to a speedy conclusion. All I have heard during the several discussions on the merits of the Rochester petition, only tends to confirm my first opinion, that the eldest son of a Peer of Scotland not being one of the Sixteen, is not qualified to sit for any county, city, or borough in England. The verdict of a Committee cannot decide a point of law. If at the next election, Lord Binning should again offer himself for Rochester, I shall give the Freemen as they come up to vote, due notice of his want of legal qualification; and, on the event of his being above me on the poll, will again petition against him, and claim to be the sitting member. There is, I admit, but little likelihood of my being called upon to redeem this pledge. During all the delusion of the late war, and when the government was expending millions on the neighbouring works and dock-yards, your incorruptible city never lost its character for independence: and now, when liberal principles are rapidly gaining ground, and when England turns to the hereditary friends of freedom for the attainment of retrenchment and reform, it is exceedingly unlikely that Rochester will again return a declared advocate of that ruinous system of policy, which has partitioned and enslaved the fairest portions of Europe, and laid upon this country a load of taxation which bows the people to the earth.

With feelings of gratitude for the kindness which I have uniformly received from you, and of respect for the noble spirit of independence which you have displayed,

I have the honor to be,

GENTLEMEN,

Your obedient humble Servant,

WOOLWICH,

March 19, 1819.

R. TORRENS.

« EelmineJätka »