The Express.
London, England, 1851-12-16 00:00:00

THE EXPRESS, TUESDAY EVENING, DECEMBER 16, 1851.

far deeper sense at that time of the degradation of
the system than they have since exhibited either in
their principle or practice.
Now, my lord, between the general election of 1835,
land that which followed the death of King William,
In 1837, two memorable incidents occurred which,
in my opinion, have had much effect upon electoral
corruption. The first matter I refer to was the cele-
brated exhortation of Sir Robert Peel, first enun-
ciated, if I remember right, at Merchant Tailors'
Hall, in the well-remembered words, " Register,
Register, Register? I give Sir Robert Peel every
possible credit for using these words in what',
he believed to be a constitutional sense ; but
their effects were fatal to the independence
of the constituencies. According to the interpretation
,of his party, this exhortation to " Register, was was an
exhortation to organise, to contest, to spend, to suc-
ceed at any price. They did organic •, they did con-
test, they did expend. There were 172 contests in
Great Britain at the general election of 1832; there
were 191 contests at the general election of 1833 ; its
1837, though the political excitement was far less,
and though the preceding parliament had sat less
than two years, the number of contests was increased
to 207. In the interval, Conservative Registration As-
sociations had been formed ; and, to oppose them
' Liberal Registration Associations had been alsO
formed--an attorney, of course, the prime mover of
each. These attorneys became, ex necessitate, agents
at the general election. 'they were interested in
making contests interested, also, in obtaining
wealthy candidates, and interested in making those
I candidates spend their money-, in order both
Ito serve the party, and to keep up
their own reputation in the boroughs. Hence
there arose extraordinary expenses to the can-
didates ; expenses of agents and of their staff
of retainers, expenses incurred under the agents
authority, expenses of the registration courts in
which the agents practised, besides a thousand things
which the agent would do that the candidate himself
would avoid. All this cost of organisatiou had a
most prejudicial effect upon the election. But
this was not the only circumstance that affected
them. Your lordship will doubtless recollect the
ce:ebmted Spottiswoode subscription, a fund which
was raised by a committee under the chair-
manship of the Queen's printer, for the purpose
of defraying the cost of petitions against the
returns of liberal candidates. A more flagitious at-
tempt to destroy the liberty of election never was
made. Happily it recoiled on its promoters in its
direct effects. But, my lord, what were its indirect
effects ? They were, I am sorry to say, the es-
tablishment of the system of election agency
in London, of which we saw sonic of the
effects lately revealed in the St. Albans case, and
to which I shall reserve further reference, except
to say that I believe half the existing corruption at
elections springs from this abominable source. Thew
things occurred between the general elections of 1833
and 1837, and it is not to be wondered at, in conse-
quence, that there were seven cases—viz., Bridge-
north, Evesham, (lull, Ipswich, Peterstield, Shaftes-
bury, and Tynemouth —in which bribery was held to
be proved against members returned in 1837 ;
besides some other cases in which the party com-
mittees of that day acquitted individuals who were
probably as guilty.
Thus we see, my lord, some of the causes of the
rise and progress of the corruption which has suc-
ceeded the Reform Act. It began with the
struggle of the great whig and tory factions; it
grew with that struggle; and whilst parties were
engaged in the intensity of their contest, parliament
winked at the parliamentary offence.
Between 1837 and 1841 there was scarcely an elec-
tion which was pure. In 1832 many men of compara-
tively small means found their way into the House of
Commons. In 1810, only eight years after, so totally
were the constituencies changed, that the best
qualification of a candidate was length of
purse. Three elections, which took place in the
first days of January, 1841, were three of the most
corrupt elections, probably, that ever took place in
England. They were the celebrated contests
for Canterbury, St. Albans, and Walsall. In
each case petitions were presented against the re-
turn ; but only one of those petitions went to trial.
At St. Albans a whig had been returned ; at
Canterbury a tory ' • and the petitions in those
eases were compromised one against the other. Such
was the sacrifice, my lord, of principle to party.
The generalelection of 1841 was conducted on the
system which had thus become so general. The
result was a crowd of petitions against returns. A
very large number were tried, and no less than 17
members lost their scats for bribery. In 1837 there
had been 207 contests, and only 7 members had lost
their seats. In 1841 there were only 167 contests—
& reduction of one.fifth—and 17 members lost their
seats! This shows, I think, itself how corrup-
tion had spread. But even this does not present
a full view of the case. By the general
election of 1841, one of the great parties
of the state obtained the ascendancy. That
being so the great party interest which had pre-
viously been felt in every election contest ceased.
Subscriptions to defray expenses were no longer
need at the Carlton and Reform : Messrs. Croucher
and Coppock were no longer sent down, with their
gangs of myrmidons, to pollute the atmosphere of
every borough town ; representatives were ripe for a
measure that would cheapen those expenses of elec-
tions, that had just fallen so heavily upon their
pockets: and the first thing done was to probe the
evil. Well,a man was found independent enough and
resolute enough to drive this matter home. Certain
compromises of petitions had notoriously been made,
the object being to avoid publicity ; to prevent that
investigation which it wan the duty of the house to
institute; to save the reputation of the corrupting
agents; and either to give the electorates another op-
portunity of profiting by their practices, or
else to hand over their representation to some one
of opposite opinions to the man they had elected. But
Mr. Roebuck stood forward in the House of Commons,
and demanded "enquiry" into these compromises.
It was granted him. A committee was appointed. It
Sad an Invidious, a painful, a delicate, a difficult
duty to perform. It performed it thoroughly and
well ; and the result was such an exposure of cor-
ruption in the boroughs of Bridport, Lewes, Not-
tingham, Falmouth, Harwich, and Reading—so
complete a conviction of all the agents as well as the
principals therein—that Sir Robert Peel found it
necessary to refuse to allow the members for those
boroughs to take advantage of the ordinary mom
of retiring from parliament, by which they proposed
to effect the compromises they had entered into.
To the list, therefore, of 17 members who were
Strewn out for corrupt practices by the Parliamen-
tary Committees of 1842, your lordship must be good
lecough to add nine or ten others who were con-
victed before Mr. Roebuck's committee, and who
would too willingly have unseated themselves.
Let us take a glance at the figures. Two boroughs'
were convicted in 1833, 7in 1837, 14 in 1841. A
fair progressive increase. I now come to the last
general election—the election of 1847. It occurred
at a period of no great political excitement : your
lordship was in office, and.as Prime Minister, incul-
cated, no doubt, the principles of the Reform Act,
and preached purity and morality to your treasury
subordinates. 1817 was the election nearest to our
own time. It is, therefore, interesting to sec what
was the state of things then. I have contented
myself with merely stating the results of previous
inquiries : in the case of this election, however, I
will give particulars. Here is a list of the towns
from which petitions were presented in 1847, together
with a statement of the results.
ARINODON.-A most corrupt election bad taken place in
this town ; the facts were to bad on both sides, that it was
found necessary to compromise the petition to avoid dis-

ANnovra.—A corrupt election. Petition withdrawn.
AVLESBURY.—The sitting member, Mr. Deering, un-
seated (or wholesale treating.
Brwui.ir.—Sitting member, Mr. Ireland, unseated for
bribery.
Bountm.—Petition tried, and the sitting member de-
clared to be duly elected.
BOLTON.—Petition withdrawn.
CoLcitusrza.—The petition in this case was compro-
mised against another that had been presented against the
return of Sir John Tyrell for Essex.
CAILLIIILII.—Both the sitting members unseated.
CHILTSNRAW —The sitting member, Sir W. Jones, un-
seated, for wholesale bribery ; and his opponent afterwards
unseated for the same offence.
Draur.—Both the sitting members unseated for corrupt
practices.
Ensax, ?foam.—Petition compromised against that
from Colchester.
Otorcustru, Writ.—A diswraceful contest between
two relatives. Vide proceedings in the House of Commons
thereupon.
HAIWICH.—The sitting member, Mr. Attwood, unseated
for direct bribery.