The Express.
London, England, 1848-03-24 00:00:00

making the population of the borough 4,307. But in 1841
the census showed that the population had fallen ten per
cent., and that instead of being 4,307, it was only 3,829. Be
wee in the hands of the house, but would suggest the fur-
ther addition of part of a neighbouring hundred. Heould
therefore move as an amendment for leave to bringwith in bill
to extend the limits of the borough of Harwich, • view
to increase the number of the electors of the said borough.
Dr. BOWRING seconded the amendment.
Mr. HUME said, when he looked at what had already
taken place this session with regard to bribery and treating
at Great Yarmouth, Kinsale, Lancaster,
oughs, it Carlisle,
appeared
Lincoln,
Dundalk, Derby, Horsham, and other bor
to him that it was incumbent upon the house to
consider whether some means should not be taken to vin-
dicate the character of the house, and to ascertain if pos-
sible in what way the bribery and treating had been con-
ducted, and to Willa extent. It was perfectly well known
that election committees, as soon as a single ease was made
out to invalidate the seat of the member petitioned against,
took no further evidence, and therefore the house was never
informed as to the real state and extent of the bribery and
corruption. Now, though weathers bad been te-e
many of the places he had mentioned, he thought that all
the remaining cases ought to be suspended until a general
inquiry was bad before a separate select committee, which
should take a review of the whole matter, and see if there
could nut be some modification of the existing law. By the
decision of some committees, a degree of uncertainty had
attached to the seat of almost every member of the
house, however careful had been his conduct, and how-
ever pure his motives at the time of the election.
If that were to, it became necessary on the part of the house
also to consider whether the law was not faulty in this re-
spect. (Hear, hear.) On this double view of the matter,
he would suggest to the lion. member for Wallingford (Mr.
Blackstone) to withdraw his amendment, and then that this
and all other writs should be suspended until the ter-
mination of all the election committees, when a general in-
quiry could be instituted.
Mr. DIACKBN ZIE said that the simple question at pre-
sent was whether the writ for Harwich should issue. lie
should not agree to the =endue at, bemuse it was admitted
that the evidence of the committee afforded no ground for
the disfranchieemeet of the borough.
Sir B. HALL observed that he entirely differed from the
opinion which had been stated that a great improvement
bad taken place in the borough of Harwich. So far from
'improvement in the conduct of the electors mid of the parties
who went there as candidates, there had only been a change.
Anybody reading the evidence would find that a new
mum of corruption had grown up in consequence of the
proomidings of former elections having been shown up be.
proved Mr. Roebuck's committee. Mi. Attwood had been
,on the evidence of Mr. Colqulioun, his agent, to
have purchased property in Harwich which was let to tenants
on condition that they should vote for him, and it appeared
that one tenant, of the name of Watts, had been turned out
of his holding because he had not so voted. The notice to
quit served upon Watts was shown to have been signed by
Mr. Attwood himself immediately alter the election. Surely
these were matters which demanded a full and searching in.

riTuiry M.
r. B. COCHRANE thought that nothing could have
been harder upon the members affected than some of the
decisions pronounced by election committees during the pre-
sent session. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said he had heard no sufficient reason u-
signed why the writ in this case ought not to issue. He also
considered that some of :be committees had strained the
proof of agency rather too tightly. lie should vote for the
original motion.
bit De L. EVANS said that if the decisions of some of
the committees were to be adopted as precedents, and that
any trifling act of corruption, committed without the know-
ledge or sanction of the member, was sufficient to unseat him,
there was no member of that house who would be safe. As
in this case there was no special report, he thought it would
be unfair to the borough to refuse the writ.
Dr. BOWRING concurred in the opinion which had been
expressed in favour of a general inquiry before the issuing
of this writ.
Mr. ELLIOT said it hid been observed that election
committees only took evidence enough to warrant them in
unseating a member, and that, therefore, general corruption
was never exposed. As a member of the Harwich committee,
he begged to say that the committee had resolved unani-
mously to go into a full inquiry to ascertain the actual state
of the borough, and they had done so, the report containing
the result of their investigation. The committee, after a
full investigation, had only iound one case of bribery accom-
panied by a certain amount of treating, and, under all the
circumstances, he should support the motion for issuing

the writ.
Mr. ELLICE said, that after what was known of the
borough of Harwich, and after the disclosures of other com-
mittees with respect to Mr. Attwood, the purchaser of pro-
perty in that borough, a great suspicion was thrown over the
whole t,ansaction, and he thought if tho house issued the
writ without further inquiry, the public out of doors world
be apt to think that parliament was returning to its old
course, and that the house stopped at the very threshold of
full investigation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WORTLEY, as chairman of the committee, begged
to state his impression as to the result of the evidence
adduced before it. Before he did so, he must remind the
house that so far from committees screening corruption, this
session they had exercised the powers given them
John Russell's act, and had acted with extreme vigourcarry-
ing the law to the utmost extent. Indeed he thought, with
the hon. member for Montrose, that there were some grounds
to inquire whether the present state of the law did not
expose members to oppression and injustice. Following
some of the decisions he believed that there were not ten
members who had stood a contcst, who would be able to re-
tain their seats. On the other hand, he thought it would be
most unconstitutiona to siopeuil the writs in no less than 21
cases, until a general inquiry should be instituted. With
respect to the case now bzfore the house he must say that the
statement about the round-robin signed to draw out Mr.
Attwood rested upon the evidence of a witness, evidence
which, if it stood alone, the committee would not have
acted upon. Concurring in what had fallen from the hon.
member opposite (Mr. Elliott), he must say there w,ui
no
evidence of general corruption; and he was bound to add
that he had come to the conclusion upon the evidence that
there were no constitutional grounds to withhold the writ.
The Earl of ARUNDEL said it was clear there had either
been great harshness or gross bribery, and a committee
ought to inquire into the matter.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said the committee had evidently
executed their task with great care, and now they were as•
soiled by a broadside from the hon. member for Montrose (Mr.
Hume), who ought to be the last person to complain re'
the
decision of a committee. It was an extremely difficult point
to prays bribery or treating, and disconnect the agents from
the sitting members ; but an the case before the house house
this
was clear enough. It would be much better for the
to amend its own legislation instead of attacking the com-
mittee for doing its duty.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH said be would willingly support
a measure for reforming the reform bill, and getting rid of
these small constituencies ; but as they were now called on
to perform a mere judicial act, he could not say that the
amount of coruption proved was such as to call for the
borough to be disfranchised.
Capt. HARRIS was anxious that an example should be
made of some of the agents, whereby much corruption would

be avoided.
The house then divided—For the amendment 64
Against it 195-131
On the motion that the writ do now issue,
Mr. WAKLEY said the course pursued was calculated to
bring the house into contempt out of doors. There was no
doubt the hon. member who was unseated knew what was
doing. (No, no.) Corruption had been proved, and now
the writ was to go to the same corrupt parties. The house
ought to negative the motion, and institute a searching in-
quiry. The public belief was that the majority of the mem-
bers of that house had obtained their seat. by the expendi-
ture of large sums of money. (No, no.) But if this writ
were issued, and inquiry were stifled, would not the infer-
ence be that the house was afraid of the truth being known ?
Mr. WORTLEY said the hon. member had made a most
untounded charge against the members of the committee;
and oo their behalf he begged distinctly to deny that they
knew the sitting member to have been privy to the acts of
bribery, as alleged by the hon. member. (Hear, hear.) The
evidence showed that the parties at Harwich had studiously
avoided general earruption ; had the contrary been proved,
the committee must have reported it to the house.
Mr. ELLIOT also defended the committee, and said
the hon, member for Finsbury had only one speech, which
he had been uttering for seven year.—" You are all a set of
rogues; I, the hon. member for Finsbury, am the only
honest man among you ; and everybody out of doors knows
it" (Cheers and laughter.) He would tell that hoe.
member what was said of him out of doors, that he made
these attacks for the purpose of gratifying the lowest per-
sons in the borough of Finsbury. (Hear.)
Mr. OSBORNE said it was hard that an hon. member
whose seat perhaps scat less than any other should thus be
attacked. lie would answer for it that those who were
styled " the lowest classes in the borough of Fiosbury," if
possessed of the franchise, would not barter it away, as the
constituents of some hon. members were proved to have
done. (Hear, and oh.") Looking at the evidence before
the Harwich committee it was difficult to believe that Mr.
Attwoodwas not privy to the expenditure, especially in the
ease of a person named Seeley, (Hear.) He (Mr. Osborne)
thought the institution' of the country would be much safer,
and the house a more efficient representation el the people,
if a portion of those who were called the lowest classes were
admitted to the franchise. (Hear.)
Mr. ELLIOT said in using the term " lowest classes "
he meant those lowest in moral feeling.
Mr. WAKLEY asked if it was consistent with order that
the hon. member who had just sat down should impute im-
proper motives to him? (Mr. Wakley.)
The SPEAKER said he did not understand the hon.
member to have imputed such motives.
After a few words from Mr. Hum and Sir DE L. EVANS,
The house divided.—For issuing the writ .... 164
Against it
The writ was then ordered.
BOROUGH OF HORSHAM.
An Hon. Mistexa having moved that a writ should issue
for Horsham, for the election of • member in place of Mr.
Jervis,
Mr. HUME moved, as an amendment, that the writ
should be suspended until the evidence was before the house.
The Earl of MARCH supported the brining of the writ.
Lord COURTENAY, a member of the committee, said
if • division was pressed he should support the amendment.
;The amendment and motion were then, by leave, with-

Mr. HUME moved that the evidence taken before the
committee should be printed and laid before the house.—
Agreed
CABE OF CAPT. JOHN DILLON.
Mr. O'CONNOR moved an addren to the crown on the
statement contained in the petition of John Dillon, presented
to the house on the 14th Dec. last. The cue wu simply