The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-08 00:00:00

Cite eVimeoti.

TO CORRIMPON DINTS.
a Memel Mir " The Empress," the oar ember*
-
Gentle," is pablithel every Teemley W• y to this
lor pose.
imtkieleestalatemead tee "The Ewer," tendon Leitrim pow,
mot he et the Oen, 10. heeeirteetweet. V, Two o'etock ea the
L) at Weirdos.

NIGH WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Dius Day—Marais& U1a............Atterm0• 111. 19. 18.
fo.roatow—lloralai. 24. iat,. ...4.44m5a1. lII'.

LONDON, TUESDAY. MARCH 8.

THE members of the Committee on the Chatham
Election have done their work thoroughly and well.
They have unseated Sir FREDERICK SMITH, the
Derbyite candidate for that dockyard borough; have
declared the election void; have pronounced it
proved that " JOSEPH GREATHEAD, an elector of
Chatham," was bribed by a situation as letter-carrier
in the General Post-office, obtained "by or through
the influence of Sir FREDERICK SMITH; and further,
they deliberately affirm it proved
1 hat a large number of the electors of the borough of
Chatham are employed in her Majesty's dockyard, and
other public departments, and that they are under the in-
fluence of the government for the time being, and that it
appears there is no instance of a candidate being elected for
the borough of Chatham who has not had the support of
the government.
That, under these circumstances, it will be for the house
to determine whether the right of returning a member
should not in future be withdrawn from the borough .f
Chatham.

That it is the opinion of the committee that there are
strong grounds for believing that one Stephen Mount, in
giving his evidence before the committee, was guilty of wil-
ful and corrupt perjury.
In the course of yesterday the Hull Committee
likewise presented their report, which declares both
the Members unseated, and recommends that the
issue of the writ should be suspended in order that
a commission of inquiry may first take place into the
malpractices shown to be prevalent there. The pub-
lic will observe that in each of these important eases
the decision come to is, by the constitution of the
Committee, placed beyond the reach of all political
suspicion. In the Chatham case, the chair-
man was Mr. BRAMETON Member for Essex,
and one of the most intelligent and high-minded
men of the Tory party. As a partisan, his sym-
pathies, had they been allowed to interfere with his
judgment, would have naturally led him to look
with leniency on the errors of Sir FILEDEUICH SMITU.
And the presence of two such colleague, as Alderman
THOMPSON and Mr. NEWDEGATE must have rendered

it impossible that any reasonable ground oidoulTO;
hesitation as to the sitting member's culpability
should have been overlooked in the final considera-
tion of the evidence. It is due to Mr. BRAMSTON to
remember that this is not the first occasion on which,
as Chairman of an Election Committee, he has shown
himself above all political predilections by concurring
in a sentence of invalidity against the return of a
political friend. And the adjournment from Satur-
day last to yesterday, for the purpose of having the
law of the case re-argued by counsel, as it was
eventually by Serjeant IVRkNonAm on the one side
and Serjeant KINGLAKE on the other, renders the
decision all the more weighty and valuable, both as
regarla tke ejected member and the discredited
borough.

It is plain that the voice of public opinion is at
length beginning to prevail.. Government dock-
yards are, under any circumstances, bad enough.
But when in addition to the economic evils those of
political corruption are superadded, public disgust
is only equalled by public indignation, for we dis-
cover by the anatomy of such systems as that of
Chatham, that we aro robbed of our money in the
building of Government ships only as a means of
being robbed of our rights in the Legislature by the
return of Government candidates. The wholedrift of the

testimony tendered on both sides before the Chatham
Committee serves to demonstrate the universality of
Government influence over the electoral body. In
point of fact, the main question which ultimately en-
gaged the attention of the Committee was, whether
the candidate for a dockyard borough might not ask
and obtain any number of places for his supporters,
provided that they, acting upon the general under-
standing that he would do his beet to provide for
them, volunteered, in the first instance, general pro-
mises of support. It is clear enough, we think, to
every unbiassed mind that had the Committee decided
otherwise than they have done, all legal prevention of
bribery by Government candidates would be at an
end. The Chatham Committee, however, have set
the question at rest. They have not only ruled
that situations in the public establishments can-
not with impunity be trucked for votes, but
that any tampering or palterieg with such con-
siderations will subject the candidate to inexorable
exposure and punishment, no matter what his posi-
tion or character in other respects. But however
important this fact of the decision may seem, we
own that we regard the inference drawn by the Com-
mittee, and their recommendation with respect to the
future, as still more significant. They have declared
that Chatham ought to be disfranchised, and they
have doubtless been actuated in coming to this con-
, elusion by no mere consideration of the number of
oases of actual bribery proved to have been committed
at the last election. As compared with the constitu-
ency, the number of instances which were gone into
was not perhaps very great; but on all hands it was
admitted that the expectations were plenteous
though the realised promises may have been few.
In a word a predominantly Conservative tribunal
have been forced to admit that a dockyard constitu-
ency is a standinitarebi. the rink of which must be
forthwith exting _ _ _

We now turn to another side of the picture.
The two sitting members for Hull were Liberals, so
also wu the Chairman of the Committee, Mr. LA-
BOUCIIERE: his colleagues being, of course, equally
balanced in political opinions. But they have not
hesitated to displace both Mr. CLAY and Lord °ODE-
um, after three days' investigation. We alluded
yesterday.to the lamentable prevalence and notoriety
of corrupt practices at Hull. The giving of 30s. a
head to hundreds of voters amounts, in point of fact,
to a sort of head-money, or to systematic
treating under another name. Nearly a fourth
of the entire constituency are said to be in
the habit of exacting this species of electoral
largess. It is absolutely necessary that so great a
scandal should be thoroughly sifted and exposed.
And as it is manifest that this cannot be done before
a Committee at Westminster, the proper remedy lies
in a Commission of Inquiry like that of St. Albans.
Mr. LABOUCHERE and his colleagues have accordingly
reported in favour of that indispensable mode of in-
vestigation, and they have advised to suspend the
issuing of any writ until it shall have been com-
pleted. It is quite possible that, as in the case of
Brldgnorth, an attempt may be made to precipitate
a new election, and the fatal example of Harwich
will in every case be appealed to, for it is unfor-
tunately undeniable that in that, after a Committee
had reported to the late Parliament that the
constituency of Harwich was thoroughly steeped
in corruption and that the election complained of
was illegal and void, the House of Common., after
suspending the trial for several months, suddenly
came to the resolution that it might with propriety
be issued, and issued it wu accordingly. Let us
trust, however, that this is an example to be remem-
bered only to be avoided. The issuing of the writ
for Harwich gladdened the heart of every Pall-mall
Loebabroy of seats and every local vendor of votes who
of it. It was regarded by them, we must
say justly regarded, as a plain intimation that the
House of Commons of 18.52 did not want to put down
corruption. Mr. DUNCOMHE told them so in very
plain terms at the time, and he told them the
truth. The country will look with anxiety to every
move that is made in the present House of Com-
mons on this subject; the votes of the members will
be scrutinized with rigour, and the conduct of parties
will be watched with jealousy. The question of the
writs is the prelude and the preface to the coming
question of Reform, and the public are in no manner
to be trifled with regarding it. _ _ .

The debate of last night will be read with interest
great in proportion to the importance of the motion
adopted by the House of Commons. No writ can be
moved for for any borough against which the sin of
bribery has been proved unless seven days' previous
notice has been given. This will make the scandal
glaring and give time for consideration as to what
should be done. But we must not suppose this to be
enough. Present steps can only be preliminary to a
full measure of Parliamentary Reform. To lessen the