The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-28 00:00:00

HARWICH ELECTION.

Mr. BRAMSTON moved fur a writ for Harwich,
which had become vacated in consequenco of a decision
of a Committee of the House.

Sir DE LACY EVANS, who appeared on the Op-
position benches, opposed the motion, because he be-
lieved the opinion of the House was against any new
election taking place for that borough since the corrupt
practices which prevailed there had come to light. There
were peculiarities connected with Harwich which made
it distinct from any other corrupt borough. While the
town was falling off in population and wealth, by an ex-
traordinary concurrence of circumstances the number of
voters was increasing; and the greatest misfortune was that
the state of things which prevailed there was not tempo-
rary but permanent, and the only way of remedyieg the
evil was by actual disfranchisement.—(Hear.) He con-
eluded by moving that the writ be suspended for six
months.

Mr. B. OSBORNE was in favour of the amendment.
It was perfectly notorious that the present Solicitor-
General intended to present himself for Harwich.—
(Laughter and hear from the Opposition benches.) lie
held in his hand an address from the electors, calling
upon that gentleman to come down to this estimable
place.—(Hear.) He confessed he felt considerable sur-
prise on hearing the Hon. Member for Essex (Mr.
Braniston) move for a new writ for the borough,
because he was a member of the Committee which, in
1842, inquired into the return for Harwich, and reported
that Mr. Attwood and Mr. Beresford's election cost
6,300/., that thirty-three electors received from 50/. to
100/ each, and that the greater part of the constituency
had leen bribed.—(Hear.) He lamented that Mr. Cop-
pock bad not been called to the bar. The late Mr.
Attwood was a member of the Carlton Club, and had
figured more in corrupting boroughs than any other man
in this country. Then it was a mockery, a delusion, and
a snare to talk of calling forth Mr. Coppock, and he
hoped they should hear no more of such stuff. He would
cheerfully second the amendment, and he did so in the hope
that the borough of Harwich would be ultimately swept
from the list of boroughs that Bent Members to the
House.
Mr. FERGUS said, as a member of the Committee,
that the decision come to turned upon a technical point,
but nevertheless no member of that Committee could
now be otherwise than satisfied that the grossest and
most fraudulent practices were carried on at elec-
tions for the borough of Harwiele.—(Hear, hear.) A
Commission ought to be appointed to investigate the
whole subject, and he was convinced they would come to
the same decision that was arrived at in the case of St.
Albans.
Mr. C. BERKELEY was also a member of the Com-
mittee, and ho could confirm all that the last speaker had
said.
Sir R. H. INGLIS contended that it was unjust to
disfranchise the borough when such a course was not
recommended by the Committee. This opposition was
intended to harass the present Government.
Mr. HUME was surprised to hear the B
forkt
opposition to this writ was of a part'
ictiVslitchigetime
defending bribery and corruption. He deniedtetrhroneet
had long since been contnmrimr.d. rn
hopethe original p
tiractised in the
that an end was put to the corruptions
and
doohge really didh.
There
was
asno
Minister in the
Hen°6woulde bwe
withdrawn for the present.,
litheAUGnLtlvOarlelsißtyY
of Oxford,
withthat tihtewlittottnu.
unjust
tbetor
for
rdeeclaoymmihrenidsstuheatofeothurese.writ, since the Committee did not
another member of the
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY,
Committee, said there was no evidence of systematic
corruption laid before the Committee. Its attention was
exclusively confined to a technical point connected with
the preceedines of the election.
the
eam etnodgmoeorint stuhsepuegnhd inhge
ut
ipt
up ot Tot:d
course a
g
twrits.h°luir. htAi N
an ST
unconstitutional
The boroughs themselves ought ratu
aer toe
b
disfranchised at once, and he was glad that
bad been trade to deal with Harwich as the House had
disposed
K. m
o f Albans.t.y E
proposal
Rtbought if the amendment was
carried those who proposed it ought to follow the motion
up with anothtr for Commission;
but if they did that,
he begged to Pe notice that ho should take the same
r that
course with rega.d to Leicester which a Committee had
all but recommerded should b© disfranchised.:
Sir GEORGEGREY suggested
should be adjournel for a few days.
trove forijE aLCAoCneYmiseen if this his intention to
the debate
Mr. BRAMSTON was as
EVANS said it was
willing as anybody that
where bribery and cereuption was proved_ againsti a
amendment was carried.
borough it should be pteeecuitecl as it
sdeenrrormed)rabrwit no
corruption was proved this 1,5 t
original
H
at the last election for
emdri.d
„in ootHi oat e
Ed
Lt oLpiesrpsae*ries tensedwithod the motion.
thatwer then withdrawn.
was
any
Lbreiitersytero.r. corruption
PRIVATE BILLS.
The following Bills
.were read a second time and
The motion and the
ordered to be committed. P
c
, PRIVATE
London Gas Light ad
City ofGas onsumere"
C Coke Coma and
Great Central
British Electric Telegrap EnPnY.
eMPallyAmalgama-
tion,Claussen's Patent Flax Company.
and Amendment of Acts.
Deptford Gas.
Eastern Counties and Newmarket ancehe sterford Rail-
way Companies.
Great Western Railway (No. 2)
Humber Conservancy.
Kettering and Northampton Road.
KiLlgstQLl 4911 Hall Over