The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-02 00:00:00

LON DON,

SUN,

wards Harwich? He had stated that if the Hon. and Gal-
laut Member succeeded in his motion, he would make a
similar motion respecting the borough of Leicester; but the
Ho Member for that borough assured him that no bribery
took place at the last election, and he believed him. None
took place at the last election for Harwich; and if they did
not bear unjustly upon Harwich, he would not make his
motion respecting Leicester.
Mr. CLAY said it mattered little to him whether the cor-
ruption at Harwich was promoted by the late Government,
or by any individual. He hoped for the credit of all admi-
nistrations that they would join in putting an end to such
disgraceful doings In a matter of this kind notoriety was
all they required to induce them to act. He had it
on the authority of a gentleman intimately acquainted
with the place, that in 1841 two men, father and son, re-
ceived between them 1,0001. They. bought large barges with
the money, and were audacious enough to name one of them
The Attwood. The other he did not know the name of,
but it might be The Plumper. In other cases voters were
made so drunk that they never got sober again, bat died
drunk. He believed that by issuing Commissions to inquire
into boroughs, where it was believed that britery had been
practised, would do more good to promote purity of election
than anything they had done to effect that object during the i
last century..
Mr. BAGSHAW observed that what he had said were his
genuine convictions 2 and though the Hon. and Gallant Geue
tleraan had raised alauells at his expense, his words would he
found to be true. The best course which the House could
pursue would be to issue the writ for Harwich at the next
general election, and let the borough be tried by its conduct
then.. If the constituency were wise people they would know
how to act.— (Loud laughter,)
Mr. Secretary. WALPOLE opposed the motion. What
was asked for was, that the House should issue a Commis-
dos, with enormous and unconstitutional powers, which in
many reepeets.would supersede the law of the laud.—
(Hear, hear.) Such a Commission, he thought, ought never
to be granted except in a clear case of corruption recently
and distinctly 'alleged.—(Cheers.) If they agreed, to the
motion they would give to a majority of that House a power
to deal with boroughs and counties that might be opposed
to their views, to which be could never consent.—(Cheers.)
The authorities upon which this case rested were those of
Sudbury and St. Albans, but he begged the House to bear
in mind how greatly both these precedents differed from
the case before them. In Sudbury the bribery was so
great, that out of the 276 electors who polled for Mr.
Dyce Sombre, no fewer than 200 were proved to have
been bribed; and the commissioners reported that they
believed the bribery must have been carried to a much
greater extent, because, at the rate of 71. per head, that
would not have accounted for the 3,0001. which had been
sent to the borough for the purpose of corrupting the
voters. The case of St. Albans was still stronger. Accord-
ing to Mr. Coppock to bribe or to "bleed" was the general
practice, and Alderman Carden'said the political opinions of
most of the constituents were in their breeches' pockets.—
(Laughter.) The Commissioners in this case also reported
that the, practice was not occasional or partial, but general
and systematic. Out of 290 voters who polled for ooe
of the candidates, only 30 were supposed to have been un•
bribed ; and out of 276 who had voted on the other side,
186 were clearly bribed. In' both cases there was thus
shown to be universal corruption, and it was proved to have
occurred at the election which had just taken place; but in
the case of Harwich, the Honourable and Gallant Member
had gone back as far as 1842, and had only come down as
late as 1847 or 1848. There might have been bribery in
both cases, but then there was bribery at Leicester, in the
case of which the Committee reported that the system carried
on had been such as to demand the attention of the House.
But would it be just and fair to the Hon. Members for Lei-
cester, because bribery had been proved in 1847, to issue a
commission with enormous and unconstitutional powers, and
then to dispossess them of their seats, and disfranchise the
borough? Where bribery had taken place, it ought imme-
diately to be inquired into; but in the case of Harwich, two
elections had occurred since 1847, on both of which peti-
tions had been issued, the first of which alleged only a want
of qualification, and the second only intimidation.— (Hear,
hear.) He wanted. to know then on what principle they
could issue a commission to inquire into this case, without
also inquiring into all other places where Hon. Gentlemen
could get .up and say that notorious bribery had been
practised.—(Hear, - hear.) The duty of the House was to
protect the minority—(Laughter)—and therefore he pro-
tested against a course which might lead to the results
which' he bad already pointed out.--( Hear, hear.) Besides,
there was also this anomaly. They had disfranchised one
borough (St. Albans), of which the Hon. Member still kept
his seat ; and,now they were asking for a parliamentary in-
quiry into another, where no corrupt practices had been
proved. They were keeping open that seat for more than
12 months; but surely the inhabitants of that town were as
much entitled to have a representative in the House as any
other. borough.---(Hear, hear.) He considered—first, that
they Were not entitled at all to institute an inquiry into
any alleged corrupt practices, unless such corruption were
recent; and, secondly, that such inquiries -ought to be pro-
ceeded with immediately, otherwise they might deprive the
country for one or two years of its proper number of repre-
aintativee.—(Hear, hear.) In the present case, however, as
the seat had been kept open 12 months, and as a general
election was so near at hand— (Obeers)--he did not think it
would be right to move for a new writ.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. BELL thought that the case of St: Albans was bad
enough, without making it any worse than it 'was.—
(Laughter.) He thought it was very severe to exaggerate
the amount of its corruption. According to the figures of
fthe Commissioners' report, there were 2:10 voters against
whom there was no allegation of bribery or corruption, and
therefore the corruption was not universal. With respect to
the present motion he Was in a somewhat difficult position.
It he voted for the proposed Bill, he should vote in opposi-
tion to the argument he had used in favour of St. Albans--
(Laughter).- and if he voted against it he should be appa-
rently voting in favour of corruption.—(Laughter.)
Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL objected to the animadversions
which the Hon. Member (Mr. Clay) had cast , upon the
Election Committee. He (Mr. O'Connell) had sat upon
two Committees, in both of which the Members were un-
seated—in one of them (the Lincoln 'case) upon the very
smallest possible amount of evidence that could be considered
sufficient. Of course they were bound to see that the case
was proved according to the law of the land.—(Hear.)
Mr. CLAY had certainly no intention to censure the Com-
mittee, but he did think that they were not the best tribunals
for sitting evidence, as he thought had been confessed by the
issuing of commissions.—(Hear.)
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE protested against the idea that the
supposed approach of a general election was any reason why
a new writ should not be issued. The reason why it had not
been moved for in this case was, because the inquiry had been
pending. How would the evidence of Mr. Coppock have
been obtained but for the St. Albans Commission; and if the
Commission now asked fur were issued no doubt they would
be able to get the evidence of Mr. Attwood, which would in-
duce the House to pass a Bill for the disfranchisement of
Harwich. At all events, if the Commission did not issue, he
(Mr. Duncombe) should certainly move for the new writ,
because he thought an injustice would be done, if they any,
longer suspended it, to a very immaculate and honest bo-
rough.— (Laugh ter.)
Mr. WALPOLE explained that under the circumstances
he should not move for the writ himself.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. BANKES explained that the petition to the House,
alleging that three of the five voters who constituted the
majority at the last Harwich election had been intimidated
by the late Government, had been placed in his hands by
persons whom he believed to be respectable; but he had no
further interest in the matter whatever. At the beginning
of the present session there had been no petition praying for
a renewal of the inquiry, and therefore, although the same
Government was then in office, he had not thought it his
duty to press the subject. It was quite true that he had
moved for a Committee, but that was a very different thing
from a Commission.:- (Hear, hear.) With regard to the
case of St. Albans, there had been a technical difficulty as
to the adjournment of the Committee, and that had vitiated
their whole proceedings. So far was he from wishing to stretch
the power of the Constitution, that he had voted against that
Commission, thinking that its powers should be intrusted to
Members of that House; and he wished they had been so.
The House would have stood higher had that inquiry been con-
ducted by its membari3. That Commission had shaken their
jurisdiction, and had tended to invalidate the, decisions of
their Committees. At present he saw no ground for the pro-
posed Commission. Had a Committee been proposed sup-
ported by such a petition as he had presented, he would
have voted for it. If the Hon. Member for Finsbury would
move the issue of the writ for Harwich, he would vote
with him.

Mr. DEEDES said he had acted as chairman of the
second Harwich Election Committee. No evidence as to
bribery wee laid before them, nor was any conclusion come
to on that subject. The Committee's decision was founded
entirely on a point of law, as Co whether the poll was kept
open the proper time—whether it had been interrupted by
improper violence—and whether the returning officer had
taken the steps he ought to have taken. The Committee
thought he had not done so, and consequently deemed it a
void election. It had been said, if the borough was so im-
maculate why should it object to an inquiry? That might
be made an argument for a Commission in any case where
there was no complaint whatever. He could not help think-
ing that Harwich was rather hardly dealt with, and he saw
no reason why a writ should not issue. It was altogether an
unfair proceeding.
Sir DE LACY EVANS, in reply, said he was not aware
that the minority had any such peculiar claims to consider-
ation as had been urged by •the. Home Secretary; he had
always understood that the majority 'decided everything.
He justified the appointment of the Comraission by reference
to the case of St. Albans, and contended that great benefit
had resulted therefrom.

Mr. ROEBUCK thought the proposal for a Commission
came rather too late. The inquiry at St. Albans had been
instituted merely to enable the House to arrive at the facts ;
and upon these facts the Bill brought in by the Noble Lord
(Russell), and taken up by the present Government was
founded. He could not vote in favour of this Commission;
and he thought they ought not to allow that night to pass
without issuing the writ. He would have voted for this mo-
tion had it been made a year ago. Now, the best thing
they could do was to let Harwich have another trial to
save itself froin condemnation. He hadno doubt it was a
corrupt place a year ago; but the motion came too late.
T he House then divided when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it ...... .....
Majority against the motion...
Mr. T. DUNCOSIBE said, as it had been decided that•
no inquiry should take place, the House had no right to dis-
franchise the borough, either for a week, for two weeks, or
a month. He therefore moved that the Speaker should
issue his warrant to the clerk of the crown, directing a writ
to issue for the borough of Harwich, in the room of Mr.
Crawford.

Mr. BRIGHT said this motion seemed to follow somewhat
naturally from the course taken by the Government, but
there was no necessity that it should •.ollow so immediately.
A former attempt had been made to move this writ, and the
House had thought that it should be suspended forsome time
longer, for some cause not very clearly explained ; but there
Was an understanding that notice should be given before the
and notice given of .
writ was•moved. After a debate which was not suppo,ed to
have any special reference to the motion, and after the pre-
vious discussion and understanding, it would not be fair
that that motion should be consented to. Considering the
suddenness of the proposition, and that many Members had
left the House, having no idea whatever that any such mo-
tion would be submitted, he hoped it would be withdrawn,
and
it for a future day.
put it off till It would be better'
~_,
the
debate
after the holidays lie moved, as an amend-
ment,Sir J. TyRIVAS seconded the amendment.
Sir
'Zi,!__ebate should be adjourned.
Hon. Gentleman%
instance of the u LL` said that was another most unfortunate
Manchester school !)ecifesirli'iator:yut.
ear
tnndi improperneato h
avinterference
a fi ng finger
r in
every.
e rt
317.
itihEeßruinderrshtoaPnding that ' -
It appeared to him that the
thing. lie hoped the
me? would not accede to the dicta •
morositio Oh, oh," and
tion of the broandeubrriintrithe
the House would not act in
laughter) - or co
d tion Hoff m
without duo notice.---(Hear, hear.) no virit was to issue
Mr. 10EWDEGATE said that the
01:)lors.itBioRnOt•or
:,,,1,, (vote liberal party having
just joined in an lir, ,
~ ~. as far as Harwich was.con-
-01,:1,,,2,
the ;tom l\L,.Tiloer .^„ linibury now fuoved ftat the
writ do issue, although he had just now declared that it was
not fit to return a Member.—Hear, hear.,
. J The Hon. Mem-
ber for
Manchester, however, was pillow, for he