The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-25 00:00:00

which' they could proceed to disfranchise the county ?
I There was a machinery fcr disfranchising beroughs—
but that machinery would not do for counties.
ever good; therefore, the amendment might be, it had
not been` well considered with ri ference to the powers of
the Act upon the House. If the Honore:elle Gentlemen
Isvould insist on having conniee inserted it would be ne-
cessary to have usher meehinery. Isreqeired a differ-
ent machinte: far counties:, areie he pito agreed with
the Noble Lord that an amendment of such importance
ought not to hare been brought fdetwieira in this manner
without notice. The machinery in exigence was inade-
quate, and he would ask the Hon. Gentleman if, in case
corruption should be proved, he was prepared to disfran-
chise, say. the. West Riding, and thus leave a consider-
able part of England unrepresented,? He did net disap-
prove of the, principle of" the amendment, but as the ma-
airier'Y of the Bill would not apply to counties he hoped
the Hon. Member would not press it.
Lord R. GROSVENOR said bribery 'was not nn-
known in n,inities; he would instance West Gloucester;
for a. question was not lone ego brought before the
Committee, whether a certain Nuble Lord had not, by
the way he interfered in an election for that division,
committed a breach of privilege.—(Hear,) He approved
of the amendment, and, if pressed, would vote for it.
Mr. WAKLEY said, after what had just passed, if
the Right Hon. Gentleman could not adopt the amend-
ment at once, the proper course to take would be to ad-
journ the debate. Tnere must not be this invidious dis-
tinction between bouroughs and counties. The Right
Honourable Gentleman said counties were pure; well,
let them be kept pure by having something like his Hon.
Friend's amendment hanging over their heads. But he
did not agree in the opinion of the Right Hon. Gentle_
man. He believed as much or more corruption existed
in counties as in boroughs; and he firmly believed that
bribery in counties would soon be practised on a far
larger-scale than ever before -attempted,
because
otuhlde
stake in the present instance was so great.
move the adjournment of the debate—(No, no)—unless
the amendment were put.
After a few words froth Mr: W. WILLIAMS in fa-
veiur-df the amendment,
Alderman SIDNEY said be knew from his own know-
ledge that in the West Riding it was matter of agree-
ment between. the contending parties to give tickets of
refreshments, and she to pay the expenses of voters to
and from the nomination, and to and from the hust-
ings on the 'day of the poll. He knew also that in the
.elections for the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge
it was the practice to pay .the poorer clergymen their
'travelling expenses who came from a distance to vote,
and also their expenses at Oxford or Cambridge during
the poll. If the House agreed to the amendment he
should certainly move that the universities be also in-
cluded in the Bill.
Sir A. COCKBURN said there was only one reason
why he objected to • the amendment, and it was that
stated byethe Noble Lord near him with reference to
the. time and stage at which it was proposed; otherwise
he concurred with the Hon. Member as to the propriety
of applying the principie to counties' as well as to
towns. He believed treating prevailed to a considerable
extent at county elections; and he also believed that
Other influences existed, 'which the sooner the attention
of the House was called to them the better. When he
found it' admitted and avowed that a Noble Lord, a
member of the House of Peers, had entered into a cor-
rupt contract in direct violation of the privileges of that
House and of the rights of the people, and that his no-
minee to as seat in that House bad been denied the privi-
lege of soliciting the suffrages of the electors in his_ own
county,: it wag tullktime the attention of the House were
called to the subject. He fully concurred that the prin-
ciple of the Bill should be applied to counties as well as
boroughs, but he felt the danger of admitting any amend-
ment (which would give the Bill a new character) after it
had passed the Committee.
Mr. HORSMAN said that there was nothing in the
Bill about diafranchisement. It only provided that when
corrupt practices existed the House might address her
Majesty to issue a.commission of inquiry. -He did net
see why counties should be excluded.
Mr. FLOYER said, he, was as much opposed to cor-
rupt practices at elections as any one, but all the cases
referred to in this discussion had, with perhaps one ex-
ception, been cases of treating, which, though against
the strict letter ol the law, were not attended with any
demoralisation.great deoralisation. He did not think the House
ought to depart from the usual course, by introducing a
clause at that stage with reference to treating, which
did not extend beyond giving a dinner to a poor elector
who had come a long way to vote. He should certainly
object to the extension of the Bill to counties.
Mr. HUDSON confirmed the statement of the Hon.
Member for Stafford, with reference to the elections in
the West Riding. In elf contested elections in that
division of the county, it was a regular thing for the
candidates to give 2s. 6d. and ss. tickets to their voters.
He should not vote at all on the Bill, but he thought the
.
universities ought to be included.
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment ••• 109
Against it'
.-• "' 71
Majority for the amendment —3B
On the motion of Alderman SIDNEY the universi-
sides were also-included in the Bill.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. STANFORD. said before the Bill passed he
wished to stateee in a few words, his opinions respecting
it. 'He conceived that no greater humbug could be per-
petrated than for the House to pass such a measure,
when Hon.'Members themselves hod-the means in their
own hands of putting an end to them. There could be
no doubt that at any general election there was from a
million and a half to two -milliens.of money paid in en-
coursging theso corrupt practices, and he hoped the
electors themseilves would take the matter into their own
hands, and by their just and reputable conduct spurn
the-practice which -had brought so much disrepute on
the constituencies of the country. It was clear that
the great object of gentlemen coming into that House
was either to enjoy the sweets of office, or to
live in hopes of tasting the honey. Any man who
acted upon principle., or spoke his sentiments honestly,
would be voted an ass:--(Leughter.) The clause which
the Noble Lord the Member for. London etdmitted into
the Bill destroyed any merit that- it had. The Bill
would not prevent corrupt practices at elections, and
the only way to prevent corruption by the people was
by that House setting an example of purity to the
peop!e.

Mr., WAKLEY Said he had beard many queer
speeches in that House, but that delivered by the Hon.
Member who had just sat down 'was the queerest he
had ever heard. The' Hon. Gentleman had complained
that there was no purity at elections. Well, surely, they
all knew that the only way to prevent this evil, was by
means of' the ballot.—(Hear, hear.) The ballot would
be a sure preventive against corrupt practices at elec-
tions, provi,ded' they had large constituencies.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Gentleman said that any man
that would express himielf in an independent manner
in that House 'Would be called an ass.—(A. laugh.)
Had the Honoutrable Genteman been speaking his own
sentiments?
Mr. STANFORD—Yes.
Mr. VilAKIAY—Thep what are You ?—(Laughter.)
He was told that the Honourable Gentleman had
pledged himself to 'form an intimate alliance with
the purer portion' of the borough which he
represented.—(Laughter.) But the Hon. Gentleman
had not redeemed the pledge.—(Liughter.) The 'Hon.
Gentleman was, however, to be excused, for he understood
the fault was not his own.—(Laughter.) Yet there
could be no great complaint of advances not hiving
boon made from-other parties to carry out the alliance,
after the character which the Hon. Gentleman had given
of himself. They had at that side of the House tested
the question of purity of election by bringing forward a
motion for the ballot. Well, would it be credited, on the
last occasion when the motion for the ballot was before
the Hquie„ the Lion. Member for Reading voted against
itP—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Stanford.) Well, i how
were they to have purity of election without the ballot?
—(Hear, From the speech of the Hon.
.
Gentle-
man he presumed ho was-taking leave of his_pobtLeal
friends and of that- -Hense-.—("-Heari-----heari" -flu?? Mr.
Stanford.) 'Well, the Hon. Member had only himself
to blame for, this, because he would not vote for the
ballot.

The Bill then passed.
POOR-LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE BILL.
Lord D. STUART, on the order of the day for going
into Committee on' the -Poor-law Board Continuance
Bill, moved that it be an instruction to the Committee
that they have power to make provision for amending
the said Bill if they should so think fit. He considered
the question they had to consider one of the utmost im-
portance to a great portion of the public, for it was a
fact that any rate wherever there were parishes go-
thatth e principle
motion.
n o f e local
believed-s el ft- gho
t-
a
verned by local Acts a deep interest was felt in the
motion which he had to submit; and he thought that
vwehronetnevee was
r favour
upo
rotf
tsh in
ouldsp
the foundation of all the power, wealth, prosperity; and
freedom of this groat country, and the
had envy
made England the wonder and principle which
was this principle for which he had of the World,
to contend. As re-
garded the present state of the law, h
could establish three propositions—
fie considered that he
led to litigation; secondly, that the propositions—first, that it certainly
inter-
preted by the Poor-law Board, existing law, as
was
the intention of its original
the system could not be promoters; and thirdly; that
Its regarded as salutary or benefi-
cial. uncertainty wasillustrated in the case cif- St.
Pancras, of which h
his belief on the he should have to speak; and as to
he might quote other points which -be had mentioned,
high authority. Sir Robert Peel was of
opinion that the power of the Poor-law Board should
not extend to parishes governed by local Acts, and bad
always thought that where there were immense masses
of population well
governed under local Acts it would not
be found expedient to place them under the oontiol of
the would
agree He hoped Hon. Members would
agree with that opinion of Sir 14. Peel's. Was it net; on.
the face of it, much more likely that such parishes as
Marylebone and St. Pancras would be well and har-
moniously governed, if they were under the manaement
of the local authorities—men who, from their position in
every parish, must know the wants, wishes, and require-
ments of the parishioners—than if governed by any me-
tropolitan board? Why, in these parishes which he had
cited, with their enormous and continually increasing
populations, the management of the workhouses was ad.
mirablo; and this was where the officers were popularly
elected. He could not conceive that any poor-law board
or commission could bo more filed to manage these
affairs than the representatives diesel by the parish-
ioners, than whom he believed no more intelligent men
could be found. He had mentiousd, as a result-- ,
the present uncertainty of the law, that it 1.1 -of
ad given
rise to litigation in some well-known'
casesf where the
local board of directors or guardians the poor had
been brcught into collision with th £
There was the case of Sr. pancr e Co:cnvssioneri.
. proper parochial authorities, havingas, v; here thin vestry, or
of the ut►ron to dismissed the master
reinsure•
theCodinlissioners, apd him at the .reqsleat of
_ma as 4aild ''
Qpizinissicanro au cx 1 - ' -- WaS- ol°,_ 1010 the
P ikUlitioll Of the MCIPZIiitiLiCtO ,