The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-23 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LtitiDS, April 22.
Lord REDESDALE presided, in the absence of the Lord
Chancellor.

MAYNOOTH.
The Duke of ARGYLL presented a number of peti-
tions against any further grant to Maynooth.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER also presented a
nurt:ber of petitions from different places in his diocese
to the s,.me effect.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY also presented sixteen
petitions to the same effiC•
THE REV. MR. BENNETT.

The Earl OISEI A F 1 ESBURY said he would postpone
for the present the presentdtton of the petition prom the
inhabitwats of Frome, of which he had given notice,
until the result of the inquiry which the Government
had undertaken to make was made known.
ST. ALBANS DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

The Earl of DERBY rote to move the second reading
of this Bill. The Noble Earl said he was aware that
their Lordshipa would be very unwilling to agree to any
measure of disfranchisement which had not been pre-
ceded by an investigation, or which could only lead to
the punishment of many fur the sins of a few. But if
he could show that in the present case the bribery had
not been confined to a few, but had extended over the
whole electoral body; that it had not been limited to a
single election, bat had prevailed at several successive
elections—it ho could show that the bribery had been
exorbitant in its amount, and if the whole of these facts
had bean subetantia ed before a competent tribunal,
which had entered into an inquiry on the subject under
the sanction of an Act of Parliament—he felt persuaded
that they would not then be disposed to save the offend-
ing borough from the penalty justly due to its offences.
In the course of the year 1850 a vacancy bad taken
place in the representation of St. Alban's, in conse-
quence of the death of ono of the members. A contest
had ensued, as had almost always been the case;and
the result of that contest had been the return of a Mem-
ber who had been petitioned against, in the session of
18 ground of gross and notorious bribery. The
petitionslhadon
ne
been tried before a Committee of the House
of Commons, and the evidence which had been brought
before that Committee had been sufficient to satisfy
them that extensive bribery had been practised at the
election; but in consequence of the evasion and escape
of some of the principal witnesses, it had been found
impossible to bring home that bribery to the sitting
Member or his agents. The Committee had, therefore,
made the somewhat inconsistent report that gross bribery
bad been consmitted at the election, but that it could not
affsct the seat of the sitting Member. Be (the Earl of
Derby) would say a few words in passing, on the effect
produced by the alterations made in the tribunals to
which the trial of elections had been referred. Un-
doubtedly great abuses had been put an end to by the
introduction of the Grenvele Act; but, in spite of that
Act and the various moiifications and improvements
which had suesequentiy been made in it, those election
tribunals had been pervaded by this defect, that the inves-
tigation of that which was a public grievance could only
be prosecuted by individuals, anti that the investigation
could not take place if private individuals vrere unwilling
to incur the greet expense by which it was accompa-
nied. Ho was afraid that under that arrangement gross
bribery had prevailed at the -elections in various bo
rouges, session after aessiou ; although he would not go
so far as 3 person of the n A 313 of Coppock, whose expe-
rience in the annals of corruption was unparalleled on
the part of any other individual in this country, who
for the last fifteen or sixteen years had been a leading
agent in contested elections, and who, after having
stated that he knew something of most of the boroughs
in England, added that, if he were to go through them
from the fret to the last, ho should be able to make
quite as extraordinary revelations with respect to them
generally as Mr. Edwards had made with respect to the
borough of S:. Alban's. He (the Earl of Derby) re-
peated that he was not prepared to go quite that length,
although he admitted the great experience and knowledge
of Mr. Coppock in that Wetter; and he hoped it would
be remembered at the next election that the appearance
sf •Mr. Coppock in a borough afforded a prima facie
evidence that bribery was to be practised there.
The House of Commons had thought it necessary to take
up the question affecting the borough of St. Alban's,
not for the purpoei of unseating the sitting Member, but
in order to ascertain how far bribery had prevailed in
the borough. They had passed an Ace which had sub-
sequently received the assent of their ,L srdebips, by
which a Commission had been appointed with very ex-
tensive powers to inqeire into- the proceedings in the
borough, not only at the lest election, but at any pre-
ceding o lection to which they might think it desirable
to extend their investigations. The disclosures made to
that Commission were as open and as frank as any one
could desire. It appeared that previously to the passing
of the Reform act the constituency of St. Alban's had
consisted of between 600 and 700 voters; but when the
non-resident freemen had been struck of by that Act,
and the 10/. householders had been introduced, the
bnourmoubegrh h
of
athdeoerliegcitnoarislyhad been considerably diminished.
The total number of them in 1850 bad amounted to
483. It appeared that the political influence in the
great families of SpencerbeaennddAivliedeed betweenmarlo.Previously
to
two
fiba
thedd Reform
amount
subsequentlyActo f h
eEtd.m
i th ad b eoeeno
y the
toeach elector.
practice
a spec-
ifiedßut
it
householders been
the 101.ohold
voters, and that higher sums had been paid to
a deturned
m ueh out
more
venal
than the
them. The Commissioners had come to the conclusion
that previously to the Reform Act one third part of the
total sum expended at an election in the borough was
spent in bribery, while two-thirds of the total expense
of an election there since the passing of the Reform Act
had been devoted to the corruption of the electors. The
cost of rho various candidates at seven elections during
a period of 10
years hal am, tinted to 37,000/., of which
two-thirds, or 24,6001., had been spent in bribery; and
that gave an average of more than 3,000/, spent in bri-
bery at each election. In 1841 the bribery oath bad been
a
adininistere.l to every
voter who had gone to the poll,
andf
whichtlte oath
400 1011 d.
there li,tl been spent at that election upwards of 6,000/.,
o
been inureby each of them; and yet
employed in bribery. The
total rumbas of 10/ voters wee 354, and of these 212 ha-
bitually sold their votes; and of 66 scat end lot voters 64
habitually 5041 heir votes. There were two parties in the
borough—the Conservative party, which way represented
by a gentleman of the name of Blagg,
and the Liberal
party, which was represented by a gentleman (34' the name
of Edwards. There was also a third or a neutral
party, which had been established under he aespices of
Mr. Webster. That latter party embraced 200 voters—
a number amply sufficient to turn the scale at an election.
The members of that party had been in the h4ilit of

hanging up a key in the town as an indication that they
were about to take part in a contest. The Commissioners
reported that there was no doubt of the gross general
venality of the borough, and that, as Mr. Coppock said,
the great majority of the electors had always been
bought and sold. In the year 1847, arm!. a variety of
intrigues between Mr. Coppock, Mr. Blagg, and Mr.
Edwards, Mr. Raphael had been returned as the Liberal
candidate, and with him Mr. Repton, a Conservative;
end it was a remarkable fact that the voters for Mr.
Repton had been bribed with the money advanced by
Mr. Raphael, in order to carry out a previous arrange.
ment ; for it app-ared that there was honour even among
election rigents.—(A. laugh.) Mr Raphael had not
lived long enough to cejoy his success. He had died in
the year 1850. Mr. Coppock had instantly been in the
field. At an interview with Mr. Edwards he bad
promised a situation to the son of the later,
and there was ample evidence to show that Mr. Cop-
pock had possessed the power of obtaining public situa-
tions. At that time there had appeared on the stage
a gentleman of the name of Simps in. who had been a
clerk to Mr. Blagg and then to Mr. Edwards, and who
en finding that the bribing of electors bad not been an
unprofitable trade, had bet up for himself. He and Mr.
Edwards had hit on a candidate in the person of a
practising chemist and druggist, who had been desirous
of obtaining a seat in Parliament, not for the purpose of
exercising any political influence, but for the purpose of
carrying some measures connected with the medical
profession. Both these gentlemen came to Mr. Bell,
whom they found ready to treat. It was true that Mr.
Bell throughout the contest declared that he would have
nothing to do with the election, and that all matters of
expense should be dealt with by his friend. It ap-
peered, however, that this friend, who had negotiated
payments to the extent of 3 0001., was the confiden-
tial partner of Mr. Bell, carrying on business with
him, and with whom he was in daily correspondence.
It appeared that Simpson found it necessary to get an-
other candidate, and Alderman Carden was applied to.
It was but justice to Alderman Carden to state that he
seemed desirous of representing St. Alban's on the
purity system. He was told that if he went to St. Al-
ban's he would be the means of restoring the borough
to a state of purity, as there were many voters there
sick of the bribery system, and anxious to support him.
It appeared, from the evidence of the witness Blanks,
that he went to London to seek for a candidate to pre-
vent the course being walked over, and that Alderman
Carden went down. It appeared that he was received by
the town councillors, some of whom walked arm in
arm with him, and that out of the sixteen councillors,
twelve voted for him, two against him, and two
remained neutral. The solicitor of Alderman
Carden found out what was going on in the
borough, and informed him that he had no
chance unless he bribed. ' Alderman Carden refused to
do this. Though he had spent 6001., there was no
reason to suppose that he was cognisant of any bribery,
and the result was, that Mr. Bell polled 276 votes, and
Alderman Carden, the candidate on the purity system,
polled only 147 votes. Mr. Bell, after having spent a
large sum, was returned, and he must do that gentleman
the justice to say that he appeared to be a forgiving and
much enduring man, for when the Bill for the disfran-
chisement of St. Alban's met with the unanimous support
of the other House in all its stages, Mr. Bell's was the
only voice raised to protest against the hardship done to
St. Alban's, and to utter a melancholy plaint on the too
probable fate of the corrupt borough which he repre-
sented. In conclusion, he begged to read the summary
which the Commissioners had given at the end of their
report, as to the bribery which had been practised:—
"We find that a sum of 3,500/. was advanced by Mr.
Raphael to Mr. Henry Edwards for the purposes of the
election in 1847; that the greater part of that sum was
expended by him with the knowledge of Mr. Raphael
in bribing voters; and that Mr. Raphael owed his elec-
tion in 1847 to such bribery.
" We find that the sum of 1,2001. was expended by
Mr. Blagg on behalf of Mr. Repton, for the purposes of
the election in 1847; that 500/., part of this sum, was ad-
vanced by Mr. El wards to Mr. Blagg for the express
purpose of bribery, and was expended by Mr. Blagg in
buying votes for Mr. Repton; that Mr. Itcpton, during
the poling, and before the election, knew that bribery
was being practised on his behalf, sad we find that he
owed his election in 1847 to such bribery.
"We find that neatly 1.0001 way advanced by the
Hon. Mr. Craven to Mr. El ward Gibion for the pur-
poses of the election in 1847, when he was one of the
unsuccessful candidates; that 300/, part of this sum,
was given by Mr. Gibson to Mr. James Vass for the
purpose of bribing, voters on behalf of Mr. Craven; and
that the said sum of 3001 was expended by Mr. Vitas in
bribery.
" We find that Mr. Craven was not directly cognisant
of any portion of the money having been expended is
bribery ; but that be had strong suspicion of the way in
which the money had been employed.
" We find that, a sum of 8001. was advanced by Mr.
Milks for the purposes of the election in 1847, when he
also was one of the unsuccessful candidates; and that a
large portion of this sum was expended by his agent,
Mr. Thomas Harris, in bribery on his behalf; that
Harris gave 751. to George Perry, and 50/. to Mr.
Frederick Theopbilus Webster, for the purpose of
bribing voters for Mr. Wilks; and that the said sums
were expended by Perry and Webster in bribery.
" We find that at the election in 1850, 2,5001. was ad-
vanced by Mr. Thomas Hydes Hills on behalf of Mr.
Bell to Mr. Henry Edwards; that the greater part of
this sum was expended by Mr. Edwards in bribery;
and that Mr. Hots well knew at the time that he ad-
vanced the money that it was to be no applied.
" We find that 2,0001. of this sum was advanced by
way of loan to Mr. Hills, by Messrs. Brace and Colt,
who knew the purposes to which it was to be applied.
"We find that of the 2,5001 2,0001 was first trans-
mitted by Mr. Bills to Ihe office of Mr. Coppock by his
direction, and was thence forearded to Mr. Edwards at
St. Albans by Mr. Coppock, with full knowledge on
the part of the latter that it was to be expended in
bribery.
" We find that Mr. 801 l knew that money was being
advanced on his behalf for the pnrpoes of bribery, and
we find that he owed his election to such bribery."

The report then stated the number of voters who received
bribes at the election of 1847. Out of 450 electors the
names were given of 307 who had received bribes, The
total number who received bribes at the election of 1850
was proved to be 219, though, doubtless, there were
others whose cases had not been proved. He thought
he had stated sufficient to show that the bribery had not
been incidental—thit it was not confined to a few, and
that disfranchisement would not, therefore, be an unme-
rited punishment of the whole for a fault of the few. On
the contrary, the bribery had been systematic, election
after election, and at least two•thirds of the voters had
been proved to be corrupt. Such a state of things
would, ho feared, continuo if the borough were allowed
to return Members to Parliament, and so long as the
constituency, without any consideration except that of
money, allowed themselves to be driven like sheep to
the poll by those from whom they received their bribes.
The House of Commons in this case had taken the only
course it could take, and after the clear and conclugive
evidence which had been laid before Parliament on the
subject, he trusted their Lordships would agree unani-
mously is reading a second time this Bill for disfran-
chising the borough of St. Alban's.
Lord REDESDALE (who occupied the Woolsack)
said that before he put the question he wished to inform
their Lordships that a petition had been presented from
St. Alben'e by certain persons praying to be heard by
counsel fleeiag, the Bill.

The Earl of VERULA.NI said ho had presented such
a petition, though tie disagreed in its prays r. After the
evidence which bad been taken, he thought it impossible
for the borough to make out a case for itself.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE thought their
Lordships w,re in a posttiou to legislate on the question
without hearing counsel.

Lord CAMP-BELL thought the parties affected by a
Bill of pains 04d penalties like thia had a right to be
heard at the bar.

Lord HON rEA.GLE agreed that parties affected by
a Bitt had u right to be heard against it; but the parties
in the present case had bean heard, and had been found
guilty.
The Earl of HARROWBY was in favour of hearing
the petitioners at the bar, if they desired it.
The Earl of WICKLOW said he should be guided by
precedent, and shou'd vote for the parties being heard
by counsel, if it could be shown that that course had been
adorted in similar cases.

The Earl of DERBY said, no doubt the petitioners
were anxious not to be included among those who had
bean guilty of bribery, but there could be no doubt as
to the extent of it. It was stated in the report that the
bribery was not confined to persons of one station, but
extended to professional men, tradesmen, and even to
persons holding subordinate offices connected with the
edministratiou of justice in the borough, and that the
exceptions were the clergy of all persuasions, and some
of the principal inhabitsets.
The second reading was then agreed to.
Lord REDESDALE then presented a petition, and
moved that leave be given to parties affected by this Bill
to appear by counsel, as such a course was conformable
to precedent, though he did not think the parties would
be disposed to ineur the expense.
Lord CAMPBELL would not refuse to support the
petition, as the prayer of the petitioners was reasonable
and customary, and the Bill itself one of a very stringent
character
Earl GREY said that House ought not to be bound by
narrow or technical rules which obtained in courts of
law. It was the duty of that House to do justice on a
broad bl:sis irrespective of the practice of other courts.
He did not think counsel could advise the House of the
coarse they ought to pursue, nor did he think it was
consistent with the dignity of that House to call counsel
to the bar in order to induce them by arguments to alter
their opinion on-fac•a, and to influence their decision.
The Earl of DERBY did not think, if leave were
given, that counsel would appear, on account of the ex-
pense, and even if they did appear, he doubted whether
they would have any effect on the proceedings or de-
cisions of their Lordships. He should, howeversup.
port the motion, because the case of Sudbury was
pre-
pre-
cedent, and it would be advisable not to deprive indi-
viduals of what they might consider an advantage.
L. MONTEAGLE said if this h
case he for one would have been ready
been a single
to hear counsel,
but the case wag but too coalmen,
Sudbury had been adduced, but Tae precedent of
aas for their Lord-
ships to decide whether tht wag it w
some precedent to follow. Ike useful and a
thought,whol©-
therefore, the
counsel ought not to be heard.
Lord BEAU HoNr denied
judi-
cial inquiry into the case
there had been any
TheEe had only been a com-
mission to report to that.House,..which was, in fact, the
judicial tribunal. The parties had not been heard in
their defence and now was the time to hear them. If
the House refu4, to hear oouaael, ho asserted their
erdships
would doa monstrous injaaticN and would act
differently to every other tribunal do the country. He
believed their Lordships considered the facts too strong
to he upset 17 any roof or reasoning; but even were

such the case, that was not a valid reason against hearing
counsel.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE c3nsiclered hearing
counsel was a delusion, an] derogatory to the diguity of
the House when sittiDZ Y•
The Duke of ARGYLL said. the c-Inmission had
been appointed by that House, who had examined
parties on oath, and had elicited clear proofs of bribery.
If counsel were employed, they would be us-ful in se-
parating those who were culpable iron) those who were
not culpable. He hoped their Lordships would agree to
the motion,

The Duke of NEWCASTLE regretted that a Bill in-
troduc,d la,t year to 6top eon option at elections hal not
pastit d, as it mi3Oit have be-•n toplt,tl with t ff,et to toe
forthcoming electi.ins. He was o' iiptriicri if their L
rd-
ships followed the precEdmit brough forward, that they
wouli be greatly vv,akesiing toe eff,,ct of the Cominis •
sioners, and be again introducing party feelings and party
squabbles in. those matters, which were very objec-
tionable.

Lord CAMPBELL did not intend, by bearing counsel,
that their Lord:otitis should renew, the it:gamy gone
through by the Commission; but h. propose°, after the
Commission had reported to tbt it Lordships that coun-
sel snoultl be heird, to see if a strong case could be made
out against the majority- of the SL Albans' electors.
The Esrl of WICKLOW said he bad always found
that though objections had been made to the hearing of
counsel, their Lordships' sense of justice had always
overruled those objections. As no former application
had been rejected, be hoped their Lordships would not
make this a precedent for refusal.
Lord REDESDALE, after a few words of explana-
tion, put the motion, upon which their Lordships di-
vided, when there appeared—
Contents 41

Non-e,ntents ... 15
Mejority for the motion ... —26
Their Lordships then mourned.

ROUSE OF COAMONS, April 22.
The SPEAKER took the Chair a few minutes before
Four o'clock.