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

which they could proceed to disfranchise the county?
There was a machinery for disfranchising boroughs—
but that machinery would not do for counties. How-
ever good, therefore, the amendment might be, it had
not been well considered with reference to the powers of
the Act upon the House. If the Honourable Gentleman
would insist on having counties inserted it would be ne-
cessary to have other machinery. It required a differ-
ent machinery for counties, and ho quite agreed with
the Noble Lord that an amendment Of such importance
ought not to have been brought forward in this manner
without notice. The machinery in existence 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 not disap-
prove of the principle of the amendment, but as the ma-
chinery of the Bill would not apply to counties he hoped
the lion. Member would not press it.
Lord It GROSVENOR said bribery was not nn-
known in counties; he would instance West Gloucester;
for a question was not long ago brought before the
Committee, whether a certain Noble Lord had not, by
the way he interfered in an election for that division,
committed a breach of privilege.—( clear,) He approved
of the amendment, and, if pressed, would vote for it.
Mr. WAICLEY 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 beuroughe end 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 Hoff. 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 the
stake in the present instance was so great. He would
move the adjournment of the debate—(No, no)—unless
the amendment were put.
After a few words from Mr. W. WILLIAMS in fa-
vour of the amendment,
Alderman SIDNEY said be keew 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 also 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 know 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 by the. 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 principle 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 a seat in that House had been denied the privi-
lege of soliciting the suffrages of the electors in his own
county, it was tell time 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 disfranchisement. It only provided that when
corrupt practices existed the House might address her
Majesty to issue a commission of inquiry. He did not
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 of the law, were not attended with any
great demoralisation. 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 all contested elections in that
division of the county, it was a regular thing for the
candidates to give 2s. 61 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
—3B
Bversi-
On the motion Majorityof
Aldermanfor the
si amendmentDN Ey t h
sities were also included in the Bill.
On the question that the Bill do pass,
Mr. STANFORD said before the Bill passed he
wished to state, 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 had 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
million and a half to two millious of money paid in en-
couraging these corrupt practices, and ho hoped the
electors themselves 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 coining 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.—(Laughter.) The clause which
the Noble Lord the Member fur London admitted into
the Bill destroyed any merit that it had. The Bill
would not prevent corrupt practices at elections, and
b th
the only way to prevent corruption by the people was
peyop!e.
an example of purity to the
at House setting

Air. WAKLEY said he had heard 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, provided they had large constituencies.—(Hear,
hear.) The Honourable Gentleman said that any man
that would express himself in an independent manner
in that House would be called an ass.—(A laugh.)
Had the Honourable Genteman been speaking his own
sentiments?
Mr. STANFORD—Yes.
Mr. WAKLEY—Then 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.—(Laughter.) The Hun.
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 having
been 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 House, the Ron. Member for Reading voted against
it?—(" Hear, hear," from Mr. Stanford.) Well, how
were they to have purity of election without the ballot?
—(Hear, hear.) From the spech of the Hon.
._
Gentle-
man he presumed he was taking leave
hear
his,,
friends and of that House.—(" Hear, -ear,
himselffrpoomlitmicar.l
Stanford.) Well, the Hon. Memberhnaodt onlyye
to blame for this, because he would
ballot. io r the
The Bill then passed.
law Board Continuance
POOR-LAW BOARD CONTINUANCE
of
th,,day
forß goingthe
into Committee on the Poor-
th
aßill,t t moveda tvhe apt oit tv e
rb e t
oa ni n
makes tr upertoi
vo lie
itoon
Ht hie,
for Cm
that di tit e e
of the -
It hh
ee
ris
aa
ei said t
tßoinl l
ti
hf
et hy ey
had sh
toou ludo snos i idheirn k
onefi t.
go.
portance to a great portion of the public, for it was 2
fact that at any rate wherever there were parishes
verned by local Acts a deep interest was felt in the
motion which he had to submit; and he thought that
whoever was in favour of the principle of local self-go-
vernment should support that motion. Ile believed that
the foundation of all the power, wealth, prosperity, and
freedom of this great country, and the principle which
had made England
t three
rf theeosert
apwtr
eohpoiwonderwhich
hsithethi
propositions—first,
:an
d, d
fiht
roe ctenvycontend.c:tnhs oai
dft e
itthere world,
led to litigation; secondly, that the
cgwoaaursdl dtehdei principlesstthaeb presentish
certainly
tAh.
sa
t r I:e;
tthhee isnytsetnemtiocuoouflditnsootrbigeinraelgparrodmedotaers existing law, as inter-
preted by the Poor-law Board, was not in harmony with
,enthefia-t
Pancras,
Its uncertainty was illustrated in
8 s; ael Un tda rt thirdly,
rodrl yb
the case of St.
of which he should have to speak; and as to
his ' belief on the other points which he had mentioned,
he might quote 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 control
of
the commissioners. He hoped Hon.
Members
it wouldnot, on
agree with that opinion of Sir R. Peel's. Was
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 management
of the local authorities—men who, ,
wishes, and from their position in
every parish, must know the wants
require-
ments of the parishioners—than
parishes which he had
tee-
tropolitan board? Why,
in
these if governed by any
and continually increasing
populations, the management
cited, with their enormous
of the workhouses was ad-
mirable; and this was where the officers wore popularly
elected. He could not conceive that any poor-law board
or commission
id o
be more fitted to manage these
could
affairs than the representatives chosen by, the parish-
ioners,bo believed no more intelligent men
could be found.
than whom ho
had mentioned, as a result of
given
rise present uncertainty- of the law, that it hadiven
in some well•k
rise to litigation• nown cases where the
local board of directors or guardians of the poor had
been brought
Q There was the case of ~.,t .
Pancras, here the v stry, or
pi.,,.,e, p.,1-.2chiai 2.a:berlties, having disnaissed the master
of the Union, refused to reinstate him at the request of
the Commissioners, and even, as was said, to afford the
cemmisaieuero au explonittieu ef the oirouralloncex