The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-14 00:00:00

X Z>
.9Z ZIK
discussion was bad upon its merits in the Lords. They called
evidence, not with respect to the election at which the corrupt
practices were proved to have taken place, but they had gone
into an inquiry respecting former elections for the borough.
The Bill, however, Was again rejected—with what motives, he
(Mr. D. ) would not stop to inquire; but he would remark, that
all the allegations stated in this House had been fully borne
out. They admitted the necessity of a remedy, but they re-
fused the means. One Bill was selectee because it tlisf.sn-
chised freemen, burgesses, and householders ; and another, be-
cause it disfranchised the burgesses only. s;Il remedy for the
acknowledged corruption was positively reisssed. At one
election there were 945 voters of Stafford, who accepted
bribes, while there were only 104 to whom .the slightest
degree of purity could be imputed. One argument .!bat might
be used was, that, as the Reform Bill had infused a vits,t num-
ber of householders into the electoral body, that rsro.%ahly
some more purity might now be expected ; but the sauna sse-
turn showed that, in the householders' list, eighty-five bad c-
cepted bribes, while only eighty-two rsfused. While
there was such an inclination to protect such corruption
in another place, he thought it was the duty of that House to.
take the strongest measures for punishing it within their
power—he thought that, in the event of a dissolution,
that House would be justified in addressing the Crown
to withhold the issuing of any writ to Stafford—at
all events it was their bounden duty to withhold the writ so
long as that session lasted, in order to show to the country
that that House was determined to punish corruption as
severely as possible. He would therefore move, as an amend-
ment, that the Speaker do not issue his writ for the election of
a member for Stafford, until ten days after the commencement
of next session.
Mr. HODGSON deprecated the further delay of the issu-
ing of the writ for the borough of Stafford, as the delay that
had already taken place had been productive of the worst
effects. It was true the results of the investigation before the
House of Lords was, that a very serious number of cases of
bribery and corruption existed in Stafford ; but be believed the
House would not go the length of disfranchising the borough
dOn that ground. Look to the case of his Majesty's present
Attorney General in that borough. A certain sum in that in-
stance was to be paid, provided his election was secured. Who
was the greater criminal in that case of Sir J. Campbell's, the
Learned Gentleman, who stood high in the country and at the
Bar, or the poor electors of Stafford ? ( Cheers.) He did not
wish to say anything invidious of that Right Hon. Member for the
course he had pursued—that Right Hon. Gentleman had been
promoted to the highest legal office which a commoner could
enjoy.; and more than that—although no peerage had consoled
hilt, is the words that had once been applied to a countryman
of his own, it might be said to him, " Thou shalt beget Peers,
though thou shalt not be Peer thyself."—(Cries of " Oh,"
and " Qrder.") If he was not speaking facts, Ito would
submit to the decision of the Chair. In conclusion, he would
only 'say that if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would in-
clusle in his Bill those who were the givers of bribes—( Cries
of ' Hear, hear !")—and exempt the 300 voters who were not
brilyse on any former election, but had since been created, he
should Jiavo his support. But if he would visit with vengeance
the constituency of the borough who had not been bribed, then he
would say before that House and the country, that one measure of
justice bad been dealt out to the Attorney-General of Eng-
laud, and another to the humble voters of Stafford.

Captain CHET WYND thought that the Hon. Member
who spoke last could not have read the evidence. The ques-
tion before the House was whether a writ should be issued or
not, and not as to the innocence or guilt of the borough. Hewes
surprised at the arguments that had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Exeter (Mr. Divett). He stated the number of
Bills that had been introduced in that House, and sent up to
the House of Lords. It was true that that House had passed
four Bills, and when the fourth was sent up to the other House
in the session of 1836, it made a strong impression, and the
other House thought there must be some ground for so many
Bills on the same subject. That House then instituted a full
enquiry—it had been conducted by the most able counsel on
both sides, and was conducted upon oath, which was the most
likely means to elicit truth—it was conducted by the highest
legal authorities, and after being continued for six weeks they
had come to the conclusion that the allegations
coatained in the Bill, and the accusations against the
borough could not be substantiated, and were not borne out
by the evidence. Under such circumstances, he submitted to
the House, and he did this with some degree of confidence,
that the borough of Stafford stood fully acquitted of the
charges brought against it. It stood in the same position
as a person accused of high crimes and misdemeanours,
who was taken before a Magistrate, committed, and put upon
his trial ; had the case fully and fairly inquired into,
and was acquitted by a jury of his countrymen. Under such
circumstances such a person would be entitled to have all the
privileges and advantages of an innocent man.—( Hear,
hear.) In such a situation stood the borough of Stafford.
There was no accusation against the borough at present—
there was no accuser even. There was no Bill of pains or
penalties brought forward. What was the House called upon
to do ? The -Hon. Member for Exeter said, that not being
satisfied with the evidence given elsewhere, he would still con-
tinue to punish the borough. Nothing could be more unjust, and
he was astonished that the Hon. Member forEreter, profess-
ing as he did liberal principles, should still wish to persecute
(for he could not use a milder term), the burgesses-of the
borough of Stafford. He trusted the House would -by its
vote prove distinctly that it never would be their practice to
punish the innocent ; but that they would show by their vote
that that justice which ought to be dealt out with an equal
hand to every body, should be afforded to the borough of
Stafford.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. HALL had listened to the facts stated by the
Honourable Member for Newcastle, and had upon those
facts come to a directly contrary conclusion.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He considered the borough was so corrupt
that no writ ought again to be issued.—(Hear.) If
a Bill, were again brought forward for the disfranchisement of
the Borough, he was certain it would meet with the support
of the !louse ; mad he sincerely trusted that ultimately the
Borough would be disfranchised.
Sir T. FREMANTLE hoped lie would be allowed to
state to the House the grounds on which he would vote for
the amendment.—(Hear.) He had not altered the opinion
which he had formerly entertained as to the system of bribery
and corruption which characterised Stafford, and he regretted
that the measures which had been introduced three years ago
had failed to accomplish their object.--( Hear, hear.) He
considered it unfortunate that a law had not been
psased to disfranchise Stafford ; but into the circumstances
which led to its failure, lie would not enter. The
Bill had been sent to the House of Lords in con-
junction with two other measures —the one relative to
Warwick, and the other one relative to Hertford—which
in the eyes of Hon. Members possessed more political impor-
tance than that respecting Stafford.—(Hear, hear.) If he
(Sir T. Fremantle) had been permitted to bring up his
Bill first, he believed it would have passed, and become
the law.—( Hear.) He would not, however, disguise his opi-
nion, that, since that period, the case had become altered in its
appearance in consequence of the time that had elapsed.—
( Hear, hear.) A change had taken place in the constituency,
as was obvious from what had been stated by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Newcastle.—( Hear, hear.)—He was satisfied
that the same number of freemen was not now re-
gistered, and that in consequence of the number of
extensive new buildings which, since the Bill had been in-
troduced, been erected in the neighbourhood of Stafford,
a number of new voters were now registered.—( Hear,
hear, hear.) But the question of time was important, and
he remembered during the debate which had taken place
last week, an Honourable Friend of his had reed a letter
written by the Hon. and Learned Member for Kilkes:inY,
9atwlino
stated in reply that it was written in 1830. That explanation
was admitted by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he tbou,:sht
the inhabitants of Stafford entitled to a similar justificatiotis
The question was, whether the House was in a fit
state to carry any measure but a measure of
disfranchisement of this borough. If his Honourable
Friend was ready to say that he intended to bring in
a Bill, even at the end of Parliament, to disfranchise the
borough, he should decidedly vote with him ; but it did
not appear that that was his intention. He denied that.
Staffoid was in a similar situation to that of a prisoner
who had been fully committed, and afterwards upon a trial
before a Jury acquitted. This was not a matter to be trifled
with. He believed it was and had been a corrupt borough,
and that a great deal of good would be done if time were given
to bring in a Bill of disfranchisement.
Mr. ROEBUCK said it appeared to him that the House
paid little attention to the wholesale bribery that was going'
forward; because, if so, and if all the cases were brought
under the notice of the House, it would be necessary to
go through one half of the Members.—(Much laughter.)
One had-been selected because the system had been car-
ried on, and, like the Spartan thief, that borough bad
been punished only because it had been discovered. He
wished to impress upon lion. Members that the only way
to prevent bribery was to introduce the vote by ballot, and
every Member who went out in favour of the disfranchisement
of the borough must consider himself the sworn friend of the
ballot.
Mr. ROBINSON rose amid loud cries of " Question,"
" Divide." He thought it was of considerable importance that
the public should know upon what grounds Honourable Members
gave their votes, and as it was his intention to vote in
favour of the issuing of the writ, :he wished to state
that it did not appear to him that sufficient grounds
had been given for the suspension of the writ. As long_ as
the House of Lords had a concurring jurisdiction with that
House in such matters as in the case of Pcnryn— after an in.
ht
tvoe sbt
ei gaal tlioown
e,
d andta return
he
tea
rßai I
Nllbeing he
rts ar ogiva
inn out,. t wast he buopr
upon
nu gcloi
nos ut
igt
tional grounds that be would vote for the issuing of the writ,
and not because he did not believe that bribery had taken place.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM rose amidst loud cries of "
divide." As he intended to vote in favour of the original
motion, he trusted the House would allow him to make one
observation. There were a great number of persons now in
Stafford who had no share in the bribery, and be did not like
to punish them along with the guilty.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For issuing the Writ
Against it

Majority -I
POOR-LAW AMENDMENT ACT.

Mr. WALTER said, as we understood, that he begged to
repeat the question he had before put to the Noble Lord, as
to whether Monday would be a convenient day for him to
bring forward the motion of which he had given notice?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he thought that Monday would be
a very inconvenient day for the lion. Gentleman to attempt to
bring on his proposed discussion. What he said the other
night on this subject was in accordance with the statement he
made last year. lle had no objection to an inquiry into the
manner in which the Poor-law Commissioners had carried into
effect their plan, but he could not consent to refer to the pro-
posed Committee questions which would imply that a doubt