The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-16 00:00:00

member also presented a similar petition from the watch
committee of the borough.
Mr. PILICINGTON presented a petition from the inha-
bitants of Blackburn to the same effect.
Mr. W. PATTEN then, pursuant to notice, moved that
a writ be
Blackburn, in the place of the late member, unseated.
The house would recollect that, about ten days ago, several
propositions were made with regard to the manner in
which the issue of new writs should be dealt with where
committees had unseated members on reports on the
ground of bribery and treating. His hon. friend the mem-
ber for Westminster (Sir John Shelley) took part in the
debate on that occasion, and proposed that in every case
where a member had been unseated for bribery, a com-
mittee of inquiry should be appointed for the purpose of
investigating whether the bribery had been conducted on
an extensive system, or whether it was merely confined to
the cases brought before the committee. The house de-
cided
that in every instance where a committee had un-
seated a member upon the ground of bribery and corrup-
tion, it should be necessary for any member moving for the
issue of a new writ" to give seven days' notice of his inten-
tion. Having waited for the expiration of that time, he
(Mr. W. Patten) had acceded to a request made by gen-
tlemen connected with the borough of Blackburn, which
was in that part of the county of Lancashire which he had
the honour to represent, and should now move that the
writ be issued. No case had been made out in the com-
mittee establishing the fact of a system of bribery at the
late election for the borough. He made inquiries whether
there was any wish on the part of anybody in Blackburn
that the writ should not issue ; the result was that all the
feeling was the other way. Great excitement already pre-
vailed there upon the subject, which according to the uni-
versal opinion would be evaded if the writ was issued, for
really no ground had been laid for longer suspending it.
He concluded by moving that the Speaker do issue his
warrant to the clerk of the Crown to issue a new writ for
the election of one member for the borough of Blackburn.
Sir J. V. SHELLEY opposed the motion, on the ground
that time had not been given for sufficient inquiry, and
moved as an amendment the reference of the matter to a
select committee.
Mr. WILLIAMS seconded the amendment.
Mr. DEEDES, as chairman of the Blackburn committee,
was for altering the law, if necessary, but not for inter-
fering with the power given to a committee under the
existing law.
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped the house would carefully
consider the course it was about to take ; and more espe-
cially he hoped they would do so" after the speech of the
him. gentleman opposite (Mr. Deedes). If he understood
the honourable gentleman rightly, he proposed to reverse
altogether the course of proceeding which the house had
now taken for a very long time. The question was, what
course the house meant to take in these cases ? He was
most anxious that, if possible, the house should take a
consistent course with respect to them, and not have to
judge as to the weight of the particular evidence in each
particular case. (Hear, hear.) He did not at all regret
that the evidence in the Blackburn case was not before
the house, because no doubt the committee had decided
properly, and he did not want to confound with that
evidence his vote on this occasion. (Hear, hear.) There
were certain reports with regard to elections in certain
boroughs, and he supposed the house would not be far
from the truth in supposing that in several of the cases
in which the seats were voided by bribery, that bribery
was only proved in a few cases—that it was the excep-
tion not affecting generally the character of the elec-
tion. In several other cases the house could not very well
refuse to believe that, although only a few persons were
reported to the house as guilty of bribery, the bribery was
very extensive and very general. Suppose the house ap-
pointed a select committe in every one of these cases, the
committees would probably find with regard to several of
the boroughs, that there were no reasons why the writ
should not immediately issue. They would find in other
cases that bribery and corruption were very extensive';
and on their reporting so to the house the act of last session
would come into operation, because the act was not con-
fined to those cases which were reported by select commit-
tees appointed to try election petitions, but extended also
to cases in which select committees were appointed to in-
quire into the existence of corrupt practices. Therefore
*hat act contemplated that there should be select commit-
- ees in certain cases without the power of taking evidence
on oath, to which the hon. gentleman objected. But the
act took no such objection ; it admitted of inquiry by a
committee ; and if the committee reported that a primd
facie case of general bribery and corruption had been made
out, on an address to the Crown, a commission was ap-
pointed. If the act so contemplated, he could not conclude
that in the face of their own act, and in spite of that act,
select committees should never be appointed to inquire
into ,bribery at all. (Hear, hear, hear.) He had men-
tioned that the first course was in al these cases to appoint
select committees, and then there would be no party divi-
sion on the subject ; because the rule would be laid down
that immediately an election was declared void by bribery
a select committee of inquiry into that bribery should be
appointed. Another course was to appoint committees on
petitions from electors, to inquire into corrupt practices,
and in no other cases. The third course was not to appoint
such a committee in any case, and to carry the investiga-
tion no further than by the inquiries made by select com-
mittees on election petitions. The last course, he must
say, was very objectionable, as it was a course which would
screen a great deal of bribery. (Hear, hear, hear.) It was
for the house very much to decide for itself. He did not
wish to make any motion on the .subject. His preference
certainly was for taking the first course. Still if the house
should think fit to take the second coarse, he should sub-
mit to the decision of the house ; but he confessed, if the
house were asked to come to a decision, he should give his
vote on the division in favour of the motion of the hon.
member for Westminster. (Hear.)
Mr. Bouverie, Mr. Barrow, and Mr. Wortley opposed
the amendment, as introducing an inconvenient and dan-
gerous system.
Mr. HEYWOOD said a few words on the part of Black-
burn, and Mr. BASS attempted to say a few words against
it, but was not listened to.
Ultimately, after a brief reply, from Mr. W. PATTEN,
Sir J. SHELLEY yielded to the advice of that hon. gentle-
man, and agreed to withdraw his amendment, upon which
the original motion was agreed to.
BRIDGNORTH ELECTION.

Mr. WHITMORE presented a petition from 325 electors
of Bridgnorth, praying that the house would immediately
issue the writ for the election of a member in the place of
Sir R. Pigot, who had been unseated.
Colonel FORESTER said the discussion on Blackburn
would be similar to the discussion on Bridgnorth. The
committee appointed to inquire into corrupt practices
alleged to have been committed at Bridgnorth reported
that Joseph Mason had been bribed with 101., but without
the knowledge of the sitting members ; that the petition
against one of the members was frivolous and vexatious ;
and the other member was not duly elected. The petition
against one member having failed, and only one case of
bribery being proved though many were gone into, he
thought the house would not hesitate to order the issue of
the writ. He moved that the Speaker be directed to issue
his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, for the issue of a
new writ for the election of one member to serve in Parlia-
ment for the borough of Bridgnorth, in the room of Sir R.
Pigot whose election had been declared void by a select
committee of that house.
Sir J. SHELLEY said it appeared to him this case stood
in a very different position to that of Blackburn. The
electors, by petition, alleged that gross bribery and intimi-
dation were carried on at the last and at previous elections
for Bridgnorth, and that the public-houses were generally
open at the last election. He thought it would be very
little use giN ing time, if, when a petition was sent up to
the house, they did not appoint a committee to inquire into
its allegations. He would, therefore, move the amendment
of which he had given notice, that a select committee be
appointed to consider the allegations contained in the peti-
tion from certain electors of Bridgnorth (presented 10th
March), complaining of corrupt practices at the last and
former elections of Bridgnorth.
Sir B. HALL seconded the motion.
Mr. BOUVERLE was satisfied that there was no reason
for the appointment of al committee, and he would vote
for the motion of the hon. and gallant officer opposite, as
he could see no substantial ground of difference between
this case and that of Blackburn.
Mr. F. FRENCH did not intend to sanction the suspen-
sion of constitutional rights merely for the sake of some
problematical possibility. He thought the hon. member
for Westminster asked the house to go beyond what might
fairly be termed its ordinary powers.
Mr. COBDEN wished to know if there were a dozen
members in that house who were really ignorant of the
true state of affairs in the borough of Bridgnorth ? There
was a little book in the hands of every member, called the
"Parliamentary Companion "—an authoritative book in
that house. This book, after stating that Bridgnorth sent
two members to Parliament, and contained 747 registered
electors, alleged that the borough was in some degree under
the influence of the Whitmore family. (Hear.) That was
the mild way in which Mr. Dod made np his genteel vo-
lume. From what was said on oath before the committee
by Mr. O'Callaghan—(laughter)—no, the Hon. Mr. Cade-
gan, the member who was unseated—(no)—the unsuccess-
ful candidate—pretty nearly the same thing. In the evi-
dence he found that Mr. Cadogan gave a description of the
borough of Bridgnorth. He said—" I certainly shall not
stand again for Bridgnorth unless the family of the Whit-
mores assent to a Liberal being brought there. Mr. Whit-,
more could get any one into a seat for Bridgnorth ; he
could return his own footman if he pleased." (Hear, and
laughter.) That was stated on oath by an hon. ge'ntleman
who canvassed the borough, but the hon. and learned gen-
tleman who presided over the election committee, and who
had spoken on the subject, had forgotten to give the house
that piece of information. That hon. and learned gentleman
was anxious that inquiry should not be pursued into the
conduct of the Bridgnorth constituency. The hon. and
lwarmeearnied, ember talked of bribery and treating, but he
o. to know
h
preitation was w ether the house could consider that re-
a reality, when it was alleged that a family
living in the neighbourhood of Bridgnorth could return
whom they izsmed that h
to
(Divide.) He void,"
notouse, even their footman.
house had pro consent to a division until the
had been raibed this
sed, if the cotter a little further. A doubt
the possibility of gettingmmittee were granted, as to
, evidence. The honourable
member did not
Why,
by witnesses who were
evidence was to be got at.
Why, out anTl paid.
their expenses for attendance.
good
an Zotealommittee of the
for bringing out
House of Commons was as
facts as he knew of. He bad a letter
person at Bridgnorth. (Name.) fromwotia
srtespectable
on his
highly-respectable person, who would attend before
Petition was not
authority as a member of that house that the laettete
great influence
from a highl
a committee. He said the reason why the
signed was because of the
more numerously
of Mr. Whitmore, the efforts of the publicans to stop •
tion of other electors to Y -
quiry, and the indisposition
publish
committee were granted he
their owndisgrace. If this
tter. The letter concluded by stating
that produce the le •
and intimidationg
that plenty of evidence of bribery
be brought forward. The names and the amount of bribes
were all registered in a book, and it would be proved that
out of their shops for net voting
persons had been turned
bad
a case
as that of Sudbury
as required. He believed as
would be established against Bridgnorth, if the facts were
inquired into. i • I They had the evidence
of the Hon. Mr. F.
Cadogan that Mr. Whitmore's evidence was so great that, if
footman. His
he pleased, he could even return his own
argument was that they ought not to have members in that
house returned by undue influence. He hoped, as eyes
the
of the country were upon them, and the facts of bribery
easily obtainable, that the house would not
let the mat ter
rest where it was.
Sir J. GRAHAM felt with the hon. member for the

West Riding that the eyes of the public were fixed upon
that house with reference to the bribery at elections; and
11}...A... had the motion in relation to the Blackburn election not
~._.—S 'wS;).„l.3een withdrawn, he should have been disposed to vote for
..:
.'sl!ir,-...---7--,. 71:073,1,s would not trouble the house at any length as to
Ys` oz.:, ;_ , ... 1.7 Ttafions which would induce him to give his vote for the
',E -1....:-,.
_, 4.4 umg ef the writ, because he had already stated to the
r 3..:.„.,
i~..,_
~
~. f :.„,.. .3, eitv,__
ae prepared to vote, in all cases where
~ ~._,-.. 1,c.,. 7 tnciiii..7irrilt,vo tie seated on a charge of bribery, for farther
p::...t., .-- i 'eLrect°l4 that dee C.0)1(111.Ct of the constituency. To give termination
,r,..,
~,,_.;!_,,...,,.. :,..,46.t., .
of the hen.
raembe ,f he should have voted for the
Ar '444 ;Lr.:,'''r,
‘,.411
er had withdxg•lnx that motion, eetminster ;but the hon.
and he could not do I
I) 6 -
84 "