The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-14 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING-, FEBRUARY 14, 1854.

inquiry has taken place there seems to be at least a general
opinion with respect to freemen, that they are a class '
more particularly liable to be worked upon by bribery and
corruption, and I propose therefore not disfranchising
those at present existing, but to prevent any such class for
the future from coming in. Ido not wish to enter into
any details of the bill now, but rather wish that the house
should consider those details when they have the bill
before them. lam well aware that no explanations that
I could give would enable the house to form so complete
an idea of the measure as they can obtain by a careful
study of the bill itself, and I only hope that they will give
it their fullest attention. The bill has been drawn with no
reference to any party influence, but with a view solely to
obtaining the best general representation of the country.
The hon. member for West Surrey said that the whole
plan of this bill is intended to advance democracy. I differ
entirely in this from the hon. gentleman. (Hear, hear.)
I remember perfectly well those predictions in 1831—the
King was to leave his throne—the House of Lords was to
belabolished completely—every sort of calamity was to fall
upon us. For my own part, Sir, if lam not mistaken, the
people, during the time the reformed Parliament has been
in existence, have been more attached to the institutions
of the country, more decidedly well-affected to the throne,
than they were in times before. (Cheers.) One thing I
remember particularly. In the close of the year 1819 the
Minister came down to Parliament with six bills, which he
introduced into this house. One was to prevent public
meetings, another to gag the press, another intended to re-
strain some other popular liberty—all measures, as Lord
Castlereagh expressed it, of strict coercion, intended to
repress what he considered the growing disaffection of
the country. Let the hon. gentleman be persuaded that,
as my noble friend the Home Secretary has said in one of
his celebrated speeches, there were two kinds of re-
volutionists—one who seek by tumult and violence
directly to change the form of government, and those
who, by opposing well-considered and useful plans
of reform, impede all moderate progress, and thus
cause those violent changes which they themselves must
deprecate. My belief is, that the present measure is what
my noble friend at the head of the Government has in an-
ticipation described it to be, " a liberal and conservative
measure." That I believe is the description which fully
agrees with its character. With regard to the question
put to me as to the numbers of the constituency, I really
have not ventured to bring any calculation before the house.
It was so difficult to calculate how many of certain classes
now have votes, and it would be impossible to tell what the
future number would be. _ _ _

Mr. W. D. SEYMOUR inquired whether the two years
and a-half residence was to l,e in the same house or in the
same borough ?
Lord J. RUSSELL.—In the same borough, but not ne-
cessarily in the same house.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought that, oa the whole, the
bill, with some amendments, would be a very excellent
measure. The next thing the noble lord had to do was to
convince the country that he and his Government were in
earnest, and that they were determined to pass a bill to
improve the representation of the people. They must on no
account listen to the evil counsels with which ho was, no
doubt, beset—to postpone the discussion of this measure
until the question of war or peace was decided, or the war
ended. But who could tell when a European war such as
we were now threatened with would end ? Suppose the
measure had been more mild, would hon. gentlemen
opposite have supported it ? What did they settle to
do with the noble lord's measure in 1852, which was
really thought notlworth discussing by the Liberal party?
He perceived from the noble lord's proposal that several of
the Whig boroughs, left untouched by the Reform
Bill of 1831 and 1832, were proposed now to be disfran-
chised. It was said the Reform Bill of 1831 and
1832 was corrupt, because Caine was one of the bo-
roughs left in by it, but now it was proposed to
disfranchise Caine, as well as Richmond, in Yorkshire,
Arundel, and other Whig boroughs. This he thought was
a fact speaking well for the intention of Government.
(Hear.) Ho hoped there would be no attempt to postpone
the measure, but that Government would let it take its
chance in that house, and trust the rest to the people of
this country. He held in his hand a list of gentlemen
who met at Lord Derby's in 1852, after the " little Reform
Bill" was introduced by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell).
Upwards of 100 were present ; and he had now before him
a list of all their names. (A laugh.) He would not, how-
ever, read the names, as the house was well enabled to
guess who would be there—namely, the friends of the right
hon. gentlemen who by some accident got into office the
year before last. (Laughter.) With regard to that list,
he would read a paragraph accompanying it—" At a meet-
ing held at Lord Derby's house yesterday, the policy to be
pursued by the Protectionists with respect to the Reform
Bill was discussed, and it was unanimously determined to
oppose the second reading of the bill." That was just
what the other side proposed to do now, and the more so
as they had now an impending war thrown into the scale
to assist them. (Laughter.) If they opposed the bill of
1852, of course they would oppose the larger bill now pro-
posed. (Laughter.) But all the noble lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell) had to do was to convince the country he was in ear-
nest, and to render the measure popular in the country
depended upon how wide the noble lord opened the door
to the industrial classes of the community. (Cheers.) He
thought the noble lord had not opened that door wide
enough. The two years and a-half residence proposed by
the noble lord would in some cases be in effect three years
and a-half, inasmuch as a man might not take up his resi-
dence until just before the registration took place, and,
consequently, his claim could not be considered until a
year had elapsed. It would be seen, then, that this
clause would exclude a large number from the posses-
sion of the franchise. He approved of the proposal to
extend the number of metropolitan members, and he
hoped the noble lord (Lord John Russell) would receive,
if ho was in earnest, the support of the country. The noble
lord might rest assured that he must depend upon that
support and upon the exertions of Government to give
effect to that justice to the working classes which he (Mr.
Duncombe) maintained had been much too long withheld.
(Cheers.)

Mr. E. BALL could not allow the debate to close with-
out expressing his gratitude to the noble lord the member
for London for his proposal to give the London University
the right of being represented in the House of Commons.
Ho thought the representation of the country could not
he better advanced than by conferring the franchise upon
the educated portion of the community, and, on behalf of
the University of London, he begged to thank the noble
lord for the privilege he proposed to confer upon it.
Mr. HEYWOOD observed that in the county of Lan-
caster the division of the 10/. householders would about

double the number of electors, and at the same time it
would, of course, double the expense of elections, as twice
the number of electors would have to be brought to the poll
upon each occasion. . .

Mr. MURROUGH complained that in the proposal of
the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) no step was taken to dis-
pense with the property qualification of members. After
instancing the names of several illustrious statesmen and
authors who had been members of that house in former
years, he asked if there were not now, upon both sides of
the house, hon. members who had served their country
with ability to the public and honour to themselves, who,
on the threshold of theirpolitical career, could by no chance
have possessed the property qualification? The effect of
the property qualification was frequently to unseat the
duly elected representative of the people, and to defraud a
constituency of its franchise and privileges. Without
dwelling upon the character of a law which required a man
to hold a seat in the House of Commons upon no better
recommendation than the adequacy of his patrimony, he
contended that the electors themselves were treated with
the grossest injustice by such a provision, inasmuch as
they selected the man they deemed the best fitted to re-
present them, and none but the most venal could form
an opinion of the adequacy of his means. In many cases
the property qualification acted in this way,—the man
who was chosen by the electors as the advocate of popular
rights, after possessing his seat for a few weeks, found him-
self ousted by an election committee, while a man whose
principles were disapproved by the electors, and who pos-
sessed ineither their esteem nor respect, stepped into the
seat as their chosen representative. Unless the noble lord
(Lord J. Russell) made a provision in the bill to remedy
the defect of which he (Mr. Murrough) complained, he
should feel it his duty to propose the introduction of such
a clause. Though it might be said that at present no agi-
tation was going forward upon this subject, he was con-
vinced that the people of this country would be greatly
disappointed unless it was brought forward, and he felt
that it would be playing a most dangerous game indeed to
teach the people of England that they were to expect no-
thing save that which resulted from a successful agitation.
Mr. MAGUIRE thought that in one feature the bill pro-
posed by the noble lord the member for London applied as
much to Ireland as to England, and he begged the attention
of the house while he referred to it for a moment. The
feature in the scheme of the noble lord to which he alluded
was sufficient to alarm both countries, but was most preg-
mmt with danger as regarded Ireland. He referred to the
repeal of that provision which compelled a member taking
office under Government to go before his constituents be-
' fore he could again enter Parliament. To show how the
repeal of that statute was fraught with danger even to Ire-
land, he alluded to a meeting at Dublin of 60 members of
Parliament, elected by their constituents at great sacrifice,
who at that meeting made a solemn declaration binding
themselves to a certain line of policy sanctioned by the
great mass of the Irish people. Since that period several
of those gentlemen had ac( epted office under Government,
and on doing so, under the statute at present existing,
they were compelled to vacate their seats and go before their
constituents for re-election. But if the measure proposed
by the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) passed, and the pro-
vision to which he referred existed no longer, what check
would there be against corruption ? A hundred members
might bind themselves to a particular policy, but if the
existing check against corruption were done away with,
every man of easy virtue would take advantage of it, sell
himself to the Government, and abandon his constituents.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He considered that there
could not be two characters more distinct than the inde-
pendent member of Parliament and the servant of Govern.
meat, and he should do his utmost to oppose the repeal of
what he believed to be a most sanitary chock upon cor-
ruption and treachery.
The SPEAKER then put the question, and leave was
given to introduce both bills, which were accordingly read
a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the
13th of March.

for Montrose. A great change had taken place in the prac-
tice of the house since the precedents to which the hon.
and learned gentleman the member for Youghal had re-
ferred. At that time there was no limit as to number,
and the practice of appointing small committees in the na-
ture of judicial committees had not then been adopted.
He thought it improper, in a case of this kind,,to appoint
even so large a number as fifteen. The charges which had
been made were such as ought to be judicially and carefully
inquired into. (Hear, hear.) He was sure that the only
wish of the hon. gentleman opposite was to have la tho-
rough investigation, but he had not been long in the house
and had not had an opportunity of watching, as other
hon. members had, the changes which had taken place in
its practice. It was for this reason that he now called his
attention to the fact, that what was in accordance with
precedent in the year 1834, would be contrary to all recent
precedent if it were adopted now.
Mr. LUC. S said the mere appointment of a committee
was not sufficient to effect the object which the hon. and
learned gentleman had in view. It had been decided that
the honour of the house required that the complaints
which had been made should be subjected to a full and
searching investigation. Those complaints included not
only the specific facts mentioned, ley Mr. Kelly and Dr.
Gray, but the general charge made against one hundred
members of that house by the article in the Times newspa-
per. (Hear.) If that charge were true, multiplied offences
had been committed of a very secret character, and such as
were very difficult of investigation. What course had the
house generally adopted when inquiring into secret offences
of that kind? If they wished to inquiry into allegations
of bribery—in reference, for instance, to such a borough
as St. Albans—they took care, concurrently with the ap-
pointment of a committee or a commission, to pass an act
of indemnity. (Hear, hear.) If they wished to get rid of
the corruption complained of by this article, they must
adopt the same course, and must place the witnesses who
might be able and willing to give evidence before the com-
mittee in a situation to do so without risk to themselves.
(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say that any party
wished to smuggle up the case ; but their own conduct in
other instances was the best proof that a measure for the
protection of witnesses must be passed, in order that those
witnesses might be forthcoming. He had an additional
reason for making this suggestion to the house, in some-
thing which had come to his knowledge since the former
discussion on this subject. He had certain newspapers
brought under his notice which had at first led him to ap-
prehend that ho might possibly have done some injustice
that class of Irish representatives of whom he had expressed
an unfavourable opinion ; for he had seen in the columns
of those newspapers that Government appointments were
" legally saleable," and that the Times itself had been a
party to such transactions. (Hear, hear.) He had copied
from that journal certain advertisements which seemed to
him to deserve the attention of the house, if they honestly
wished to inquire into the charge which had been made,
that offices were actually sold. (Hear, hear.) In the Times
of the 11th January this advertisement appeared :
" Douceur-2001. will be paid at once to any lady or gen-
tleman who will legally procure for the advertiser (a young
man of business habits, and who writes well—(laughter)—
a permament Government situation worth 2001. per annum.
The strictest secrecy will be observed in the matter.—Ad-
dress L. S. D., Post-office, Cork." (Laughter.) On the 28th
of January there appeared, among others, an advertisement
offering " a doceur of 1001. for five years, for a Government
or other situation, legally saleable, of not less than
3001. per annum, by a gentleman aged 48, who with-
draws from one of the liberal professions; strictest secrecy
may be relied on, and security, if required, in leasehold
property—Address, J.M.,l2lEdgeware-roa.d,Paddington.'
Another advertisement, which appeared on the 4th of Feb.,
offered 101. for a situation in any of the Government or
public offices, as messenger, light porter, or gatekeeper ;
and the Civil Service Gazette of the 28th Jan. contained
an offer of 5001. cash for a permanent public appointment,
with a yearly salary of from 2501, to 3001. (Hear.) He had
been curious to see whether there were any advertisements
offering places for sale. He had found one in which the
advertiser professed to be able to procure a situation of
1001. a year 'in an old established business "—(Laughter)
—but coupling this with the fact, which was stated imme-
diately afterwards, that the duties were " from ten until
three," he must say that this looked very like an offer to
diepose of a Government situation. (Laughter.) He had
been anxious also to see whether there was any difference
in the number of these advertisements when Parliament
was up and when it was in session. (Hear.) He had ascer-
tained that during the whole month of January the Times
contained 12 such advertisements; and in the first week of
Feb. no fewer than 15. So that they had, in fact, consider-
ably increased after the meeting of Parliament. (Hear.)
According, to " Russell on Crimes," the buying and selling
of offices was an offence indictable at common law, and by
the 49th of Geo. 111. the public aion of any advertisement
containing proposals for that purpose made the party pub-
lishing liable to a penalty of 501. (Hear.) Within one week
from the commencement of the 'session the Times had
brought itself, in 15 instances, within the spirit of that
enactment. Nobody could doubt, after reading these ad-
vertisements, that the buying and selling of offices did
take place. The fact was put before the public in the
newspapers in the most glaring and offensive form ; and the
disgraceful character of the transaction was attested by the
stipulation made, in every instance, that strict secrecy was
to be observed. (Hoar.) They could not hope, therefore,
to obtain the information which they sought, without the
act of indemnity which he had suggested ; and he ear-
nestly appealed to the noble lord opposite to state whether
he would, by bringing forward such a measure, take the
only step which could make the inquiry effective.
Mr. GOULBURN supported the view of Sir Geo. Grey
as to the propriety of having a small committee, of which
there should be no quorum, so that all the members would
be appointed under a solemn obligation to listen to all the
evidence, and to attend from day to day until the charges
made, and which affected the honour of members of that
house, should be supported or disproved. They had already
ample powers to indemnify any witness in respect of any
statement before a committee of that house which might
otherwise subject him to a prosecution, without waiting
for the measure which the hon. gentleman opposite pro-
posed.
Sir J. PAKINGTON was also of opinion that any com-
mittee which might be appointed to investigate this mat-
t ter should sit as a judicial committee—that no quorum
should be appointed—anti that every member should at-
tend every sitting. In order to attain this end, 20 would
be an inconveniently large number. In a case somewhat
analogous, in which the late Mr. O'Connell was concerned
relating to the Carlow election, the number of the com-
mittee was 11; and in another case, in the year 1835, the
number was 15. Neither of these cases, however, was put
as a case of "privilege," and he wished to ask the Speaker
whether the fact of this being so put obliged them to revert
to the precedent of 1834?
Lord H. VANE trusted the committee would not be
constituted like one upon which he had served some years
ago. In that case, a certain number of members had been
appointed by the house, but all the members represented
counties, and some others had the right of attending when
they pleased.
The SPEAKER said the committee to which the noble
lord had alluded was a standing committee, appointed at
the commencement of every session. It was called the
committee of privileges, and was composed of a certain
number of gentlemen nominated by the house, with all the
members representing counties and gentlemen of the long
robe, making up almost as many members as the house
itself. It had, however, very often happened of late years
that matters had been referred, not to the committee of
privileges, but to a committee of privileges, which was a
select committee nominated by the house. In 1834 it was
the practice to constitute committees of as many as twenty
members, or even more ; but a standing order had since
limited the number to 15, and still more recently it had
been the practice to appoint to all committees of a judicial
character a very small number of members, of whom every
one was required to be present at every sitting. He thought
this case would fall quite within that pra ttice. (Hear.)
Mr.E.DENISONT suggested that, consulting precedence,
they would reduce the number of the committee to five,
and recommended, further, that the committee of five
should be nominated, likewise, in accordance with the pre-
cedent, by the committee of selection.
Mr. HILDYARD contended that the house could not
indemnify a witness who had violated the law of the land
—(hear, hear)—a doctrine which he felt bound absolutely
to deny, lest the country should suppose they had any such
privilege. The witness, indeed, might be able to decline
criminating himself, and might, when asked if he had been
guilty of trafficking in office, decline answering a question
his answer to which would subject him to punishment ; but
the house could not screen one who had expressly broken
the law of the land.

Mr. F. FRENCH thought this question was being ar-
gued on what ho should call Red Tape principles. Admit-
ting the desirability of their having a committee, it was to
the ability, not to the number, of those upon it that the
house should look. (Hear.) He asked why, if they were
disposed to have a real and searching inquiry, they should
not have a commission instead of a committee ? And why
not pass a bill of indemnity. If the truth was that mem-
bers had disposed of patronage, and that the Government
had had cognizance of such dealings, then there should be
the fullest inquiry; and, with a view to the fullest in-
quiry, there should issue a commission. This was the only
way in which the persons on whom this charge would be
thrown could be freed from suspicion. He said, on the
part of the Irish members—" We dare you now to a full
and ample inquiry." The responsibility would be on the
Government, not on members, if that inquiry did not as-
sume the form most likely to arrive at the truth.
Mr. BUTT observed that there were two propositions
before the house. One that this committee should be re-
duced in number, another that its appointment should be
referred to the committee of selection. He had no wish but
that this inquiry should he as full as possible, and that it
should be conducted in such a way that the people both of
England and Ireland would consider it to have been so. It
would not, he said, be of any use to appoint five gentlemen
unless their names were such as would give satisfaction.
Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL was not aware that among
the Irish members on his side of the house there was any
objection to any form or any extent of inquiry whatsoever.
Sir J. YOUNG explained Lord J. Russell's absence by
the fatigue incident to his long speech on the Reform mea-
sure he had brought in that evening. As regarded the
proposal for an indemnity bill was not needed. The house
had itself ample power to protect the witnesses brought
before it. The sole question was as to the number of
which this committee should consist ; there was no ques-
tion as to whether the nomination should be by the com-
mittee of selection. As to the number, it had, in the
recent practice of the house, been reduced, with great
advantage, from the larger to the smaller number. The
number was the only question.
In reply to Mr. PHILLIMORE,
Sir J. YOUNG repeated that the house had ample
power to protect its witnesses.
Mr. ROEBUCK doubted this doctrine. If he indicted
a man who had confessed before a committee of the house
that he had trafficked in the sale of office, he suspected the
house could not interfere to shield that man, or to protect
him from legal consequences.
Mr. BUTT was willing to withdraw his motion for a
committee of twenty members, substituting as his num-
ber, fifteen—which was agreed to. Hethen gave notice of
the nomination of a committee of that number this day.
The house adjourned at half-past nine.

THE Cold, TAX.—Yesterday an interesting return to
the House of Commons was printed respecting the coal
tax. It appears that the amount of local or municipal
dues collected on the importation of coals or coke into
the several ports of the United Kingdom was, in 1851,
243 2131. Ils. 9d., and in 1852, 240,5771. 3s. id. The
taxes on the exportation of coals exported in 1851 was
48,4831. 12s. 10d., and in 1852, 47,2911. 19s. 2d. The
tax on coals and coke brought by railway into the ports
of the United Kingdom was 17,5331. 4s. 7d. in 1851,
and 26,516/. 16s. sd. in 1852.
DEPARTURES FOR AUSTRALIA.—The departures from
London for the Australian colonies during the part week
show a decrease. They have comprised altogether four
vessels—three to Port Philip, with an aggregate burden
of 1,331 tons, and one to Sydney of 946 tons. Their
total capacity was consequently 2,277 tons. The rates
of freight exhibit a further tendency to decline.

were in possession of any information with regard to the
alleged bombardment of St. Nieh Ala, and the descent of
Russian ships on the Circasian coast ?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied in the negative.
THE FIRE IN SOHO.

Admiral WALCOTT called the attention of the noble
lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department to
the facts elicited at the coroner's inquest, held on Friday
last, the 10th inst., on the 1053 of eight lives by fire in
Princes-street, Soho, viz., that the parish engine
of St. Anne's, Soho, which ought, under the provisions of
the 14th Geo. 111., cap. 78, secs. 74 and 75, to be kept in
a known place, and to be readily accessible in cases of
fire, was not available on the occasion of the late fire,
owing to the want of proper powers under the said act
to engage any person to keep the fire-engine in order ;
and asked whether any means would be take❑ to remedy
the deficiencies of the said act, and appoint persons to
keep parish fire-engines in London in efficient and ready
working order.
Lord PALMERSTON said the circumstance had al-
ready been brought under his notice, and it certainly
appeared to him'that the conduct of the church warden
had been both flagrant and extraordinary. They were
in possession of an excellent fire engine ; but a year ago
they thought proper to discharge the keeper, and to lock
it up so that nobody c old get at it. He did not know
whether there was any law that could reach such con-
, duct, but if there was, the honourable and gallant mem-
ber might rely upon it being put in force. (Hear, hear.)