The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-04 00:00:00

asked—
" In the conduct of your election did it occur to you
looking to the character of the voters of Chatham, that
whoever the man might have promised, he might not
finally determine to give his vote until, in point of fact
he recorded it at the poll ?—lt did not, as I said yesterday_
I believed those who promised me their votes would give
me their votes.
" Did it never occur to you that some of those who
promised you their votes might have promised the other
side ?—I never suspected it.
" Looking to the character of the voters, did it never
occur to you, in a large constituency like Chatham, that it
was possible many of them who promised their votes to
you might have promised them on the other side ? I
firmly believed that the promises given both to my oppo-
nent and to myself would be carried out."
He was also asked if he saw the distinction between a
candidate soliciting places for the Admiralty for persons
he expected to vote for him, and a member making an
application after the vote had been given. He answered—
` I do not see the distinction ; indeed I do not, because
I consider the promise as good as the performance of it."
To show the house how Sir Frederick carried out this
principle in practice he might mention that when he called
on a voter, and found he had promised to vote to any other
candidate, he never solicited that person further for his
vote, considering a promise to vote against him as binding
as a promise to vote in his favour. (Hear, hear.) After
Greathead had given his promise to vote for Sir. F. Smith
he was canvassed by a Mr. Crockford, in favour of Mr.
Romaine, who had by that time become a candidate.
Greathead, it appeared, was under some particular obli-
gation to Crockford, and in consideration of that obliga-
tion, he promised to vote for Mr. Romaine, and after
Mr. Romaine had left the field he promised Crockford
to vote for Sir James Stirling. It appeared from
Greathead's evidence that he had entered into some
negotiation for disposing of his business, which he expected
would be completed before the election, and that he
believed he should not be in the borough to record his
vote for either candidate at the time of the election.
All this time Sir F. Smith was utterly ignorant of
these circumstances, and, indeed, he was not in the
slightest degree aware of them until he heard them
given in evidence before the committee. On the 10th of
May Greathead applied to Sir F. Smith to procure a situa-
tion in the Post-office for his son, who, it appeared was a
journeyman tailor in London in a bad state of health. Sir
F. Smith having previously, as he thought, secured the
vote of Greathead, and never imagining that he was doing
anything at all illegal or irregular, applied to the Govern-
ment for a situation in the Post-office for Greathead's son,
which situation he obtained on the 20th of May. So little
idea was entertained by any of the parties that there was
anything illegal in this transaction, that no secret was
made of it by either of the parties concerned. On the 17th
of June, Greathead's negotiation about the disposal of his
business having gone off, and fording himself obliged to re-
main in Chatham, he gave his vote in favour of Sir F.
Smith. Now, the question which the committee had to
consider was whether, in the circumstances to which he
had just referred, there was something which brought Sir
F. Smith within the province of the act against bribery,
and which would compel them to report unfavourably
against him. The committee examined both Sir Frederick
Smith and Greathead. Greathead was asked—
" -Upon your oath, were you induced to vote for Sir F.
Smith in consequence of any promise or any expectation
that he held out to you that you would get a place for your
son in the Post-office or elsewhere ?—I most solemnly de-
clare that I gave my vote to Sir F. Smith irrespective of
anything.
" Were you on Sir F. Smith's committee?—No.
" You utterly disavow any bargain or contract -With Sir
F. Smith ?—Decidedly.
" No conditions whatever ?—Not any."
Now, he appealed to the experience of hon. members, whe-
ther, in canvassing a large constituency, there was any
thing which they had found more difficult than to prevent
persons making applications to them for favours on such
occasions ? Sir F. Smith, who, as many hon. members
knew, was a straightforward, manly, honourable person,
and who had no notion that, when a promise to vote had
been given, it was possible for the voter to recede from it,
made the application for the situation without the slightest
idea that he was thereby endangering his seat. (Hear,
hear.) The committee had evidently some difficulty in de-
ciding the question as to whether this transaction consti-
tuted bribery on the part of Sir F. Smith or not, and ac-
cordingly they framed their report in a manner which,
while he admitted it affected Sir F. Smith's seat, was more
directed to the bribery which was connected with Great-
head and Greathead's influence than with the acts of bribery
committed by Sir F. Smith himself. The house would ob-
serve that in the guarded expressions used by the commit-
tee in their report they did not allege that Joseph Great-
head had been bribed by Sir F. Smith, but by a situation
obtained for his son by Sir F. Smith. He (Sir F. Thesiger)
considered that no bribery, in the proper sense of that
term, had been committed by Sir F. Smith. The 7th sec-
tion of the 2d George 11., chap. 24, provided that if
any person himself, or any person employed by him,
should by any gift or reward, or by any promise, agree-
ment, or security for any gift or reward, corrupt, or pro-
cure any person to vote at elections, the offender should for-
feit 5001., and incur certain disabilities. It was necessary
therefore that Sir F. Smith should have been shown to
. have corrupted, or procured the vote of a party by the
'or gift of some office under the Government.
He (Sir F. Thesiger) had given this subject very anxious
consideration, and if he had been a member of the commit-
tee he must have come to the conclusion that no case of
bribery had been established against Sir F. Smith. He
would further say, that he was satisfied no court in this
kingdom would hold that where a voter, without any in-
ducement or improper influence, had promised his vote,
and had adhered to that promise, anything which inter-
vened, and which the voter himself declared had not the
slightest influence in inducing him to give his vote, could
be regarded as corrupting, or procuring the vote of such
person, within the intention of the act of Parliament.
Supposing, however, the committee were right in coming
to the conclusion that Sir F. Smith had been guilty of
bribery in respect of this transaction, he thought it was
clear that it was not the intention or wish of the commit-
tee that any proceedings should be taken against Sir F.
Smith. He conceived this was satisfactorily shown by the
very guarded language of the report. He would put it to
the horse; then, whether they ought to undertake the office
of prosecutor unless very gross and flagrant corruption had
t
evidenceurlla bee and unless it was perfectly clear that Upon
the
which could adduced a Jury would convict
the person accused. It was no light matter for the house
to determine upon a prosecution of this kind, because there
would necessarily be a very strong prejudice against the
person placed upon his trial, for it would be assumed that
the house had
evidence, and thato thecarefully weighed and considered the
as to render it imperative circumstances wore of such a cha-
racter
for the viudicationo
upon the house to inter-
ferehear.) He would furthierits honour
and
integrity. (Hear,
stigma they would affix ask the house to consider the
n the character of a highly
honourable man by determiningsirlF to institute such a pro-
secution. (Hear.) If
theniith. had been guilty of
gross and scandalous corruption,would have been
quite right that a prosecution should instituted against
him ; but he (Sir F. Thesiger) could not brinee himself to
• believe that Sir F. Smith had had
ofd tlsligli st intention
corruptiont or
to infringe the law. In any case
perjury he (Sir F. Thesiger) would be quite flagrant
ready•
to proceedings for punishing the offender, whethr to assent
a poor man or occupied an exalted position ; but he
earnestly implored the house not to adopt hastily a course
which would at once be a condemnation of Sir F. Smith,
'• unless they thought there were other circumstances in the
I , case than those which he (Sir F. Thesiger) had felt it his
duty to bring before them. If the object of the hon.
member for Westminster was punishment, ho (Sir F.
Thesiger) could only sady. that Sir F. Smith had been already
Hear, hear.) He had lain under
most severely: punishe
the heaviest imputations ever since the hon. baronet (Sir
had given
J. Shelley) notice of his motion, he had lost the
seat in that house which had been the object
eoabijgeecrt)
boefliehvisedptrihdaet
and his ambition, and he (Sir F.
his punishment had been quite sufficient to leadcavn
carefully to abstain from any transactions whateerdidwaiteths
electors beyond mere canvassing. He
(Sir F. Thesiger)
would put it to honourable gentleman whether there was
one member in that house who, after his return, had
not been repeatedly applied to to obtain situations either
for persona who bad voted for him or for their rola-
Witas there any honourable member
a ...4.1.1.-41....11,..rearn.

teamed such appointments? Now, if Sir F. Smith had
had more experience of elections and of canvassing—if he
had been as cautious as many members of that House—(a
laugh)—he would have abstained from making any promise
at all, and when the election was over he would have ob-
tained the situation for the person who had applied to him
through an electoral friend. (Hear, hear.) He considered,
that with regard to the question f morality, it could not
make the slightest difference whether the application was
made during the election and the situation was obtained
afterwards, or whether the application was made subse-
quently to the elections. He (Sir F. Thesiger) would be
glad to hear some statement on the part of the Government
of the view which they took of the case.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS observed, that it was a notorious
fact that the great mass of the members of that House ob-
tained their seats by means which he thought much more
objectionable than those which were alleged to have been
used by Sir F. Smith. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Williams)
considered that the house ought to adopt a measure which
would render it penal for any parties to have recourse to
bribery, treating, promise, or any other means of influenc-
ing voters. A great many members had been unseated
during the present session, but he believed that, with the
exception of Sir F. Smith, they had all been acquitted of
any personal knowledge of bribery ; yet many of those
gentlemen had admitted before the committee that they
had paid thousands of pounds for gaining their seats,
although they need not have expended as many hundreds.
(Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. W. Williams) must say that he
looked upon this charge against Sir F. Smith as one of a
very light character as compared with many others which
had been made—(hear, hear)—and he would suggest to the
hon. member for Westminster that he should not press his
motion, but should endeavour to take means to repress the
system in future.
Mr. BRAMSTON wished, as a member of the committee
upon whose report Sir F. Smith had been unseated, to say
a few words on this subject. At the same time, he doubted
whether the house would think it right that he, as a mem-
ber of the committee, should defend the course they had
taken. (Some cries of " No, no.") The committee up-
stairs was a judicial tribunal, and that house was not a
court of appeal. It therefore appeared to him that, if he
were to address himself to the house with respect to the
reasons which induced the committee to come to their e-
cision, he would be speaking coram non judice. Ate
same time, he might say that, although the committee had
reported only upon one case, they had considered the whole
ea .dence brought before them, and upon that evidence
they came to the decision they iad adopted. He thought
it was proved to the committee by various witnesses that
it was quite impossible for any candidate to stand for
Chatham without giving promises to voters ; and the ques-
tion was whether, in forming constituencies of theme
character of the Chatham and other dockyard uliar
titu-
encies, that house had not been parties to the crime—(hear,
hear)—whether they had not by their legislation tended to
corrupt and destroy the character of the dockyard consti-
tuencies—(hear, hear), and laid a snare which no candidate
who presented himself to such constituencies could fail to
fall into. (Hear, hear.) He thought it was the duty of
the house to consider whether they might not take some
means to correct this evil, but he did not think that under
present circumstances it would be consistent with the dig-
nity of the house to order the prosecution of a man for
a crime to which they had themselves been privy. (Hear,
hear.)
Mr. PELLATT said, that as a member of the committee
he must say that, although he should like to see tho motion
withdrawn, if it should be pressed he would feel bound, on
abstract principles of justice, to vote in its favour. He
thought the circumstances which had occurred at Chatham
were of a trivial nature compared with the corruption
which had existed.in other places, and the house might im-
pose an amount of punishment greater than the offence de-
served. (Hear, hear.) He considered that the house
should deal broadly with the whole question, and punish
both agents and the receivers of bribes. It was quite plain,
however, that Sir F. Smith had laboured under the mono-
mania that he might grant favours to voters during the
election even without making himself liable to a prosecu-
tion for bribery. As the committee entertained a doubt
as to the state of the law, they had required the learned
counsel to discuss that question ; and they had come to
the conclusion that it was a case coming within the opera-
tion of the Bribery Act. (Hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE, who spoke amid loud calls for a
division, said that his opinion on the case was strictly em-
bodied in the terms of the report ' --it was that Sir F.
Smith did not intend to bribe Mr. Greathead, and that Mr.
Greathead's conduct had been infamous. He could not
conceive a case in which it would be more dangerous for
the house to recommend the prosecution of a candidate on
account of bribery. The committee, feeling doubtful as to
the law, had certainly had recourse to the learned counsel
for information, but, if the house had the means of judg-
ing of all the circumstances of tho case, he was convinced
they would come to the same conclusion as the committee.
(" Divide.") An hon. member of the committee (Mr.
Pellatt) had stated that, if the motion were pressed, he
should vote for it. He (Mr. Newdegnte) should not do so,
because it would be an act of injustice to mark out the
very venial case against Sir F. Smith as calling for peculiar
had
reprobation, in the face of so many other cases which
been brought under their notice. The decision of the com-
mittee was a sufficient punishment for Sir F. Smith, and
the house would not act in accordance 'a =th its proper cha-
racter if they agreed to the motion of the hon. baronet the
member for Westminster.
Mr. PIGOTT, who was nearly inaudible from the gene-
ral cry for a division, was understood to appeal to the mem-
ber for Westminster not to press his motion.
Mr. M. SMITH vindicated the course adopted by the
committee, and recommended that, instead of punishing
Sir F. Smith, the house should order prosecutions to be
commenced against the iniquitous witnesses for the perjury
they had been guilty of before the committee.
Mr. W. J. FOX rose to answer the challenge of the hon.
and learned gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger), who had said that
all hon. members must learn that they were constantly
asked for favours by their constituents after au election
was over. He could assure the hon. and learned gentleman
that he had never received a single application of the na-
ture alluded to, and that he had never asked a favour of
the kind from the Government. He gave this Wirthans to
the challenge in order that it might not go forth
public unanswered, and that he had no doubt that many
of his hon. friends could have clone so too, had they been
willing. With regard to the case before the house, the
evils complained of—corruption and bribery, could not be
remedied by a prosecution of one man or the disfranchise-
ment of one borough; the only efficient and permanent
remedy would be a thorough reform of the Parliamentary
representation. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said, it appeared to him that it was
or ought to be a very serious question on the part of the
house whether they should institute a State prosecution at
the public expense. It was not a mere question of appoint-
ing a committee, but it was whether there was sufficient
evidence before them to make them believe that a jury
would convict Sir F. Smith. (Hear, hear.) He believed
there was not. (Hear, hear.) He recollected the case which
occurred not long ago at Derby—(a laugh)—where one Mor-
gan
was caught in the act of bribery, with the money in his
hand, and who was prosecuted. Morgan came into court,
pleaded guilty, and what did the jury say ? They said that
really the House of Commons was so steeped up with cor-
ruption and bribery that although they found
r Morgan
guilty they would recommend him to mercy. (Laughte.)
Then the judge Vold the prisoner that he had been found
guilty of bribery, but as the jury had recommendeclahim to
mercy, he might go about his business, taking care never
to do it again. (Renewed laughter.) He (Mr. buncombe)
did not believe that a jury would find Sir F. Smith guilty
at all. The committee, as the house had been told
by its members, had found him guilty solely in erder
to comply with the strict letter of the law—(hear);--and
two of its members had stated that night that he ought not
to be prosecuted. He was quite satisfied that the com-
mittee had discharged its duties conscientiously, andhe was
glad to thank the members for portion of their
report. Ho alluded to the statement that the electors of
Chatham were so dependent on the Government that it was
impossible for them freely to exercise the elective franchise,
and that they ought all therefore to be disfranchised.
(Hear, hear.) The house ought not, under these circum-
stances, to issue a new writ for the borough of Chatham.
The question of equalising the franchise in counties and
boroughs had been disposed of that evening by a promise
from the Ministry to introduce a large and comprehensive
measure of reform during the next session. That measure
would be the test of the Administration and would show
whether it deserved the confidence of the public or not.
The Government, however, had to deal not only with the
franchise, but with the extensive system of corruption
which had been so completely exposed recently, If they
would deal properly with that, they would be entitled to
public gratitude. As the general question must be dealt
with by the new Reform Act, it was not worth while to
occupy their time with such cases, more especially since
the opinion of the committee was decidedly against the
prosecution. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. W. O. STANLEY deprecated the assertion made
by the honourable and learned member for Stamford (Sir
F. Thesiger) that the members on both sides of the house
were all equally corrupt, and expressed his opinion that
this case ought to have been submitted to the law officers
of the Crown, to ascertain whether there was 'sufficient
evidence to go before a jury pith. (Divide, divide.)
Mr. HEYWOOD was understood to join in the appeal to
the lion. baronet (Sir J. Shelley) not to press his motion.
Sir J. SHELLEY vindicated his motives for introducing
this motion. He had desired only to assist tho house to
stand well with the country, and to give it credit for having
pursued a straightforward course. The hon. and learned
gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had appealed to the law- officers
of the Crown to give their opinion on this, and ho (Sir J.
Shelley) was surprised that no member of the Government
had said a word upon the subject. He, perhaps, Might have
been induced to withdraw his motion had he received so
favourable an assurance as that which been given by
the Government to the honourable member for East Sur-
rey ; but, although he (Sir J. Shelley) was anxious to
consult the feelings of the house on all occasions, still he
thought he had a duty to the country to perform, and un-
less be received some intimation of the opinions of the law
officers of the Crown he should persist in dividing.
Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that the case under
discussion was one in which the opinion of the Government
should be used to sway the feelings of the house. (Hear,
hear.) It appeared to him that the first course he had to
pursue was to endeavour to obtain the best possible
advice, in order that his colleagues and himself might be
prepared to say what was their view of the law respecting
the case. Accordingly, they had consulted the law officers
of the Crown, and those law officers had stated their
opinion, which was founded on the report and the evidence
taken before the committee, that there were grounds
for the prosecution of Sir F. Smith—(hear, hear)—and,
although they would not answer for the success of th
at
at
prosecution, they thought there was evidence to go bef
a court of law sufficient to show that Sir F. Smith had been
guilty of bribery. (Hear.) That was the first question he
had thought it his duty to ascertain. But there was another
question, and one which concerned the house still more. It
was the question as to the meaning of the report of the
committee. He must own the report appeared to him to
have some ambiguity in it, and he could not say that am-
biguity had been entirely removed by the speeches which
had been made that evening by members of the committee.
(Hear, hear.) It would appear on the face of the report
that the committee were of opinion that Sir F. Smith had
btoee_n_,7ilty o f inducing a voter for the borough of Chatham
the Post-office.
therigiinitterionter,etati(oT,abra
VOL 111. his favour by
then'Sir F. S
procuring for him a situation in
if that
tothe wordsr world
interpretation
weref
an-
other
•
ob-
tain a situation in the Yost-officeithad done no more than ob-
of Greathead, without intedin fora
person of the name
influietnce his vote, and
without any refers' ice to the election.
time difficult to um lerstand. what was the wasntenattiotnheosfautre
committee in makis ig that report, One hon. gentleman had
stated that the com mittee had found themselves obliged,to
come to that conclui ion, and that it was in the second sense
only that Sir F. Smit h had been guilty of bribery. At the same
time the same hon. g entleman had stated that, in his opinion,
it would not be rigbi 't; to prosecute Sir F.
thatsmithfor bribery,
Ana ha &unclad. hifiL opinion on the ground
_the
.c.tlstil

come a candidate for that borough without being led into
corrupt practices of this kind. That was a statement to
which he (Lord J. Russell) could not give his assent.
(Hear, hear.) He could understand its being said (though
he thought that would be a most unfounded statement),
that a candidate could not go to Chatham without being
so beset by applications for promotion in the dockyard ap-
pointments in the hands of the Government there, that
he really could not avoid yielding to the temptation ; but
that there should be any such temptation at Chatham as
to oblige the candidate to bribe the voter by the situation
of letter-carrier, a situation in the Post-office, was really a
statement which appeared to him utterly without any-
thing like foundation. (Hear, hear.) He could not ima-
gine that Chatham, any more than any other borough, was
in such a position that a man could not be a candidate
there without promising places in the Post-office. But
then another gentleman, a member of the committee, had
said that he believed Sir F. Smith did not intend corruptly
to influence this voter, and therefore he could not vote
for prosecuting Sir F. Smith. The hon. gentleman was
quite right, if that was his conscientious belief, not to
vote for such a resolution ; but what he (Lord J, Russell
could not understand was, how the hon. member could
have been a party. to this report. (Hear, hear.) For the
house was placed in this difficulty—if Sir F. Smith had no
corrupt intention of influencing a vote the whole matter of
the offence was wiped out, for the offence was that of in-
fluencing a voter by giving a bribe; and in that case there
ought not to have been a report charging him with this
grave offence. (Hear, hear.) Other members of the com-
mittee had taken a different view ; one of them had stated
that he was convinced that Sir F. Smith was guilty of
bribery ; yet it appeared that it was not their wish that a
prosecution should be instituted. (Hear.) Upon the
whole, this placed the house in a situation of great diffi-
culty. He had no doubt the committee agreed to what
they thought right, but he could not but consider that
they ought either to have stated that Sir F. Smith had,
in their opinion, been guilty of bribery, and to have
supported a motion of this kind, or they ought not to
have preferred this grave charge in their report.
(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be very difficult
to allow to stand upon the records of the house the
solemn resolution which the hon. baronet (Sir J. Shelley)
had read, and which had been recorded as a resolution of
the house for a great number of years, and not to take
notice of a case which was brought before them by a com-
mittee specially appointed to inquire into the matter.
The justice of the house would be very ill-satisfied by reso-
lutions to which they frequently came, that persons much
distressed in point of pecuniary circumstances should be
prosecuted by the Attorney-General on account of corrupt
transactions in which they had taken part ; the character
of the house would hardly stand well if it should appear
that they ordered a prosecution, without any hesitation,
in the case of 10 or 20 persons in a low condition of life,
but that when it came to a person of distinction and sta-
tion the house would not consent. Therefore, he (Lord J.
Russell) thought the house was placed in great difficulty.
He had said that he did not think it was the business of
the Government in any way to attempt to influence the de-
cision of the house ; he had meant to give his vote, and allow
the question to pass without taking any part in the dis-
cussion, if he had not been appealed to. He thought, per-
haps, in consideration of the unanimous wish of the com-
mittee, the house might refrain from instituting this pro- I
secution ; but at' the same time he felt that this was a '
course which would expose the house to a great miscon-
struction. The committee had brought them into that
position that he should find it very difficult hereafter to
vote for any prosecution by the Attorney-General in any
case whatever after this case had been passed over. (Hear,
hear.) He did not know that it might not be as well that
the resolution should be expunged, and the prosecution not
take place. He did not know that it was a very effectual
way of repressing bribery. But he thought, to prosecute
all the low and poor persons, and pass over cases like this,
would be a course fatal to the reputation of the house
(hear, hear) ; and if the house were of opinion, as they
seemed to be, that they should not prosecute in this case,
he should come down in any future case where a prosecu-
tion by the law officers might be proposed, and give his
vote against it. (Hear, hear.)
After an explanation on the part of Mr. NEwDEGATE,
which was drowned in the cries for a division,
Mr. S. WORTLEY said he could have understood the
line of argument of the noble lord, if the house had had
before it nothing but the report of the committee and the
opinions now given by its members; but the evidence taken
had been laid on the table, and if there was any use in lay-
ing the evidence on the table, it surely was to enable the
house to judge whether they should take any ulterior pro-
ceedings. (Hear.) It would be well for the house to con-
sider, before consenting to this motion, whether it would
not be regarded out of doors as having an apperraece of
vindictive feeling—(oh!)—or of making a scapegoat for
many offenders (Hear, hear.) He could not conceive it
possible that a conviction should take place—(hear,
and the house would do well to be cautious of venturing
upon proceedings so grave with a prospect of discomfiture
and defeat. (Hear.) It seemed that the law adviser of
the Crown held that there was ground fora prosecution.
That could only be, he apprehended, by making use of the
examination of Sir F. Smith himself. But that was con-
trary to the whole spirit of our criminal procedure. (Hear.)
It was the practice of other countries for prisoners to
be interrogated by the judge and cross-examined by coun-
sel ; thank God it was not the practice of this country,
but if the evidence of Sir F. Smith was to be made the
foundation of a prosecution, we should make a precedent
which might be most mischievous in its consequences.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained that the right
hon. and learned member was mistaken ; the law officers of
the Crown, in giving the guarded opinion which the house
had heard, had proceeded upon the general evidence in the
case. He would warn the house against sitting in judg-
ment upon the decision of its committees. (Divide.)
Sir J, SHELLEY said that, after the speech of the noble
lord, he should certainly go to a division. (Divide.)
Mr. DRUMMOND, who was met with a renewed call
for a division, was very sorry to be obliged to spoil any
gentleman's dinner, but had still more reluctance to
allow this debate to close without entering his protest, and
giving his reasons for so doing, against the course now
insisted upon by the honourable baronet. He agreed
with the hon. member for Oldham, (Mr. Fox) that this
was but a poor exhibition of their would-be purity. He
(Mr. Drummond) had ever abstained from taking a part in
such discussions so long as the purists confined their exer-
tions to disfranchising voters who had the wisdom to make
the only use they could of their votes—(loud laughter)—
but when, going beyond that, the house was now urged to
institute criminal proceeding against a meritorious officer
and an hon. gentleman—(cries of "hear, hear")—when
they were all called upon to take up stones to cast at Sir
F. Smith, he should like to inquire where was the man who
could say "I am without sin?" (Hear, and a laugh.) It
was said some time ago in the Edinburgh Review, to show
the absurdity of enacting laws against the sale of game, that
" The Three per Cents. would eat pheasants." (Laughter.)
In the same way he would say that the Three per Cents.
would sit in that house—(hear, hear)—that bank directors
and East India directors would sit in that house—(hear)
—that "railway kings" would sit in that house—(loud
cries of " hear")—and they were threatened occasionally
with a rush of the whole of what was called " the railway
interest." (Hear, hear.) So long as there were rich and
poor, you never would be able to persuade men that there
was crime in catching and killing and selling wild animals
—(oh I)—nor in a poor man selling anything which a rich
man was willing to buy. (Hear, hear.) There were only
two ways of governing mankind ; you must either govern
by brute force, with the assistance of standing armies and
police, or you must govern by self-interest. You might
call it bribery, or corruption, or give it any hard name you
liked, but it was that which pervaded your whole system,
from the palace of the Sovereign, through the House of
Lords, through the House of Commons, and through the
whole of the constituencies, and you could not rule in any
other way. True, the brute-force system had rather run to
seed in France just now—(laughter)—and the Bastile and
lettres de cachet were revived in a way that seemed very
offensive to us, who talked of the liberty of the subject;
but, pray, was not our system of national representation
run to seed? (Hear.) Did gentlemen think that the exhi-
tion they had made in this last year was not a good
excuse to the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor
of the French for not having fallen so deperately in love
with representative institutions ? And why was it that
this exhibition had been made this year? Mrs. Hannah
Moro--(" Oh") told us of a gentleman who went " in search
of a wife," and Mr. Thomas Moore—(a laugh)—told us
that there was a gentleman who wont in search of a re-
ligion f' last year for the first time we had a Prime Minis-
ter who went in search of a policy. (Laughter and cheers.)
What was the consequence ? He gave four months' notice
that he was going out upon this expedition, and every at-
torney in the kingdom determined that there should be a
contested election in every place; and they got up candi-
dates, and not only candidates but petitions. (Hear, hear.)
They returned the members, and, as many of the commit-
tees of the house had stated, they unseated members by
their own conduct in bribing, where the member had no-
thing to do with the matter. (Hear, hear.) They iof
up false petitions. (Hear, hear.) In this very case—the
Chatham case—it came out that, before there was a rival
candidate to Sir F. Smith, a Petition Was got up. It was
a necessary part of their ma,chinery to have a member to
petition against. Then the matter was,brought here, to the
Coppocks and the Browns---(laughter)—brought here to the
tender mercies of the Carlton and Reform Clubs—(hear)—
and they played it out as they would a game of chess,
giving a bishop for a rook—(loud laughter)—three false
petitions (as a gentleman explained to one committee) for
one fighting petition. (Hear, hear.) Why was there such
desperate anxiety to come to that house ? Because that
house was the great place-bazaar—(laughter)—the great
office-market. (Laughter.) Here place-scrip was sold and
bought. (Laughter, and cries of , Oh r) Why was the
house blest with so many gentlemen of the legal profes-
sion ? (Loud laughter.) Was it not because they found
that a flashy partisan speech in that house was a surer
road to the bench than hard fagging in chambers or attend-
ance at court ? (Hear, hear.) But was it for the public
advantage that that should be school in which the lawyer
should study for the gravity of the ermine ? (Hear,
hear.) He was not sure whether the Attorney-General
was in his place just now, but there were gentlemen in
the house of whom it was pretty well known that by
this title they got the situations which they adorned.
(Laughter.) To be sure, every class had its price, as
well as every individual. You could not bribe in
the House of Lords by 21. 10s., or a place in the
Post-office. (" Oh, oh !")—but was there no bribery in
making barons, viscounts, and viscounts, earls, and earls
marquises ? (Hear, hear.) There was a bill introduced by
the noble lord, or some reformer or other, prohibiting the
giving a few yards of penny riband to the wives and
daughters of the electors—it was bribery ! But you would
find in the House of Lords the gift of three yards of green
riband, or blue riband, very conducive to the public inte-
rest. (Laughter.) He (Mr. Drummond) was not consur-.
ing these proceedings, ho justified them ; it was the only
system by which your Government could be carried on.
He was very sorry the Government had not got a great
deal more power of that sort. (Loud laughter.) When
gentlemen came down to that house they must carry on
their " bribery and corruption," as it was called (which
was self-interest), in another way. They must put up
with seats at boards, and things of that sort—(laughter)—
and when there was a man that was particularly boring
(Bowling), why, he must be sent to Hong Kong. (Roars
of laughter.) He (Mr. rmmond) was very sorry that
the Government had noD u
t in their gift a great many
Hong Kongs ; the house would be much improved by
it. (Loud laughter.) But there were other places.
He was old enough to remember when Mr. Perceval's
Government was nearly destroyed because a gentleman in
the Treasury refused to vote for him until he had given
another brother a place—(hear, hear)—and did they not all
remember the failure of Sir R. Peel in forming a Govern-
ment in consequence of the interference of certain ladies of
the bedchamber? (Hear, hear.) An hon. gentleman
turned up his nose—(a laugh)—but, unless all rumour's
tongues united in falsehood, it was said that the noblelord
had, not very long ago, received a letter of remonstrance
from the head of alarge family not particularly remarkable
for talent, because ho had not included some of them in
the new arrangements. (" Hear, hear," and a laugh.)

What was the danger of the Government ? Simply
mere want of places. (A laugh.) There was no danger
to the Government from any opposition that could be
offered from the other side of the house. The danger was
that it received shots from the rear. (A laugh.) If the
Treasury were to be symbolized or embodied, it would be
as Cybele or Tellus, with more applicants for Nourish-
ment than she could supply ; or he would take a more
homely illustration,—that of Gillray's caricature of the
sow that brought forth more pigs than she had teats for.
(Laughter.) He saw in the notice paper a motion from one
of the friends of the Government—something about India.
What was it but the squeak of a pig that had got no teat ?
(Great laughter.) He took the liberty, on a former occa-
sion, to implore the head of the Government in that house,
in consequence of the state of things that had beenbrought
about by the Reform Bill, never to quit his office upon any
petulant vote that the house might come to until there
was a direct and specific resolution for an address to the
crown. (Hear.) The noble lord had been taunted with
the situation he now occupied ; but in his humble opinion
that situation was the most honourable the noble lord had
ever filled—(hear, hear)—and he besought the noble lord—
not as an individual, but as the head of the Government—
there to remain until the motion he had alluded to should
be carried. (Hear, and laughter.) The right hon. gentle-
man over the way need not have quitted office if he had
chosen to remain, and Lord Derby ought either never to
have taken office or never to have quitted it—(hear, hear)—
for there was no doubt these constant changes were greatly
to the detriment of the public service • but the fact was,
they never had been reformers—they had been mere specu-
lators. Their reform would have led them back to the
wisdom, and principles, and practices of their ancestors,
and they would have seen that unless they gave property
its legitimate way of action it would use the illegal way of
continual bribery—(hear, hear)—and, moreover, he hoped
it would, and that they would not be able to make that
house a mass of paupers. (" Oh, oh !" and laughter.)
They must make that house the representative of the
wealth of the people, and, when they did that, they would
not find the bribery which they complained of. (Hear,
hear.) As to this immediate motion of prosecuting Sir F.
Smith, they who voted for it were the men who were dis-
graced by it, and not Sir F. Smith. (Hear, hear.) What
was the simple question ? That gentleman had lived in
the place for many years ; he was proved before the com-
mittee to be a kind and charitable man to his political foes
as well as to his friends, never asking any question on the
subject ; and, because he gave a Post-office place of 12s. a-
week, all their purity was up in arms—(hear, hear)—and
they thought to go and show the country at large what
sinless pure creatures they were themselves. (Laughter.)
He thought the motion was discreditable to the house, and
therefore he was opposed to it. (Hear.)
Mr. HUME could not agree with the hon. gentleman
that this motion was discreditable. (Hear.) The speech
of the hon. gentleman, indeed, was one of the most extra-
ordinary he had ever heard. (Hear, hear.) It was a speech
that he could not have believed any Englishman would
have stood up in that house and delivered. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. gentleman had libelled the house—(" Oli! oh !"
and loud cries of " hear")-- he had libelled the country ;
and, whatever the House of Lords might be, he had
libelled that and all who were connected with it. Would
they not support the resolution they had come to, and
show the country that they would maintain the purity of
election ? The hon. gentleman said he wished there was
more bribery and corruption, and that men were more it
debased than they were. (" Ohl" and laughter.) He
should be sorry to see it—they were too much so already.
(Laughter.) It had been I's endeavour to get an honest
house, and the best way to atta'n that result would be to
support such resolutions as the one now before them. They
would be wanting in respect to their own character, and
to the character of that house, if they (lid not agree to the
resolution.
Mr. RICH (amidst loud cries of " Oh, oh 1" and great
laughter) said, the hon. gentleman the member for West
Surrey had done him the favour to make a joke at his ex-
pense. As to the expressions of the hon. gentleman, he
could laugh at them as well as his neighbours, for, having
been nearly 20 years in that house, he believed he could
lifes y he
ase hada
gentleman conducted hd im sa
ma
I fa. bothji
of inh
opauobul ir c. and
d i
(Hear,n private
Now, as far as the motion of which he had given notice
was concerned, no hostility was intended to the Govern-
ment. (Laughter.) The present Government he regarded
with unfeigned respect. (Laughter.) It was composed of
many honourable and independent gentlemencapablcf;
carrying on the government, and from him they woe ulo
receive the most cordial support when his conscience
would go with them. (Hear, and a laugh.)
Sir J. SHELLEY believed and hoped there was no man
in that house less quarrelsome than he was ; but words
had been let drop by the hon. gentleman near him (Mr.
Drummond) which, for the credit of that house, required
some explanation. (Cries of " Question," and " Order,"
when Mr. t
nNo
iT s Ze
havingrose,
übwsiasdeda
asunrodegarehiatscsoenaftu.)sion, during which the hon. baronet re-
,bout to address the house,
The SPEAKER said, that if the hon. baronet had wished
to take exception to any word spoken by the hon. gentle-
man the member for West Surrey, he ought to have done
it at the time. (Hear.)
s
Mr. DRUMMOND said, if he had used any words that
were improper, he would at once w:thdeaw them.
Sir J. SHELLEY (with some excitement).—You said
it was disgraceful and discreditable to the house. (Cries
of " Hear, hear," and " Order.")
Mr. MUNTZ said, he was not one of those pigs that
wanted a Government teat--(laughter)— but there was a very
important question before the house, and it would be well
for them to consider before they voted upon it what the
people out of doors thought of this sort of thing. The pro-
ceedings of the committee had given rise to a belief out of
the house that thero was a good deal of corruption, not
merely, on the part of the, voters, but on the part of the
members, and the sooner they could clear that up the bet-
ter. (Hear.) But there was a resolution on the books of
the house that they ought to punish any person seriously
who did this sort of thing. Now, he never saw Sir F.
Smith ; all he knew was, that there was a repert to that
house very prejudicial to his honesty, and if they permitted
him to escape, or if he were not allowed the opportunity of
clearing up the matter, the public might very well say that
it was all chattering in that house on the subject. With
these feelings he should support the resolution.
Sir T. ACLAND said, an appeal had been made to the
house by his hon. friend who had just sat down on account
of what the public would say of these matters. Now, he
gave his vote on a question of personal justice and character
as if he were giving his vote on any indictment before the
grand jury, and not from any regard whatever to what
should be said of his conduct out of doors. (Hear.)
The house then divided ; the numbers ware—
For the motion
Against it —
Majority

....-110