The Sun.
London, England, 1853-03-08 00:00:00

the existence of the evil which it was intended to remedy.
(Hear, hear, from the opposition benches.)
Lord J. RIISSELT,.—I shall state, sir, to the house,
what appears to me to be the course which the Govern-
ment ought to take upon this subject. I think it is in-
cumbent upon the house to consider, with the greatest
deliberation and caution, the determination which should
be come to ; and I think that the right hon. gentleman
who has just sat down was fully justified in giving us the
admonition -which he did. At the same time, however,
great errors may be committed on one side or the other.
It may be a very great error to refuse the issuing of a writ
in a borough -where five, six, or only ten persons were
proved guilty of bribery ; but I think, on the other hand,
that the issuing of a writ to a borough where great num-
bers are proved to be corrupt—where extensive bribery
has prevailed at every election—(hear, hear)—would be an
error on the other side. We must, sir, consider the pre-
sent state of the representation—the facts which have
lately come before us—as well as the inquiries which are
yet to be undertaken, in order to :enable is to come to a
correct decision. Now, the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Goulburn) has said that the Grenville Act was quite con-
clusive with regard to these cases. It appears to me, sir,
that there are two points which the house used formerly
to have to consider in these matters, for one of which a
remedy, tolerably efficient, has been provided; but with
regard to the other our legislation seemed only to aggravate
the evil. The first was, where the decision was made by
the whole house, and of course it often happened, that, as
the decisions were dependent upon the dominant party
in the house, the gentleman legally entitled to the
seat was often deprived of it. That evil, how-
ever, was very much corrected by what was called
the Grenville Act. The other evil, however, was, that
there existed in many boroughs very general corruption.
With regard to that subject, the house was accustomed to
take inquisition into its own hands. and often with very
considerable effect. I have often had occasion to refer to
the conduct of Sir Edward Seymour, one of the most re-
markable members that ever sat in that house, when an
objection was made by an individual to his nominees re-
turned for several boroughs; in order thereby to make a
party for himself within the house. That hon. member
undertook to have, at the bar of the house an inquiry into
the case of every one of those boroughs, and he showed the
extensive corruption which existed in them, and for his
services on that occasion he received the thanks of the
house. The Grenville Act, and the others which succeeded
it, have narrowed the power of this house, while they
lessened ' the evils. With rega.rd, however, to individual
cases, the nature of the proceeding is this : a member is
returned, let us suppose, by bribing 300 or 400 of his con-
stituents, and the return is complained of. The select
committee havihg heard four or five of these cases proved,
have heard quite enough to unseat the member petitioned
against, and the petitioner in the case having proved five
or six cases, of course desists from his case ; and the com-
mittee, having no further evidence before them, are quite
satisfied with having performed their duty, though there
were some 330 or 400 cases of alleged bribery still to be
gone into, and in their report to the house mention is only
made of those five or six cases. Now, that does not agree
with the statement of the right honourable gentleman, the
member for the University of Cambridge, that there were
onl five cases of bribery. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, the
Grenville Act, and the others which followed, while
they have :one much to purify the character of this house,
in respect to depriving. its elective decisions of a party
character, have done nothing, or, rather, worse than no-
thing, to correct the bribery which has existed since the
time of William 111. myself, sir, have endeavoured
from time to time, to introduce bills to correct what I con-
sidered the defects of our system. To one of these acts the
right hon. gentleman has referred—namely, the sth and 6th
c. 102, by means of which a select committee, if they
have reason to believe that their inquiry has not gone as
far as it ought to do—seeing, for example, that a petition
has been withdrawn— may sit again and take further evi-
dence with regard to the borough, and upon that ground a
committee has thievery day reported that it wishes to make
some further inquiries. Well, that is a very satisfactory
course in a case where the evidence before them was such
as to enable the committee to come to such a conclusion.
Bat how many cases may there be in which evidence is not
brought before the committee to show that extensive bri-
bery exists. Well, there is another act which I had the
honour of introducing, and which goes further into this
subject. It provides that there should be an inquiry on
the spot, by means of a commission. And of the powers
thus granted the house saw a very efficacious exercise in
the case of the borough of Sudbury, which, so far back as
the time of George 111., used to be regularly advertised to
the highest bidder. That further act is the 15th and
16th of Victoria, chap. 53. Now the question before
us is to decide what course the house is to pursue with
regard to these election petitions, wherein reports have
been made that bribery has been practised by the
member unseeted ? The question, however, has no re-
.
;LS,:3 wherein bribery was not reported eaten-
pre:veil, but where very few 'cases have been
Now, in considering the matter, I think it
-et importance that the house should bear
ormous bribery which generally pre-
vailed at the last elections ; and I put it to the house,
therefore, whether they will be satisfied with inquiring
into such cases merely where the evidence before them can
leave them no alternative? (Hear, hear.) Now, though. I
should be very loth to transfer from election committees
the decision upon such matters, or to wish to make the
house a court of appeal against their judgment, yet it is
one thing to tay that a committee has not done its duty,
and it is another to say that its functions are so limited
that it cannot consider the general evil, which it is the
business of Parliament to investigate. I would be dis-
posed to say in every case where there is a report from a
select committee under the Elections Act, stating that the
inembr or members were returned by bribery or corrupt
practices, it would be desirable to have a select committee
in order to inquire whether there is reason to believe that
corrupt practices have extensively prevailed. I cannot but
believ e there are some boroughs in which such will appear
to have been the case. I have heard as much in reference
to the borough of Bridgnorth, against which &petition has
been lodged, I have heard that in Blackburn an attempt
has been made to attack and insult the houses of those
pasties who gave evidence against the acts of bribery.
Now, if there be truth in these reports, and especially if
there is a petition to this house to make inquiry into the
general prevalence of corrupt practices in that borough, it
would be hardly right in the house to send a writ to that
borough, unless the previous allegations were disproved.
(Hear, hear.) In saying the
,election would be corrupt, I
do not mean that the same scenes of bribery would take
place ; I mean that corrupt influences would prevail, and
continue to govern the electors. With respect to issuing
a writ, I do not think any writ should be suspended on the
ground which existed for such suspension previous to the
Grenville Act—namely, that the suspension should take
place by way of penalty to the borough. (Hear, hear.) It
is not right this house should take on itself the punishment
of boroughs by the same means as formerly. But if there
is an inquiry pending, either before a select committee or
a commission appointed by the 15thiand 16th Victoria, in
either case we may may not issue a writ. What the hon.
member proposes is that no writ should be issued without
notice. But it should be remembered that a notice might
be given very late at night, and the writ moved in a thin
house the following day. (Hear, hear.) But if the hon.
gentleman would say that there should be seven days' no-
tice—(hear, hear)—it would be much better, for then all
parties would have time to prepare their petitions. The
case is decidedly one of considerable difficUlty, and I merely
place these opinions before the house. It is no party mat-
ter whatever—caprice or cavil should not enter into it ;
but all should aid to their best exertion in checking the •
torrent of corruption that now disgraces the country.;
(Hear hear.)
Mr. SOT HERON wished to know, in the event of the
hon. baronet's motion being accepted, what the course of
proceeding would be ? The evidence would be printed,
laid on th table of the house, and placed in the hands of
every member. At the end of seven or ten days hon.
gentlemen turned the matter in their minds and came to
a conclusion different from that of the select committee.
The hon. gentleman concluded by moving the following
amendment :—" That in all cases when the seat of any
member has been declared void by an election committee
on the grounds of bribery or treating, no motion for the
issuing a new writ shall be made without previous notice
being given in the votes."
Shseise further discussion took place, after which the
amendment of 31r. Sotheron was, by leave, withdrawn,
upon the understanding that it was to be put as a sub-
stantive motion. The evidence taken in the case of the
Blackburn election was ordered to be printed and laid on
the table ; and
The proposition of Mr. SOTHERON was then put from
the chair and agreed to nem. dis.

gar,' to a
zively to 1

-ywovca.
of very

.d the e