The Sun.
London, England, 1854-03-21 00:00:00

should move the amendment on the bringing up of the
report of the committee,
BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in rising to move for
the purpose of asking leave to introduce a bill for the pre-
vention of bribery at the election of members to serve in
Parliament for the city of Canterbury, stated that he in-
tended to follow up that motion with similar motions in
respect of the boroughs of Cambridge, Barnstaple, King.
ston-upon-Hull, and Malden. There was a manifest neces-
sity for the measure which he was now asking leave to
introduce, but it would perhaps save time and trouble if
he at once called the attention of the house to the whole
subject as connected with these boroughs as a whole, in-
stead of going in detail into each particular case. (Hear,
hear.) The reports which had been made by the commis-
sioners appointed under the 15th and 16th of Victoria to
investigate the subject of bribery and corruption in these
boroughs had now been some time in the hands of hon.
members, and he doubted not most hon. members were
well conversant with the contents of these reports. It was
not necessary, therefore, for him to advert to them in de-
tail, and he should do no more than merely call the atten-
tion of the house to those parts which had a local bearing
upon the matter under consideration. He first, then, took
the case of the city of Canterbury. It appeared from
the report of the commissioners that in that city there
was a population of 19,000 and a constituency of 1,583
persons, of whom 637 were householders, and 946 were free-
men. The commissioners reported that corrupt practices
prevailed at the last election and at previous elections. They
stated that a system had prevailed in the borough of brib-
ing and corrupting electors by issuing colour tickets ; in
addition, they reported that direct bribery on a large scale
had prevailed at most of the elections, and the result had been
the general demoralisation of the electors. At the election
in 1841 the two candidates spent no less a sum than
11,0001. in bribing and corrupting the electors. At the
election in 1847 5,0001. was spent in the same way, 3,0001.
being on one side, a considerable portion of which went in
direct bribery. No less than 5001. was expended in a
direct money bribe, while of the 1,500 odd electors no less
than 155 voters received direct bribes as the price of their
votes. In 1852 it was not quite so bad, as there was only
bribery on one aide;
but even then not less than 2,3501.
was expended in corruption, of which at least 1,0001. was
spent in direct bribes. Besides the indirect bribery, it was
proved to the commissioners that there had been 79 direct
cases of bribery, of which 67 were freemen, and 12 were
householders. That was the state of things in the city of
Canterbury. The report of the Barnstaple commission
gave a lamentable picture of the corruption which pre-
vailed in that borough. It appeared that the population
was 11,371, while the constituency numbered 754 per-
sons. At the last election the number of voters polled
was 696, and of that number no less than 256, being
upwards of a third of the whole, received direct bribes
for their votes. It was clear, therefore, from the re-
port of the commission, that in the case of Barnstaple
the election was invariably obtained by bribery; though
he was bound to admit, that with regard to Barnstaple
the case was not so complete as that of the other boroughs,
and for this simple reason :—it would be remembered
that an amendment was introduced in another place into
the act under which the commissioners acted, by which
It was provided that the inquiry should not extend back
beyond the election where no bribery had taken place, or
been complained of ; and inasmuch as in 1817 both parties
to the contest mutually agreed to abstain from bribery,
the researches of the commissioners were necessarily con-
fined to election of 1852. In 1819, however, it was found
that bribery and corruption so extensively prevailed in the
borough that a bill was brought in to correct the evil, the
bill passed the Commons, but was thrown out by the
House of Lords. So much then for Barnstaple. With re-
gard to the borough of Malden here also the report of the
commissioners showed a lamentable state of corruption. It
appeared that the population was 5,470, and the consti-
tuency 845, of whom 235 were registered as occupiers of
101. houses, and 620 as freemen. At the election in 1826,
the only electors were freemen who had dwindled down to
50, but by corrupt means the number was raised to 2,000,
and at this election no less than 18,000/. was spent on ono
side, and 12,0001. on the other, making together 30,0001.
The two elections of 1830 and 1831 were without contest,
but at all elections down to that of 1841, large sums of
money were spent in corrupting the electors. In 1847
there was a contest, and of course considerable bribery
and corruption were resorted to, no less than 2,1501. be-
ing expended in beer alone. It was proved to the oom-
missioners that at the election in 1852 something like
75 persons received direct money bribes for their votes,
and they came to the conclusion that bribery had
extensively prevailed in the borough for many years
past. That was the state then of the constituency of
Malden. He must now advert to the case of Kingston-
upon-Hull. From a short abstract of the report of the com-
missioners, he found that the constituency of that borough
numbered 4,678 electors, of whom 3,184 were occupiers of
houses and 1,494 freemen. Well, then, with only that con•
stituency, at the election in 1841, there was spent no less a
sum than 10,5401., of which sum the commissioners had no
hesitation in coming to the conclusion that 4,0001. and up-
wards was expended in direct bribes to the freemen. A sys-
tem had in fact prevailed in the borough of paying " head-
money," 41. being paid for a full vote, and 21. for a split
vote; but it being found that this system would not do, it
was changed for a system of giving the voter colourable em-
ployment, and in that manner the bribery hadheen carried
on up to the last election. At the election in 1841 the elec-
tors polled numbered 3,583, and of that number no less
than 1,300 received direct bribes for their votes. In the
year 1847, there was a short contest, but short though it
was 6,8401. was expended upon it, of which sum the com-
missioners said 1,6501. was spent in direct bribery. The
electors polled at this election numbered 3,618, of whom
1,175 were bribed. At the election in 1852, the expenses
on the one side were 4,9201. and on the other 3,6311., while
for the purposes of direct bribery on the orange side 2,2351.
was spent, and on the blue side 1,3001. The commissioners
stated that out of 3,9ii3 electors, 1,350 were paid for their
votes, and of these 1,050 were reported by name. The
next case in his list was that of the notorious borough of
Cambridge. The population of that borough was 28,000.
The number of constituents was 1,887. Of these, it ap-
peared, from 150 to 200 never voted at all, lest by so do-
ing they should injure their interests—so that the vot-
ing constituency was between 1,600 and 1,700. At the
first four elections after the passing of the Reform Bill, no
corruption existed; the franchise was exercised in a
straightforward and legitimate manner. But the elections
having gone four times the same way, the opposite party
determined to have recourse to corruption, and they sat
down and organised a most complete system of temptation,
details of which were given by the commissioners. A Mr.
Samuel Long, who was notorious in the annals of Cam-
bridge bribery, appeared to be the master mind and spirit
of the whole. There was one man whose business it was
to sound or tempt the voters. This man insinuated him-
self amongst the poorer voters whom he found in the public
houses, telling thorn it did not signify how they voted so
that they could make money, and when he found that they
were persons who might be worked upon, he put down
their names as persons who were to be further tempted.
Then there was an individual whose business it was to
act on that suggestion by seizing a suitable opportunity of
offering a bribe. If the man swallowed the temptation he
was set down as a safe person, and then Mr. Long com-
menced. Tho commissioners reported that after the first
election it was not necessary for Mr. Long to make an offer
of a bribe ; a look, a gesture, or the fact of a man's having
called upon him, was sufficient. The voter was sure to
get the reward. The commissioners stated that they
had ascertained that au unbroken chain of corrupt prac-
tices had existed from 1839 ; that in 1840 8001. was disc
tributed in bribery.; that in 1811 Mr. Long distributed
between five and six hundred pounds. In 1843, the re-
port said, a very curious incident occurred. A Dr. Bart-
lett received instructions to come from Cambridge to
Charing-cross, where some one would recognise him by. a
signal ; Dr. Bartlett came, and was not deceived in ins
expectation ; an individual appeared, who gave him a bag
containing 1,000 sovereigns, which he took back to Cam-
bridge, and the whole of this money , with 300/. more
which was also obtained mysteriously, was spent is bribing
the voters of Cambridge. Another election took place in
1845. The candidate, who was examined, stated that he
had nothing to do with the providing of any money ;
nevertheless some individual put down the sum of 8001.,
the whole of which was spent in bribery. On this occa-
sion Long spent as much as 1,0001. At the election of
1847, in consequence of the very excited feelings which
prevailed through the agitation of the corn law question,
the idea of turning the scale by means of bribery was
deemed hopeless, and consequently no extensive corrup-
tion was practised He now came to the election of 1852.
At that election 1,6001. was contributed by the two candi-
dates who were returned. In addition to that, 1,2501.
was supplied from local sources, the whole of which was
applied for bribery. Of 1,540 voters who polled, 111 re-
ceived direct bribes. In reference to that occasion, the
commissioners spoke of the utter uselessness of the bribery
oath. It appeared that while all this bribery was at its
height, it was the custom in Cambridge to put the bribery
oath, and the only voter who refused to take it was a Per'
son who had conscientious scruples against the taking of
any oath. The commissioners stated that many of the
bribed voters whom they examined stated that they
had no political opinions at all ; they were no scholars,
they hardly knew which was which, and they
voted according as they were directed by the persons
to whom they sold their votes, the 10/. being of
more service to them than anything else. Of the 111 voters
bribed in 1852, 30 signed their names with a mark. Now
these were the parts of the reports of the commissioners,
which he had thought it necessary to bring before the house.
Is was quite clear that the state of the constituencies to
which he had referred was a reproach and a scandal, not
only to the constituencies themselves, but to the country
at large, and to that house—(hear, hear)—and if anything
could be done to purge and Purift such bodies, it was the
duty of Parliament to do it. (near, hear.) Then came
the question—what course ought the house to pursue ? It
might be said, that they should rely upon general legisla-
tion He could not concur in that oinion.
on the subject, either that which now existed, or that
'which was pro
corruption would cure the mischief. Par-
He did not beliere that any general legislation in refsrence
to bribery and
been legudating for this Purpose for nearly two
multiplied penalties and forfeitures—with
liament had
centuries ; it had accumulated statute upon statute, added
the election of 1852 declare. (Hear, hoar.)
indeed, bills then before that house. His
•friend the
noble leader of the house proposed to make
every payment illegal which was not made through an
acknowledged and authorised agent ; while the hon. mem-
ber for Suffolk proposed that all payments should be made
through an authorised election officer. How would any
ouch legislation as that touch the case of the borough of
Cambridge ? (Hear, hear.) It might reach the sitting
member, but it would not prevent friends and partisans
from subscribing their money. At the election in 1852,
two gentlemen went down to Cambridge with every dis-
position to keep strictly within the limits of the law,
taking every precaution to prevent themselves from being
implicated in bribery. One of those gentlemen was ;his
hon. friend Mr. Macaulay, who, like the other candidate,
agreed to pay 6001, towards the expenses, and who, he
was bound to say, was keenly solicitous that nothing
should be done that could give to the election a corrupt
character. This gentleman, who would, no doubt, at
no distant day, have been an ornament to that house,
after being returned, had a petition presented against him
and, without any fault of his own, had the misfortune to
lose his seat. That was a lamentable position for any gen-
tleman to be placed in, and they ought to adopt vigorous
measures to put a stop to such a state of things. (Hear,
hear.) He repeated that he did not believe general legis-
lation would suffice. General legislation might prevent the
introduction of corrupt practices in a constituency, but
when the whole or a large portion of a constituency had
become corrupt, general legislation would not meet the
case. He thought they must have recourse to_special le-
,lntshtaenycems.ust-Wheithereer cor-
ruption nwaapspl
totalica b l
ore r tovery special
ex te ncsi
irvc
eu
rid,of the cdoenrssttiotoude)7in,
iansgsuitchto,
oatlhto4ebthoedir,es.
ell,
then,
with regard tc_the cues to which he had referred, if the
houw shotcl eaclu with him it thirkhig that they wee