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

tamed suck 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 abst'ained 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 of morality, it could not
make the slightest difference whether the application was
made during the election and the situation was obtained
aftt;rwards, 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 reader 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 de-
_viedencpero
cision, he would be speaking corain non jndice. At the
same time, he might say that, although the committee had
broughty
to
edtto the
t beforedecision
tthh eeym h,
uponabdaynadvdaonpet e s .
reportede only upon one case, they had considered the whole
that evidence
Hetne
sthought
et
that
th
wascame
it was quite • • committee a
impossible for any candidate to stand for
Chatham without giving promises to voters ; and the ques-
tion was whether, in forming constituencies of the peculiar
character of the Chatham and other dockyard
constitu-
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
means to correct this evil, but he did not think that undersue
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. PELLA.T T said, that as a member of the committee
he must say that, although ho should like to see the motion
withdrawn, if it should be pressed he would feel bound, on
abstract principles of justice, to vote in its favour. Ho
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 plalh,
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 the 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
kould vote for it. He (Mr. Newdegate) 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
reprobation, in the face of so many other cases which had
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 with 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 fur favours by their constituents after an 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 answer to
the challenge in order that it might not ga forth to the
public unanswered, and that he had to doubt that many
of his hon. friends could have done 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. DUNCOMBE said, it appeared to bim 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 Morgan
guilty they would recommend him to mercy. (Laughter.)
Then the judge Itold the prisoner that he had been found
guilty of bribery, but as the jury had recommendedshim to
mercy, he might go about his business, takine, care never
to do it again. (Renewed laughter.) He (Mr.°Duncombe)
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 order
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, and he was
glad to thank the members for another portion of their
report. He 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 thb 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. 0. 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 with. (Divide, divide.)
Mr. HEYWOOD was understood to join in the appeal to
the
sir J. E baronetrjL E( Syi
vindSi hc
ae I It
eedy ) nothis
mtoot
iprreess s
forh tisntr motion.
dugi
n g
this motion. He had desired only to assist the_ohrohusveinto
stand well with the country, and to give it credit f
gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) had appealed. to the law officers
and he (Sir J.
of the Crown to give their opinion on this,
pursued a straightforward course. Tho hon. and leaarnef
had said a word upon the subject. He, perhaps,
so
been induced to withdraw his motion had he received b
Shelley) was surprised that no member of the Gmovi
gahrntmhaevaet
favourable an assurance as that which been ays et
nS
u ry-
tho Government to the honourable member for
n'xious to
rey ; but, although he (Sir J. Shelley) wa
sisonas, still he
andthe raw.
consult the feelings of the house on all
should ersist in dividing.
officers of the Crown he
did not think that tho case under
Lord J. RUSSELL
ltehsosubgehtrehceeihvaded asotmluetyinttoimthateiocnopuonftthlyetoop"pinecairofonrms
of,
the feelings of the house. (Hear,
should be used to sway
d to him that the first course he had to
hear.) It appeared discussion was one in which the opinion of the Government
pursue was to endeavour to obtain the best possible
order
whatth a t
wash!Ls
view andof
he law himself
respecting
law officers had stthhaeetaeerdv)_idtheannecidr:
in
Accordingly, they had consulted the l
d
and those law officers
foptohprreieupcait::: enee which
ptoro eYuwt
prosecution
nf founded
sl
rd
Po n. thesin reportith— h ande
a r,
taken before the committee, that there were grounds
advice,
although they would not answer for the success of that
of the Crown,
prosecution, they thought there was evidence
to a court of law sufficient to show that Sir F. Smith
gho
ha
ba ebeen
e
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. Ho must own the report
l appeared to him to
have some ambiguity in it, and 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
been guilty of inducing a voter for the borough of Chatham
to vote in his favour by procuring for him a situation in
the Post-office. (Hear.) The words would admit of an-
other interpretation, but if that other interpretation wore
the right one, then Sir F. Smith had done no more than ob-
tain a situation in the Post-office fora person of the name
of Greathead, without intending to influence his vote, and
without any reference to the election. It was at the same
time difficult to understand what was the intention of the
committee in making that report, One hon. gentleman had
stated that the committee had found themselves obliged to
come to that conclusion, and that it was in the second sent/
only that Sir F. Smith 11.44 been guilty of bribery. At the Insg,
time the same hoo . entleman bad stated that, in tis mglery.
it would not be right to prosecute Sir F. Sm t thetin consti-
and he founded his opinion on the ground
_non could bo,
tnent body of Chatham was such that no pv
.7" . • ,

S.