The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-13 00:00:00

CLITHEROE ELECTION.

Mr. GASKELL moved for an address to her Majesty
praying that her Majesty will be graciously pleased to
issue a commission to inquire into the state of the
borough of Clitheroe. Commissioners' names :—Messrs.
P. E. Pickering, G. G. Barrett, and G. Hardy.
He thought the house would shrink from the perform-
ance of a great public duty if it did not act on the re-
commendation of the committee that a commission should
be appointed. The general features connected with this
election resembled those which had been frequently
brought under the consideration of the house in other cases.
Its main distinctive character consisted in the unblush-
ing manner in which the corrupt practices had been
carried on, and in the total absence of those glosses
which often covered the perpetration of such of-
fences in other borough. It appeared that bribery
existed for a fortnight previous to the election,
and that every man, whether an elector or not,
got meat and drink at the expense of the candidates.
In one case 401, were paid to the voter, in another 301.,
and in a third 1001. There was also intimidation used
at the Clitheroe election, and in cases where parties
were undecided how they should vote, they were removed
to a distance of twenty miles from the borough.
Besides, the treating had been both extensive and

systematic, and in addition to debauching the elector, it
had the effect of sadly disturbing the peace of the town
during the election. A practice had prevailed for some
years at the election of Clitheroe, of introducing armed
men into the borough, for the purpose of intimidating the
voter, and unless the Legislature took some steps to put
a stop to the practice, it was a perfect mockery to talk
about the freedom of election. He had therefore no he-
sitation in making this motion, upon the recommenda-
tion of the committee that had investigated the matter.
Mr. COBDEN took the opportunity of presenting a
petition from several electors of Clitheroe, complaining
of having been coerced by their landlords for having votsd
at the last election according to the dictates of their own
conscience • and the hon. member having presented the
petition, called upon the house to pronounce an opinion
upon the point raised by it. The intimidation com-
plained of by the petitioners was equally as gross as that
of the bludgeon-man, and he should be glad to know
if it was a corrupt practice that came within the provi-
sions of the act under which the address was moved. If
that should be decided in the negative he should feel it to
be his duty to call upon the Government to amend the
act, in order that these intimidation practices might be in-
quired into.
Mr. WALPOLE said the act of Parliament gave the
Commissioners greater powers than were even en-
joyed by the judges of the land, and it was therefore
the duty of the house to take care that in each particular
case they complied with the requirements of the act. Now
the act required that the committee should report
that the corruption hail been extensive and systematic ;
but the report in this instance contained no such words,
and they ought on that account to be cautious in dealing
with this motion. He was inclined to think that this
session ought not to pass over without a bill being
brought in to consolidate and amend the laws relating
to bribery and treating ; and as he had bestowed not a
little time upon such a bill already, he should, if he ob-
tained encouragement from the house, be inclined to ask
kar leave to bring it in. (Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL quite concurred in
the construction which his right honourable and learned
friend had put upon the Act of Parliament. From the
best construction which he (the Attorney-General) could
put upon it, he was of opinion that treating did not
come within the section which authorised the house to
address her Majesty. He very much regretted this ch..

[PRICE 5D •

cumstance, for he could not but think that treating was
one of the very first causes of corruption, and that it
might be made not only as mischievous, but possibly
more demoralising, than bribery. He begged leave,
however, to remind his right honourable and learned
friend of this—that in the bill, as introduced by the
noble lord the member of the city of London last year,
treating was included among corrupt practices. It was
struck out, however, in another place ; and the bill
came back to the House of Commons shorn of that pro-
vision. But lie rejoiced to hear that his right honour-
able and learned friend was impressed with
the notion
that treating ought to be within the scope of the corn-
missioners' inquiries ; and he hoped when he introduced
his bill on the subject of bribery, treating, and intimida-
tian—an announcement which he (the Attorney-Gene-
ral) was sure would be received with satisfaction--he
would remedy the defect in the existing in order
that there might be no difficulty in future (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT was afraid the housc Made rather a
ridiculous figure in respect to the provisions of the
present act. He begged the house to remember
er that
it was only passed last year, and that the noble lord
the member for London promised that it should be an
amendment upon the previous state of the law. But
when the bill came down from the other place 'where
many measures were altered, but very few amended, he
perceived at once that it was so changed as to be' al-
most altogether nugatory ; and here, the first time
they attempted to put it into force, they found it
to be so defective, that the particular kind of corrup-
tion which was most commonly practised, and which was
was notorious and most destructive to electoral purity,
was absolutely excluded from the operation of the act.
(Hear, hear.) The whole system of treating was really
a system of bribery in the very worst form, for it cor-
rupted two persons in respect to one vote. The manner
in which it was done, so far as his experience went, he
could easily state. (A. laugh.) Personally, as a candi-
date, he had no knowledge of it ; but he happened to
live in a town in which, at one time, though now he be-
lieved. it. to be as pure a borough as any in England, at
an election fifteen years ago, this system of corruption
prevailed to a large extent. For several weeks before the
election means were taken by one of the political parties
to bribe the publicans and beer-shop keepers, and
through this means to influence both voters and non-
electors. Sums of money were said to have been, and
he had no doubt were, given to the public-house and
beer-shop keepers-21. in one case, 51. in another, and
101. in another—for the purpose of free drink being given
to anybody who chose to take it, especially electors.
Under the present act these publicans and beer-shop
keepers could not be charged with being bribed. The
beer was purchased from them, but the transaction was
a bribe, while the distribution would come under the
head of treating. This treating would be excluded from
the operation of the present act ; and if that were so
nine-tenths of all the corruption at the late election
would be excluded. Still, if the house was willing to
adopt a liberal and just construction of its own act, and
to give some latitude to the freedom of the commission-
ers they might arrive at a different conclusion from that
of the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole).
He (Mr. Bright) conceived that the words " the manner
in which the election had been conducted" in the begin-
ning of the clause, and the words "and all other things
whereby, in the opinion of the commissioners, the truth
may be better known touching the premises," afforded
the necessary latitude. He was glad, however, that the
right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole) proposed
to consolidate and amend the laws relating to this sub-
ject. The law ought to be made as simple as possible ;
but he contended that the only remedy for the evils of
the existing system was that provided by the method of
taking the votes by ballot. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WORTLEY was unwilling hastily to acquiesce
in the opinion that no case of treating could be brought
within the operation of the act, because a general power
was given to issue a commission in all cases where ex-
tensive corruption prevailed. Treating might amount
to absolute bribery. He understood that in the present
case there was treating for the purpose of influencing
the votes of electors. Now, if the money was spent at
the publicans, though in the shape of treating, for the
pupose of obtaining votes, it was very doubtful whether
this did not amount, in law, to a " valuable considera-
tion." There was no more reprehensible mode of bribery
or corruption than that which consisted in opening
public-houses for the purpose of securing voters. It
would be a strong measure to disfranchise publicans,
and lie did not say he should go to such a length, but
there was a necessity for some measure to repress such
evils. It did not, as he said, appear quite so clear that
treating did not come within the act ; but after the
doubts expressed by those for whose opinion he enter-
tained great respect, he was disposed to think that the
commission should not issue in this case. But he hoped
that his right honourable friend opposite would bring in
his bill, and that the law would be put in a satisfactory
state.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in explanation, said
he should be sorry if it went forth that he was of opinion
that treating might not be one form of bribery. Treat-
ing, if applied in the mode suggested, might be as clearly
bribery as a gift of money ; but he did not understand
the report in this case to say that treating was resorted
to with the view of bribing the publicans.
Sir FITZROY KELLY concurred in opinion that
treating was a species of corruption not reached by the
act of Parliament. He might, indeed, add that he
thought, if the right honourable gentleman opposite
(Mr. S. Wortley) had carefully read the act, ho too
would have agreed with the right honourable the
Attorney-General and his right hon. friend the member
for Midhurst, that this was note case in which it was com-
petent for the house, within the conditions of that act, to
address the Crown. He took this opportunity, as more
than one question had arisen in that house, and neces-
sarily in the other house of Parliament, of earnestly im-
pressing on those hon. members who constituted election
committees the importance of adopting the very words
of-the act of Parliament, if they really saw a case which,
in their judgment, required further investigation by com-
mission under an address to the Crown. There were
many reasons, but one was quite decisive on this point.
Although it was not regular to allude to discussions else-
where, it was now notorious that two of the most learned
judges that had ever sat upon the bench entertained one
opinion, and two other learned and eminent judges, one
of them at the bead of the administration of the law,
entertained a directly opposite opinion on this question.
Therefore, it was clear doubts existed which were en-
titled to the most serious consideration, and the reason
why it was essential the words of the act shoul.d be
adopted by committees was to prevent those doubts
arising; for, however the effect of the committee's report
might be sufficient to address the Crown, if in the pro-
ceedings which took place oaths were given, oaths were
taken, perjury was committed, and an indictment for
perjury followed, no authority in the other house of
Parliament, should the precise words be necessary, would
prevent the acquittal of the persons so indicted, and the
total defeat of the ends of justice. (Hear.) Having
offered that recommendation, he could not sit down
without alluding to what had fallen from his right
honourable friend the member for Midhurst. It was
with much pleasure that he heard his right honourable
friend indicate his intention to bring this great and im-
portant question under the consideration of the house.
He took leave to say he was somewhat disappointed at
not having heard any intimation from the Government
that they were prepared, without reference to the nu-
nierous reports of committees, and the possible reports
of commissions, to bring forward some great and sub-
stantial measure on this subject. He should rejoice, in
common with others, if further means were devised to
investigate and check bribery, and those corrupt prac-
tices which formed the greatest blot on the fair page of
the constitution. (Hear, hear.) He was one of those
who thought they had enough information to enable the
house satisfactorily to legislate on this subject, and he
could only say, looking at the continuation of those
practices, although most anxious that the course should
be adopted by her Majesty's Government, that unless
within a very short time indeed—unless at some time
which would give a fair hope of carrying some full and
satisfactory measure through both houses during the
present session—her Majesty's Government should in-
timate their intention to bring forward a bill, he should,
with such assistance as he might be able to procure,
take an early opportunity of moving for leave to bring
in a general, and he hoped a comprehensive and satis-
factory, measure on this subject. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUTT hoped the house would not, by any logi-
cal license, defeat the ends of justice and the great object
of all their legislation. After some experience in matters
of election petitions, he could not recall an instance is
which an election was carried by practices of a more
illegal and improper character than those which dis-
graced the proceedings of the last election for Clitheroe.
(Hear, hear.) His right hon. friend the member for
Midhurst had remarked that only one case of bribery
was reported to the house. That was unquestion-
ably true, but the right hon. gentleman, after so much
experience in election committees, would recollect that,
from the nature of the proceedings, it was unlikely that
more than one gross and palpable case would be fur-
nished to the house. The parties who prosecuted these
petitions were not likely to spend large sums of money
in carrying out a protracted inquiry, after their own
purposes had been served, and which could only give
satisfaction to the public. (Hear, hear.) The case re-
ported was a very remarkable one, and it came out that
the practice of offering to give and receive bribes in
exchange for votes was in constant and continual opera-
tion in the borough of Clitheroe. But that was not the
only act of corruption which marked the proceedings at
this election. Treating of a most extensive character
prevailed, and it was found by the evidence that in one
house as many as 2,000 persons were entertained at the
expense of the candidate. If practices of that character
when brought under the cognisance of the house
A,'ere
not to be followed by further proceedings, he confessed
he thought they might as well legalise the,putting up to
public auction the representation of the
people in the
several boroughs of England. (Hear.) He was quite
sure by such a proceeding they would as well sustain
the honour, the influence, and the reputation of the
house and the morality of the electors, as by giving an
absolving protection to the system which prevailed in
the borough of Clitheroe.
Mr. HINDLEY believed the whole house would
unite in condemning the proceedings at this election ;
but the question was whether the act of Parliament con-
.fined the house to bribery, or extensive bribery, in

moving an address to the Crown to issue a commission
for further inquiry. The House of Commons could not
carry out the act by themselves. They had had to con-
cur with the Lords, and they knew what passed in
another place last night. Therefore, they ought to
adopt the suggestion of the honourable and learned
member for Suffolk, and be extremely careful, when
acting on an election committee, to make their resolu-
tion so completely in accordance with the act that both
houses might agree as a matter of course. (Heir.)
Mr. J. GLADSTONE thought it would be a great
injustice to Canterbury and other constituencies if com-
missions were issued with respect to them, and not with
respect to Clitheroe. As to only one case being re-
ported, much larger lists were given in ; and it was
well known petitioners never would prove more than
sufficient to answer their own object.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought they ought not to
endeavour to strain the law beyond what the law pro-
scribed. Had the bill which he introduced last ye 1r
came back from the Lords in the same state in which it
want up, this case cf Clitheroe would have been charly
included in it. (Hear, hear.) No doubt the motion for
an address would hare passed the house, and inquiry by
a commission would have taken place. But the House-
of Lords expressly excluded the case of treating from
the bill, and such being the case it was impossible to act
as if the words were included. (Hear, hear.) He stated,
at the time he advised the house to concur in the amend-
ment of the Lord:, that if gross cases of treating oc-
curred, they might proceed, as in the Sudbury and St.
Albans cases, to carry a bill through the Parliament ;
and that was a course which was open for any member
of the house to take in this instance. The honourable
member for Manchester stated that he warned him
(Lord J. Russell) of the effect of leaving out the words,
and adopting the other amendments which were made.
He (the noble lord) was unfavourable to those amend-
ments. The question was, whether he should allow the
bill to drop, and have no bill on the subject. He thought
it preferable to obtain such an act as they now had,
and the case of Canterbury and other cases had shown
that they were able by that bill to institute investiga-
tions into bribery, which otherwise they would not have
been in a position to do. He thought, after the experi-
ence they had had, it was tolerably evident the house
ought to have power to proceed with an address to the
Crown in cases of treating. (Hear.) He was glad to
hear that the right hon. gentleman the member for Mid-
hurst had paid considerable attention to, and meant to
introduce a bill on, the subject. Whether the act of
last year and the act of 1842 would be included, the right
hon. gentleman did not say, but he was very glad to hear
that he had given the matter his attention, and in intro-
ducing a bill the right hon. gentleman might rely on re-
ceiving the best attention of the Government. He did
not think it always incumbent on the Government to in-
troduce bills of this kind. Individually, he had fre-
quently introduced such bills—some were successful and
others had been altered—but these were questions upon
which he thought the house ought to endeavour as far
as possible to act without distinction of parties. (Hear.
He thought they would make more way if bills of the)
kind were carried by large majorities, composed of the
different parties into which the house was divided. No
doubt, much might still be done in the way of detecting
bribery. He thought further legislation would be very
beneficial ; at the same time he did not regret that he
did not take the advice of the hon. member for Manches.
ter, and allow the bill of last year to drop. (Hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI quite agreed with the noble lord that
they ought not to strain the law, and he quite agreed,
after what had occurred in another place with reference
to the bill of the noble lord, that it would not be wise in
them to sanction any commission being issued to inquire
into cases of treating, however extensive they might be.
Notwithstanding th evidence as to treating in this ease
of Clitheroe, that was not the basis of the recommenda-
tion for a commission. He must remind the house that
the evidence and report to inquire were not at all con-
fined merely to the matter of treating. There was con-
siderable evidence, if he recollected right, proving that cor-
rupt practices—consisting of direct bribery or offers to
bribe—did prevail at the Clitheroe election. It was
quite true that in the report of the committee only one
case of bribery, though that case was a very flagrant
one, was alleged. But they all knew, and the reason
had been already referred to, why the inquiry into ques-
tions of bribery ceased before election committees. No
doubt, it was perfectly open to the house to appoint a
commission to inquire into the subject of treating, but he
thought before they decided on that question they ought
to ask themselves whether or not the evidence before the
committee on the Clitheroe election petition proved that
corrupt practices of direct bribery extensively prevailed.
He did not know what was the number of instances of
bribery given in to the committee, but he apprehended it
was by no means inconsiderable. [An Hon. Member—
Only one.] He believed a list was furnished of more
than twenty. (Hear.) He knew the evidence disclosed
four or five instances in which bribes were offered, and
one man stood outlbecause they would notgive him 1501.
—he refused less than 1501. He confessed it was a di-
fficult case to decide, but if he must decide he must de-
cide in favour of issuing the commission. (Hear, hear,
and cries of " divide.")
The house divided, and the numbers were—
Ayes l4l
Noes.. 5B

Majority for issuing the commission 83
THE DUTIES ON CARRIAGES.
Sir DE LACY EVANS, in moving for leave to bring ix
X bill to alter the scales of duties on carriages, said he had
to bespeak the consideration of the right hon. the Chance
for of the Exchequer on behalf of a very meritorious and
deserving class of artisans, whose employment was injuri-
ously affected by the present duties on carriages. The pre-
sent duties were ranged under 26 different heads, varying
from 11. SA. to Cl. is. He proposed by this bill to reduce
the number of classes to three, levying a duty of 31. upon
four-wheel carriages, drawn by two or four horses ; a duty
of 21. on four-wheel carriages drawn by one horse ; and a
duty of 1/. on two-wheel carriages drawn by one horse.
And this arrangement, as he should show, would not in-
volve any diminution of revenue. He estimated the reve-
nue from the 3/. duty at 95,000/., from the 2/. duty at
133,0001., and from tho It. duty at 198,000/., supposing, as
he proposed, that all exemptions under the second and
third classes were abolished, with the exception of carriers'
carts. He was prepared to show, by returns from 49 dif-
ferent towns and places in the country, that the proportion
between taxed and untaxed carriages was 47 to 502, or just
10 per cent. ; but in order not to exaggerate, the estimate
was based on the supposition that only 4 per cent. would
be added by abolishing the exemptions. The three items
together gave 427,0001., and the present tax yielded
420,0001., thus, as he had said, yielding an increased reve-
nue. If there was one tax in the whole fiscal code which
called for modification, it was this particular tax. He pro-
posed to lighten the tax to those who at present paid it,
and to make those who evaded it pay some contribution to
the revenue. The returns showed that the amount derived
from this tax was annually decreasing, whilst the amount
of exemptions was as regularly increasing. He would take
the last three years' revenue. In 1819 the number of four-
wheel pair horse carriages was 25,447 ; and in 1852, 23,778 ;
proving that_l,669 carriages, chiefly gentlemen's carriages,
had been given up within the last three years. In 1819,
the number of four-wheel and one-horse carriages, and
those let to hire, was 41,621 ; and in 1852, 38,833; so that
there was a reduction in that class of 2,788. In 1849, the
number of one-horse two-wheel carriages was 28,774 ; and
in 1852, 24,791; showing, also a diminution of 3,983.
During these three years the exemptions from this kind of
taxation had increased to the amount of some thoflsands of
pounds. Now, when it was recollected that population had -
increased within the same period, and that the wealth of
the country had certainly not diminished, he thought the
concurrence of those two circumstances would show that the
tax must be objectionable in its incidence. Within the last
ten years fifty firms of coach-builders had either become
bankrupt or had been obliged to give up business. There
was another ground for the revision of this tax, which he
thought still stronger than any which he had previously
mentioned, and that was the frauds and evasions which
were practised under the cover of the provisions which re-
lated to exemptions. They had all heard of the dog-cart
and of the taxed cart, or rather of the untaxed cart. He
hoped that no honourable member of that house kept
vehicles of that description, but he understood that many
noble lords, and even some right reverend prelates, did.
(A laugh.) It never could have been intended that vehi-
cles like these should be exempte 1 merely because the
owner's name was painted very legibly behind, and be-
cause the coachmaker said ho only charged 211. for building
them. When he last introduced this subject to the house
he pointed out no less than twelve advertisements in a
paper of that day, which were utterly in defiance of the
principles upon which this species of taxation had been
imposed. He would not weary the house by referring to
fresh instances of evasion, but it was only necessary to take
up a newspaper to see repeated illustrations of the kind.
The right of composition also was abused, for the class
which alone availed themselves of this privilege did not
even belong to the middle class of gentry, but were the
decidedly opulent class. They compounded for two or
three carriages for a term of years, and then during thee
remainder of the term they used as many carriages as they
pleased. He had no doubt that any one who could
state
the facts of the case in the powerful manner which the
subject deservedte wouldod himcsaeu
carry
withthe whole
noticing ho
the
use withpn ehimi
principal
1;
but he had count
salient points, and ho hoped that the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would deem them worthy of his serious
attention.
Mr. TURNER said that he had been requested by the
coachmakers of Liverpool to support the motion, and he
did so with great cordiality. From a return which had
been procured from those coachmakers who made both
kinds of vehicles in that town, it was ascertained that the
proportion of untaxed to taxed carriages manufactured
there was five to one, and no doubt existed that if a proper
return could be furnished by those who built untaxed
carriages only, it would be found that the proportion was
as ten to one.
Mr. BRIGHT observed that the question of the duty on
carriages was in some sense a pleasant one to discuss with
Chancellors of the Exchequer, because the advocates of a
revision could show that the income derived from the tax
was steadily, though not very rapidly diminishing, while
they could prove thot the revenue from this source might
be increas d. The coachmakers were an unfortunate race,
because being scattered about the country, they could
exercise no political influence, and they had consequently
for some years past suffered from the Exchequer garotte,
which *as gradually strangling an industry which was as
valuable for its extent as any other industry. It was gene-
rally supposed that luxuries might be
was a xedai muchß
thethe
effectlegislaetfurtehathtosuxgwhtasprfeelpteri,Bbfiunttily more by lose tehat b mistake, and
,
per-
sons who did not keep carriages than those who (lid. He
had been informed that there were fifty towns in Great
Britain, where the trade of coachmaking was formerly car-
ried on, but where it was now unknown. He was told by
coachbuilder in Manchester that there was not more than
aone builder in that city who returned more than 10,0001.
in his trade. Now, considering that Manchester was a
place of undoubted wealth, and that it was the centre of a
population of one million of people, that fact alone was
sufficient to show the dep.( sung effect of this tax. Coach-
makers were also subject to a peculiar grievance, in being
obliged to pay 6/.. for any carriage which they let out for
hire during the year, even if they let it out but for one day.
That, • That, he contended, was contrary to all the principles_
the fiscal infliction. He begged for a moment to call
with respect t
theto
enatten-
tionni oafgetsh. e
whhousene
htoe
was
se
laca6seinofthlartelooanittiry
thherews