The Sun.
London, England, 1841-06-09 00:00:00

MORNING EDITION:

believed that. many of these actions ere , instituted
simply to screen, the offinders Aiam real.paoae9ttitKS
Mr. E. A. SANFORI) said -•that-having been
man of the Committee, he felt it incumbent on him to
make a few observations; It was not his - intention t,
raise any opposition to the motion, but having attended'
and given his best attention to the evidence given before •
the Committee, he wished to state the impression on his
mind -of- the course the House ought ,to plirsue. lie
would refer the House to what took place on the' last. -
day of the sitting of the Committee. .He had thougheit
right, after the evidence that had been giveii, to make
a special report, the draft of which he drew up, and -
it was very strongly worded. . This, however,. was. rem
considerably modified by the Committee. He bad wisheif
that the minutes of the evidence should be-laid on the
table of the House, that the HotiSe might act as it thought
proper, for it. was his opinion that a further considera-
don of the subject should be made. He had certainly
thought it a hard case that such chargea-sheuld be made
by such witnesses against Dr. Webster, and that la.!
should have no opportunity of rebutting. them. Tids..
however, was not the opinhnof. the. Connuidee. With'
regard more particularly to the question before the
if he ,were to give his opinion en the evidence
given before the Committee, as a judge or as a jhyymaie,
and it was put ta him whether he considered it -Sufficient
to substantiate against 1)r. Webster. . the charge:
of • bribery, he should decidedly say that it was not.
But if they were not able to prove theeharge: they .
would be incurring a great risk in instituting a prosecu-
tion. It was, therefore, his opinion, that the House.
under the circumstances, would not be doing well to
follow up the matter. He wished it would not be thought
that he was influenced by unfair or by party motives on
the occasion, as the impartiality of Chairmen. under the
new law of Election Committeei especially, should he
above all suspicion. He was aware, however, that the
recommendation he had just given to the House might
.•
be liable to misrepresentation ; but still, as he did not
think sufficient evidence _ had been adduced to prove
bribery on the part of Dr. Webster, and to render his;
conviction certain, it was his opinion • that the House .
should not further interfere in the matter. If the House
should fail in the prOseeution,' it -would- seriously affect
the character and dignity of their proceedings.
Mr. BLACKSTONE said that the- plan he should
Most approve of would be the appointment of a Seleai
Committee of the House for the purpose of inquiring:,
into the alleged cases of bribery at the St. Alban's elec-
tion. He deprecated all vindictiveness on the par; ()law
House on such an occasion ; but he thought tlist:.
Webster should, for'his own sake, be allowed the Opp. Ore
tnnity of clearing himself from all aspersion. • _‘f
Mr. C. BULLER objected to the moduli before tie!!.
House. He considered a prosecution against any Indi- •
vidual on the part of the House of Commons as a. very ,
strong proceeding, and as one which should not be.
adopted without very special reasons. He did not thiak,..,
however, that such reasons _existed on the present, oc-
casion. The Right Hon. Gentleman wished to proceed
on his own individual belief or suspicions, uosubstan
dated by any decisive evidence. Besides the opinion of ,
the Committee, who had tried the election, was, that no
further stepS should be taken on the subject. The pro-
secution of Dr. Webster, under such circumstances,
would be an injustice to him, and would set a dangerous
precedent for the future. •
Mr. MACKENZIE supported the motion. He thought
the evidence taken before the Committee established
at least a strong prima facie case against Dr. Webster
and, in his opinion, the House ought to proceed upon it.
Mr. MILDMAY could not approve of the motion be-
fore the House. As a Member of the Committee, he
had felt, and he continued to feel, that it e•ould not have
been fair to take any proceeding against Dr. Webster, in
consequence of charges brought against him, but from
which he had had no opportunity of
.defending himself.
Had it been otherwise, he should have been ready ri-
gorously to prosecute the matter. He had, before he had
consented to the Report, looked back Ao see how the -
House had treated former cases of the same description.
He had not been able to find a single case exactly in
point, but he would, tell the House what he had found.
The first two cases he had met with were the. cases of. '
Ludlokv and Canibridge.—(Hear, hear.) Had the House
ordered a prosecution -in those cages ? No. Although
the Committee had reported in each ease that the agents
of the candidates had been guilty of gross. bribery, the
House had not thought proper to order any prosetution.
They, would not prosecute where they had a whole case
before them, but here, where they had but halt' a case
against a man, they pick out that man to prosecute him.
--(Hear, hear.) Those were' the reasons which
had induced him to act as lie had done, and
he -felt that it would be a gross act of par-
tiality to let those two men escape, and
then fix on one particular man, against whom
they had only half a case, to prosecute him. It,
might, for aught he knew, be the last act of his political.
life. He cared not what was said to him, or of him, in
consequence, but he should certainly walk out of the
House and not vote for this prosecution. He should not
vote against the motion, because having.been a Member'
of the Committee he might be accused of partiality; but
he should not vote for it, beCause he felt a perfect convic-
tion that if the House prosecuted this half-case and left the
others untouched, they would go to the country as one of
the. most disgracefully partial assemblies that had ever
been kuown.—(Hear. hear.) • . .
Colonel CONOLLY hoped the House would visit this
case with great severity.- SeldoM in. the annals of Pttia•
liamentary corruption had so flagrant a ease occurred. • -
It was one that called aloud for punishment, and
he hoped the proceedings of that night would show a
determination on the part of the House to put down
such corruption. He was surprised' at- the speeches of
the Hon-Gentlemen opposite. The frequency of these
cases of bribery was quite alarming. The frightful dex-
terity with which bribery was now accomplished, so as
to keep the candidate quite free from Rik, showed the
necessity of following up a case "Mere it had been so
palpable and gross. Bribery had notilhetonie a perfect
trade.—(Cheers from the yMinisterial benches.) It
seemed to be an art to know how to bribe without detec- . •
• tion—(Ministerial cheers)—and to .destroy all links. of ' .
evidence to• trace the corruption up, to the real source .
from which it had emanated.—(Hear, hear.) He called .
upon the House, in the face of a staring dissolution—
(Loud laughter)--Lto send that man before the tribunals
of the country,- and all who voted for the dismissal of
that motion he-should consider as abettors of corruption.
Mr. MILDMAY. in explanation, would .read to the
House what he had intended moving asan amendment to
the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman. • He had in-
tended moving as an amendment the following resolu-
tion :—That the Attorney-General be directed to prose-
cute, the agent -of the Hon. Manners Sutton, who had
been reported by the Committee on the Cambridge elec-
tion to have, been guilty of bribery ; and.also the agents
in the Ludlow case, who had been reported by the Com-
mittee to have been guilty of bribery ; and also Mr.
Richard 'Webster, who had been accused of bribery.—
(Hear, hear.) He should not, hem ever, now propose it.

Mr. WAR:BURTON said he did not understand where
would be the inconsistency in the House not prosecuting
in this case, where there was no report of a Committee,
When they had the cases of Ludlow and Cambridge be-
fore them, in which there were reports, but in which
the House had declined to prosecute. He wits not afraid
to vote against the • motion, notwithstanding the threats
of the Hon. Member respecting their constituents. lie ob-
jected to these proceedings, because the eb,;eet of punish-
ment
was the.prevention of crime, while in these cases the
punishment fell upon some subordinate party, and the more
guilty parties escaped from punishment. if theybelieved
they could put a stop to bribery by prosecutions, let them
multiply them as much as they pleased, but if not, why
did they reject the only means by which bribery could
be prevented, namely the Ballot ?—(" Oh, oh," and hear.)
Mr. DCGDA LE said he had the misfortune to be a
Member of the Committee, and he had certainly come to
a very different conclusion to that of their Hon. Chair-
man.. He could come to no other conclusion than that
1)r. Webster was guilty of bribery.-L-(Hear. hear.) Ile
thought this wasa, peculiar case. St-Alban's was a place
greatly subject to briber and Dr. Webster appeared to
be a very old offender. ' Ho thought the_ borough should
be afforded- an-opportunity of washing away the stain
upon, it before the next election, and he should therefore
vote for the•motiOn.
Mr. WARD. said the Hon. Gentleman had given.
rather a singular character of the borough of St. Albans,
but that borough had been represented in seieralParlia-. •
meats by the Noble Lord beside the Hot'. Gentleman,
and he presumed the practice was not, eonfined.exe. !nn-
sively to one side.' He said it W"
gr°sB'lYriire:Yliid,
because they knew they
that House to treat this matter in the manner
envies to act in precisely the same manner.—( -,
"n agent in all
They all• knew that money was the maw' ,
go with the
their elections. He was quite ready but
: he would not
were all going
etio the,,r,6loillt!-)-
Iv lootue s
fore t oil
iis put
.motion,do‘% -1 i
„ir ppporsienity
lingford said it would aftbrd Dr. Weel)
.},o
jnodes
of
of justifying himself. There
becti,'aesuesePthracet'Heeost;s.terlka—embeatir Nal-
1, were
theyil on . uGulettlbeent
ia)mutotliligigtahl
and pledring their
t;he:eld, plrvaheetincems,e. .
' ,to the table of that House,
in „,
tet4sedlito-es:
cornlll,
tore at their elections,
guilty' of bribery, or of
_expo:v,
-la he should believe that
other than was justified by law, to
put an end to the
honour as ge-ttlemen that they had not any way been
they were sincere in their desire
' practice: '
said they were neither going to fine
Webster, but to, send him to trial.
1:1:::::10(!irLvioSf' one witness alone, there was a prima
that if the whole
He could not but think _ , _ . question rested
the Attorney-General to prose-
noSrirititi'tj.7ison •
upon the k, . .
facie case for directing
The proceedings of the House would be watched .
withete great anxiety b. the people ; and unless it could be
shown that the evidence against Dr. Webster was such
as he had no opportunity of meeting, the country would
not be convinced of the purity of his conduct Nothing
but an authoritative prosecution on the part of the Attor-
nev-General could secure justice in this case. It was not .
because the lion. Member for WineheSter; who had .
stated that he could find proofs of guilt in other cases,
that the House were to neglect their duty in this parti-
cular instance.. lie hoped the House of Commons would
not, as a body, act differentlyin this case from what they
would consider to be their duty, were they sitting as
Grand Jurymen upon the evidence adduced.—(llear4)
Sir C. GREY said bribery was a crime which under
present circumstances might be prosecuted by any private
individual in the name of her Majesty ; it ought, however, •
to be prosecuted by some official person. In the present
case he could not see what object could be effected ; whilst
it would go flwth to the country that this gentleman was
to be prosecuted, titanic would have no remedy whatever
1 against the injury which would be inflicted upon him. No
..
! preeedent for this proceeding had been laid before the
house, and he . believed that none existed. The House
was bound to • infer, from the circumstance that the
Committee had made no report.that they did not think .
it a case for prosecution.—(Hear, hear.) The lion.
Baronet had compared this case to that of a Grand Jury.
`I here was, howeyi r, . this slight differenee, that in this
ease- there waS uo finding at all. Did the Hon. Baronet
at,Tiw.
no ofh
opinion,ther
ever hear of a case being sent to a:Petty Jury without a
fithneflincgso.:4lyattiti:4lo,andstJstu:d-yth.?
.., . their e Members of
•