The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-15 00:00:00

VENING EDITION

might have happened in the last few days (which he
I wished not further to notice) he felt quite sure all parties
would join in what he had just now said, and feel it not
only disadvantageous hut disgraceful to them not to show
themselves forward in adopting any measure which would
appear to remedy the evils exhibited in the Report—
( Hear, hear.) With respect to the notice of the Noble
Lord, he would state at once that he did not mean
to oppose the issuing of the writ ; but he must
at the same time state he did not take that course because
he did not think there was sufficient ground to induce the
House to suspend the writ, nor that he thought there
was wentrig precedents for taking such a course ;
but looking at the whole proceedings—looking to what
was the case with respect to every other borough,
and what had taken place at the last general election,
he thought it would be more advisable if the House should
proceed by some general measure to provide a further re-
medy against bribery and treating than that which at
present existed (he alluded only to what was done at pre-
sent in this particular case) than to use what was
the undoubted power of the House, and which it
had frequently exercised, but Ts hich certainly was a very
strong power, that of keeping below the proper number
the Members of that House, and refusing the electors of
any particular place the right of sending Members to repre-
sent their interests, and the enjoyment of the franchise.
He would make a very short observation with respect to
the evidence in these cases, for the Noble Lord must al-
low him to allude to Cambridge as well as Ludlow—
( Hear)—because there was a very great similarity between
the two cases, and because he was not then making an
objection solely to the passing over the case of Ludlow, but
an objection to their not considering the whole of the case
as of great public importance. It appeared by the evi-
dence before these Committees that there had been parties
bribed directly by gift of money, and that there had been
most notorious cases of treating in both the boroughs.—
( Hear, hear, from Sir R. Peel.) Indeed, although ho
had looked into many cases of this description—although
in former times he had had to deal with several cases in
which there was more direct evidence of bribery among a
great number of electors, in which in certain cases
the great majority of the electors were proved to have
received certain sums of money, and thus the
evidence went more directly to the disfranchisement of the
borough, awl the punishment of individuals, yet he must ,
say, cases more disgusting, or showing a more profligate
state of the constituent body—( Loud cries of Hear,
hear")—and showing more degrading practices on the part
even of those who stood in the highest situations with re-
gard to the elections, down to the lowest, he must say ho
never saw in evidence taken before any Committee.--
( Cheers.) It was not, therefore, on account of the light-
ness of these cases, t r that either of them was to be con-
sidered as venial, that they ought to refrain from such
measures as they might think the case properly required.
But he would observe, before he went any further in stat-
ing what he proposed to do, that these eases of continued
treating, of opening a great number of public-houses, and
allowing persons to go to those houses for any period of
time, and to drink to any extent, provided only they
were supporters of a certain candididate—( Hear,
hear)—to risk no question as to expence, and thus
as it were to drug the electors into voting for
a particular candidate—he thought that was not only
bribery, but was one of the most disgusting and offensive
tricks of bribery.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") It was
certainly a distinction, and it was a distinction which was
favourable to taking means to prevent these; prac-
tices, that there were more means of discovering
treating than there were of discovering bribery. With
respect to sums of money being given, he thought thst was
au offence upon which it was the most difficult to procure
satisfactory evidence, and therefore the House would ob-
serve that those few instances that were given with respect
to bribery could not be taken as giving anything like
the whole of the amount of bribery ; but there were
cases which did afford a sample of the proceedings of the
party by whom bribery was resorted to ; because if they
had a person who was not much connected with the borough
willing to distribute money, and they had an elector
ready to receive that money, that transaction mightbe hePl
so secret that it would be very difficult, if not almost im-
possible, for any Committee to discover the fact. There-
fore the way in which the truth came out with regard to
those cases was in instances where a person not intending
to conceal the bribery that was offered, either pretended
that he was a person willing to be bribed, or being a per-
son willing to be bribed, afterwards betrayed and gave
evidence. But in the greater part of the instances in
which bribery took place no evidence whatever could be
given.—( Hear, hear.) With regard to treating the ease
was so far different that it was impossible there could be
hampers of wine, a quantity of brandy, and gin, consumed
in public houses, without there being some notorious
evidence of the fact, and therefore they would have more
to go upon to treat the commission of the offence. There
were, as he conceived, with respect to the manner in which
those offences were to be investigated, some very ircPer"
tent defects in the existing state of the law. He had, ih;
former instances, attempted to remedy some °f
those those defects, and he would now speak of others. With
respect to offences of this kind, whatever the law
might be, there were parties who by some turn or
double would endeavour to evade the pursuit of that lase,
and therefore they must be ready, though they might
maintain the same principle of law, to make the law metes
stringent and effective, so as to meet the evasion of that
which they had formerly enacted. With respect to the
offence of treating on which be had spoken, there was a
remarkable difference made in the resolution of 1677, with
respect to the offence of treating than there was with re-
spect to the offence of bribery. At first sight that reso-
lution seemed to be as stringent against treating as against
bribery, and it positively declared that the gift of food,
mgba
farnuaa and
made,
eh:tmeat,eogt
hre at
resolution
anegwni
on
with
nhi
offencewn
tni
or eds pes
respect
ocl
agreedoaft ur
bribery,
el
tord
what
treating,behi
rteahyt,
therewviha astitt consideredwohmae
sub aes
this
hadt
hd
bbi
osjer
nui bribery. et
nwr
distinctionyo statedtranrSceco!
committed after the testing of the writ, and before the 4014
election. In the 3d or 2d of Wm. 111. it was carried yelefruhre.
ther, and everything was included between the tests
c"
writ and the declaration by the returning officer. But -he
thought that effectually to prevent such corrupt
the prohibition must be extended over a much lonfiec.
space of time, and include anything before the el s
tion and for one month after it : referring, that
not to cases of bribery tried in Courts of Law,..b.t
to cases tried before Committees. Now, with regard
.te!,
Special
bribery, there was a difficulty arising from the very
manner in which the law referred to engagements
the words being, " Any gift before the elec-
tion, or if the gift be received after the election
received in pursuance of any promise or practicer
engagement
t"
—the consequence of which had been, he though
often a great evasion of the law. He proposed, there-
fore, to declare all gifts, whether before or after the elec-
tion, taken for votes, or fur having voted, for abstain-
ing or for having abstained from voting, to be bribery—brired,
that the vote of every perscn giving or taking a
be void. Then came next the most important question
t
on which upon former occasions he had consulted the Rig Hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. W. W. Wyne)'
who had acquired a great knowledge of the law upon the
subject, and of whose advice he should be glad upon the
present occasion to avail himself—and that question was,
in respect to the indemnification of witnesses before EleF;
lion Committees. The House was aware, a witness could_
not be asked any question which would criminate himselt.,
Now on various occasions there had been passed Acts of
Indemnity for the witnesses in particular cases ; the last
w.as.that of the bribery at Stafford. This was often the cause
of obstrueting the most important inquiries; for it vvas
trejust to compel persons to give evidence which might in
jure, themselves, who yet might be able to throw the most
important light upon such cases. He thought,
11
therefore, that it would be best to give all
witnesses an indemnity before the Election Committees,
ascl thus he trusted that Committees would often be able
to get to the bottom of transactions, often cautiously veiled.
r
There was another question upon which he had upon otigr
occasions made sonic observations to the House, and
still
which he proposed to make provision in his Bill- Ile
gave it as his opinion that with respect to the Grenville
Act there were many disadvantages attending it , _
they must also attach to the proceedings
Bill of Sir Robert Peel, because it was inhere.%
in the nature of having a special tribunal for the
purpose of trying election petitions. Under the Grc.1..1:
ville Act there were undoubtedly many play
,ti!ci
cisions ; still that was countervailed, because the House n.„
always looked at the whole case, and in anything gross
or notoriously tending to the corruption of that House, it
was always in the power of the House, and it was aci,u,__
a matter of course that the House should evince
its
aril
under tries
approbation of :such proceedings, sad their determnen,
to preserve inviolate, as it was stated in the old b
their free and independent election. The consequence
sl
departing from that practice, and having a special oda. re
for the investigation of such proceedings, was that lh,o'
special tribunals considered not that they had
before them not of a general nature, but a mere quertihe
between two parties claiming a seat in that House
il ere
same manner as two parties who in a court of law sts
claiming property. That was quite obvious in the rePt it
of our Election Committees for many years past. 3fialie
was a consequence very greatly injurious to the P- bid
interests. With respect to the Ludlow Committee he
impression was that they had confined themselves to ta.,
mete ease before them, and left it to the House to
whether there was any general bribery or treating i
affect-
ing the borcugh. Ile proposed to enact that Cowie al -
a quest!nan
tees should proceed in future to inquire into any genera.
allegations of bribery and treating without waiting to 7_o
shier whether it could or could not be brought horu ,
any candidate or sitting Member, or friend of theirs • te_l`,l
they should report first generally, and then separatelcyc,_,no's,
matters of fact relating to corruption, and any
with its sitting Member, candidate, or friend of
.11:_roPetor
—(hear, hear.) This would not give
power, but a scope more properly belonging
pur-
them ; those Committees were not sitting foe
e,
_.ed__
pose of inquiring whether A. and B. was duly ,ec‘
they
whether or
purposeT a royf oughtprese
satwlie forth ther \Vd
°now stated
and the independence of the House. He ha
• h regard to a
the course which he proposed to pursue with
stated the
rvtionghatvleie t ipteursietyat—f
general measure on the subject, and be had
t"to betaken
House that ho thought no proceedings ougantd
that they
with regard to these Election Committees,. a
or take any
should not have proceeded to issue the writs,
statement
proceedings, without the House having some
before it from some Member, whether there were anymeans,
L rest
for twit g
and what means, which would offer a cure
uestion
b:ltcction
evil. But there were other lights in which the
he could undertake to bring in a general
might be viewed. Ii seemed to him that it was
measureim-
possibleqcitlte
on the subject. He had been formerly engaged in
bonves:
th at
tigating the delinquencies of particular boroughg
• ,
nor,.
the bar of the House and otherwise, in order to u n_r
these corrupt practices, and bring the parties to pu
went. Now he thought the House would agree with him,
that from his present occupations he could not undertakee c.
to prepare a measure with respect to these or any onces_r
boroughs. When he was engaged in investigatingu
t.ret..
practices, and endeavouring to maintain or restore the
purity and character of the House, im did not fi .
the then Minister of the dab, Lord Coati
his
rerigh, throwing any obstacle in his way,
pursuit of these inquiries. He had already said he did