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

believed that many of these actions were instituted
simply to screen the offenders from real prosecutions.
Mr. E. A. SANFORD said that having been Chair-
man of the Committee, he felt it incumbent on him to
make a few observations. It was not his intention to
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 pursue. He
would refer the House to what took plaee on the last
day of the sitting of the Committee. He had thought it
right, after the evidence that had been given, to make
a special report., the draft of which he drew up, and
it was very strongly worded. This, however, was very
considerably modified by the Committee. He had wished
that the minutes of the evidence should be laid on the
table of the House, that the House might act as it thought
proper, for it was his opinion that a further considera-
tion of the subject should be made. He had certainly
thought it a hard case that such charges should be made
by such witnesses against Dr. Webster, and that he
should have no opportunity of rebutting them. This,
however, was not the opinion of the Committee. With
regard more particularly to the question before the
House, if he were to give his opinion on the evidence
given before the Committee, as a judge or as a juryman,
and it was put to him whether he considered it sufficient
to substantiate against Dr. Webster the charge
of bribery, he should decidedly say that it was not.
But if they were not able to prove the charge, they
would be incurring a great risk in instituting a prosecu-
tion. It was, therefore, hi* 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
now law of Election Committees especially, should be
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 prosecution, 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 Select
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 part of the
House on such an occasion ; but he thought that Dr.
Webster should, for his own sake, be allowed the oppor-
tunity of clearing himself from all aspersion.
Mr. C. BULER objected to the motion before the
' 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 think,
however, that such reasons existed on the present oc-
casion. The Right Hon. Gentleman wished to proceed
on his own imlividual belief or suspicions, unsubstan
tiated 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 au 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, ho
had felt, and he continued to feel, that it would 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 to 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 oft
Ludlow and Cambridge.—{Hear, hear.) Had the Housel
ordered a prosecution in those cases ? No. Although
the Committee had reported in each case that the agenwj
of the candidates had been guilty of gross bribery, th
House had not thought proper to order any prosecution.
They would not prosecute where they had a whole case
before them, but here, where they had but half 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 he 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 known.—(Hear. hear.)
Colonel CONOLLY hoped the House would visit this
case with great severity. Seldom in the annals of Par-
liamentary corruption had so flagrant a case 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. Gentlemea 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 guilt, showed the
necessity of following up a case where it had been so
palpable and gross. Bribery had now become a perfect
trade.—(Cheors from the Ministerial benches.) It
seemed to be an art to know how to bribe without detec-
tioa—(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}—to send that man before the tribunals
of the country, and all who voted for the dismissal of
that motion ho should consider as abettors of corruption.
Mr. MILDMAY, in explanation, would read to the
House what he had intended moving as an 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. Masmers Sutton, who had
been reported by the Committee on the Cambridge elec-
tion to have been guilty of bribery ; and also tho 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, however, now propose it.
Mr. WARBURTON 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 bel
fore them, in which there were reports, but in which
the House had declined to prosecute. He was not afraid
to vote against the motion, notwithstanding the threats
of the Hon. Member respecting their constituents. He ob-
jected to these proceedings, because the object 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 they believed
they could put a stop to bribery by prosecutions, let them
multiply them as much as they pleased, but if not, why
did they rejeet the only means by which bribery could
be prevented, namely the Ballot ?—(" Oh, oh," and hear.)
Mr. DUGDALE 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.—(Hear, hear.) Be
thought this was a peculiar case. St. Alban's was a place
greatly subject to bribery, and Dr. Webster appeared to
be a very old offender. He thought the borough sheuld
be afforded an opportunity of washing away the stain
upon it before the next election, and ho should therefore
vote for the motion.

Mr. WARD said the Hon. Gentleman had given
rather a singular character of the borough of St. Alban's,
but that borough had been represented in several Parlia-
ments by the Noble Lord beside the Mon. Gentleman,
and he presumed the practice was not confined exclu-
sively to one side. He said it was gross hypocrisy in
that House to treat this matter in the manner they did,
because they knew they were all going to their constitu-
encies,he to act in precisely the same manner.—(" Oh, oh.")
all knew that money was the main agent in all
their elections. elections. He was
ii. eto put down theseguraiteetireeeasdybutto
bgeowown'iltdh
notthe
vote for this motion,
becauseaffordptlrie
Webster
Wal-
lingford said it would'
of justifying himself. There*were()
P ' Member for
stbetter
opportunity
modes
of
, .
among putting
themselves a n end t o these; practices, but they must begin
andwhelatolnie saw Hon. Gentlemen
honour as gettlemen that they haT
coming to the table of that and pledging their
guilty of bribery, or of expenditure at aitntbanerr weitieyotiboeo
other than was justified by law, should believe that
' they were sincere in their desire to put an end to the
practice.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said they were neither g° •
nrested
z to fine
nor imprison . Dr. Webster, but to sendhlmi
to
- trial.
He could not but think that if the whole question
upon the testimony of one witness alone, there was a prima
facie case for directing the Attorney-General to
prose-
cute. The proceedings of the House would be watched
with great anxiety by the people ; and unless it could be
shown that the evidence against Dr. Webster was such
as he had no opportunity of meeting, the countr would
not be convinced of the purity of his conduct. nothing
but an authoritative prosecution on the part of the Attor-
ney-General could secure justice in this case. It was not
because the Hon. Member for Winchester, 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. He 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.—(Hear.)
Sir C. GREY said bribery was a crime which under
present circumstances might be prosecuted by anyprivate
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 forth to the. country that this gentleman was
to be prosecuted, and he would have no remedy whatever
against the injury which would be inflicted upon him. No
precedent 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 Hon.
Baronet had compared this case to that of a Grand Jury.
There was, however, this slight difference, that in this
case there was 110 finding at ail. Did the Hon. Baronet
ever hear of a case being sent to a Petty Jury without a
finding by the Grand Jury ? Two of the Members of
the Committee had stated that, in their opinion, there