The Sun.
London, England, 1841-04-03 00:00:00

sons who were charged with bribery before this Commit-
tee. 'With respect to those two individuals, they went
into evidence to a great extent A prima facie case of
bribery was made against one of those individuals, and to a
certain degree against the other. In this position
the counsel for the petitioners bad said they would
go no further. They had a mass of ex parte evi-
dence before them, which made very heavy imputations
against individuals. He ( Mr. Elliot) suggested to the
House whether it would be proper to publish ex parte
evidence—evidence to which there had been no oppor-
tunity of replying ? Another point was this. From the mo-
ment that they proceeded to prove agency through the means
of bribery, it was acknowledged throughout the Committee
that the evidence which they were taking would only become
!e-gal evidence in the event of agency being proved. Agency
had not been proved. Now, if they printed this illegal evi-
dence the characters of individuals might be greatly injured.
Though he stated these (objections, however, he would be
glad, if it were thought advisable, that the evidence should
he printed. It was important, he thought, to the charac-
ter of the Committee, and to the tribunal generally, that
the evidence should be published ; but he could not pos-
sibly understand why the abrupt stoppage of the Commit-
tee should be made to imply anything wrong in the
Committee er anything wrong in the tribunal.—(Hear,
hear, from Sir Robert Peel.) Ha could not understand
such imputations.—( Hear, hear.) He (Ed not see how
it was possible to twist it into any thing like partiality.
Until the moment whe v the proceedings stopped, they
were affording every facility to the titioners to prove
their case ; and so far from starting difficulties, he be-
lieved the only doubt in the minds of the Committee wee
whether they were not going beyond their authority, and
opening the door too wide. Suddenly, after they had de-
cided cases in favour of the petitioner, the Counsel declared
that he would proceed no further. Why should they bring
disrepute on the tribunal which all were anxious to render
respectable ? He felt satisfied that he had acted the part
of an honest man, and he did not think there were ten men
in that House who thought othcrwiie ; but if there were,
he held them in utter and complete contempt.—(Much
laughter and cheering.) No man would entertain that
feeling but a man who had the baseness of heatt which
would induce him to act in the same way himself.—
( Hear, hear. )
Lord 110 WICK—So far as he had understood the ob-
servations of the lion. Member for Fiasbury, he had
thrown out no imputation on the character of the Com-
mittee. The discussion that had taken place, however,
was of a very important character, and it would draw the
attention of the House to the question of whether there
were not defects in the constitution of these tribunals and
in the law, which required the interference of that House.
—( Hear, hear.) Ha fully concurred in the observations
of the lion. Member for Somersets'nire, on the hateful
position in which Committees were placed, in deciding
what was and what was not legal evidence. During the
protracted inquiry before the Ludlow Committee last year,
where he (Lord Howick) bad Leen compelled to ect as a
member, that question had been repeatedly raised ; and,
as had been already remarked, Hon. Members, not having
a professional education, when conflicting deci.ions were
brought before them, were utterly at a loss bow to decide.
The same question would perhaps be repeeted five minutes
afterwards, with some trifling variation, and Counsel, it
was well known, presumed upon the ignorance of the
Members upon these professional points, and their not 1,
being able to decide upon the fallacies they put forward.
E .ery moment the most vexatious objections were made,
and the Committee became a scene of wrangling which
was most improper to be witnessed in a judicial
tribunal, He ( Lord Howick) had stated, when the
13,11 of the Regret Honourable Baronet the Member
for Tamworth was first introduced, that it would be
necessary for the Committees to have the assistance
of a professional and impartial adviser. Some great
c'aange was absolutely necessary, unless it was the inten-
tion of the House to sanction bribery and corruption to the
greatest extent. As the law at present stood, unless there
was great clumsiness on the part cf the accused, it was
impossible to get a', the facts. Agency must be proved,
and the greatest caution was requisite. A losisg candi-
date mignt send down persona to bribe and treat in the
sae e of his opponent, and the grossest injustice might
ili,:reby be practiced.—( Hear, Lear.) It would appear as
if ire the cee of Ludlow there had been a tacit rand: r.
standing on both sides that no petition should be pre-
icate 1, for no caution was observed, and both patties com-
mitted themselves in t'ee most extraordinary manner. He
could not see how, with ordinary skill in managing the
corruption, they could get at proof of agency. There was
one cure and one only in his opinion, nan.ely, by a legis-
lative enactment to authorize the examination of agents by
the counsel. That was a test which would get toe truth
from almost any man, however reluctant. If that were
done he believed it would be a matter of extreme peril to
carry on those disgraceful practices, but if they did net
do that, it would he better to repeal the 1 twa
against bribery and corruption, and let every per-
son do the best he could. —( Great laughter.) It
would be necessary, however, to introduce a proviso
that no penal consequence should attach to givisg evidence
which would criminate the party himself. The Legisla-
ture would not compel h in to criminate himself, and then
subject him to criminal consequences. He wished to have
heard, before the discussion closed, a denial that any com-
promise had taken place, because when there was so
strong a prima facie case it was difficult to refuse credit to
the rumours afl ;at. On the whole, be thought the House
should turn their urgent attention to these [Joists if they
had any regard for their character, and wished to prevent
the increase of such a system of corruption.
Mr. JA MES said, every Hon. Member who regarded
the character of that House must regret the scenes of cor-
ruption that were exposed at St. Alban's, Canterbury, and
Walsall. lie had stood a contented election far Carlisle
in 1820, and he declared upon his honour as a gentleman,
and be could make oath of it in a court of justice, that he
was not cognisant of a single farthing being expended in
bribery when several thousand pounds hal been expended
in that way.—(Hear, and laughter.) He was told the legal
expense of the electtion would be 4,0001. or 5,0001., and
three weeks a erwards he was told tint the elestion
had cost him 12,0001.—that the money 11,,r had put into the
hands of his agent to pay the legal expenses had been ex-
pended in gross bribery, while lie decl ired most sol ,mnly
he had not the slightest i lea of it, and he was repeatedly
told that no bribery was going on. If the Hon. Gentleman
vvho brought forward this motion, or his friends, wire,; sin-
cerely desirous c f putting a step to bribery, they shoul
adopt the only effectual remedy for the evil ; namely, the
vete by ballot •

Mr.-GLADSTONE rose to explain. In consequence
of what hal fatlen from the Hon. Gentleman, the Com-
mittee had, immediately on its sitting, decided that there
was not the slightest foundation for the aliegaiion of
bribery that was made in the petition against his (Mr.
Gladstone's) election for the borough of Walsall. As to
the charge of treating, the evidence did not go to connect
it with him (Mr. G.) or his agents.
Mr. JAMES stated most distinctly that he did not
know that bribery bad taken place at the election referred
:o. He had merely said that the most effectual temedy
ag sinst bribery was the vote by ballot.
M-. HAYTER said that the Hon. Member (Mr.
Glad tone) was perfectly correct in his statement with re-
spect is the charge of bribery. With regard to the alle-
gation rfl.st ye to treating, the Committee hal made a
special Report on The Report stated that considi r-
able t-eiting existed at Walsall, both previsus to and dur-
ing the election ; but that the evidence was of such a
doubtful nature as to render them unable to connect it with
the sitting Member. He had the misfortune of differieg
with the majerity of the Committee on that occasion, and
though he regretted that, yet on reflection he did nat think
he was wrong in so differing. They all felt that the great
doubts arising in that inquiry were owing to the nature of
the tribunal. The fact was, these questions were consi-
dered to be simply questions between two interests I
parties—a sort of issue to be tr!ei between interested per-
sense But the party mot interested—the House of
Commons itself—did not appear in that tribunal ; and, al-
though the Committee knew that there were persons in
the room who could spe de to every fact, and who could
prove or disprove every allegation of treating, it was not
proposed by the parties interested to bring forward those
persons as witnesses. (Hear, hear.) The Com-
mittee were left to find out the truth as best they
could. In any investigetisn he hail ever seen, he had
never known so little truth and so much false-
hood stated. He had merely risen for the purpose of
stating the inaufficieccy of the tribunal as a' present con-
stituted. He thought it requiiite that sonic more of ex-
tracting evidence, so as to enable the House to anise at
the ta nth, ()Tight to be adopted.

Sir R. PEEL thought that the question of graetirg
utional powers to Election Committees for the purpise
of the better extracting evidence, ought to be kept apart
from the mere consiLieration of the ti ibunal. He did not
think the present a proper occasion to discuss that ques-
:ion. Ile must say, however, that in the course of Cris
discussion, be saw nothing whereby the into rfrity of the
tribunal referred to could he impeached.—( Hear, hear.)
Neither in tie last session, nor in the present, could he
detect anything in the cJnduct of tribunals of this sort that
showed they were not desirous of ascertaining the truth,
and of admit istering justice. Upon the occasion which
was now the subject of discussion, he could not conceive
what other course could have been adopted. He under-
stood that before the Committee was appointed, the panel
of chairmen met to consider the points chiefly litigated in
Election Committees, in order that they might establish, possible uniformity of practice. They took into COl,
if pissi
sideration the question, whether they would permit tho
agency to be established by proving acts of briber), and
thev
decided that where the agency could not be esti,-
bliihed, except by the proof of acts of brin,ery, they would
permit it to be so established. That wag laid down
as a general rule by the panel of caairmen, and
when tire Hon. Gentleman who pre,iricd over the St.
Altan's Election Cl3nim"tee, a ked the membets of it if
ther would abide by it, they ?greed to do so. He (Sir
R. Peel) could not, therefore, j
see that the slightest
shadow of imputation could with justice bectaste nicestup d
them
p. .
.k.t`tough they might not be able to make h
tinctions between the opinions advanced by COunsel, yet
the reasonable presumption was thatttretitc evidenceyhadac
teelfair
and justly. The production ot.
would not object to, if it was for the purpose
of showing that it was desirable to alter the
law in crl.r to enable Committees to have professional
assistance; but to its production for the puirp,
jo,.at
rse.oet
enabling the Mr mhers of that Committee to
their characters, he had every objection, as he • idid riot
think such vindication necessary. On that ground he
certainly would not vote for the production of the evidence.
Air. ELLIOT explained.
Mr. WAKLEY hoped the Right lion Baronet would
not oppose the production of the evidence because he
considered it of no importance with respect to the charn-
ter of the Committee. If the House was to legislate on
the subject for the future guidance of Committees they
ought to be possessed of whatever would enable them to
form a correct judgment of the state of the law. He (Mr.
\V. ) thought tn, evidence was of no importance with re-
spect to the character of the Committee. However, it
ought to be produced for the purpose he mentioned. He
thought they ought not to confine their motion to two
of those tribunals. They ought to have the evidence
given before the Walsall Election Committee also, and if
no other Hon, Gentleman would do so, he himself would

move for the production of the evidence taken before that
Committee. The lion. Memter for Walsall said that he
really knew nothing of bribery bidag put into practice at
his elcc'ion fur that borough.
..

An HON. MEmßEa—Not bribery—treating.
Mr. WA KL E Y—Treating—that's another term for
bribery—a Lice mild Parliamentary term for bribery.—
(Laughter. ) But be might !cirri of it hereafter. What
was the information the Hon. Member for Cumberland re-
ceived? That the 5,0001. deposited for election expenses
had been expended in bribery. He entreated the Hon.
Gentleman not to congratulate himself upon the extent of
his ignr ranee. He might soon receive information that
might have the effect of enlightening his darkness.
The present discussion was a most edifying one.
Honourable Gentlemen, one and all, said that their
object was to maintain the character of the House. If
such was the case be thought they should have been silent
on what had transpired, for this discussion exhibited one of
the most degrading pictures that could be exposed to the
eyes of those who trusted they were faithfully represented
in that astembly—bribery and corruption I Why these
things were as common in their appe stance as noon-day ;
there was nothing more common anti ordinary. The Noble
Lord ( Lord Ho xick) had suggested a remedy, but tnere
was a more efficient or.e. B,ibery was practised among
small constituencieA, and not in large ones ; and if the
House was sincere in the r dense to prevent corruption,
they should give such large masses of the people the power
of electing representatives that no purse should he suffi-
ciently long and heavy to corrupt them. —( Hear, he.r.)
That was the only efficient remedy, and until it was
adopted by the House the sincerity of their professions to
put down corruption would be justly doubted._( Hear,)
The Hon. Member for Somersetshire had said that the
Committees were constantly puzzled by the subtleties of
the lawyers, and he proposed as a remedy another lawyer.
—( Laughter.) Now he (Mr. Wakley) thought it would
be a more effectual remedy to get rid of the lawyers alto-
gether. lie was sure the public would agree to it, and
he believed the Howe would also. What we.e they called
upon to decide ? Were gentlemen who legislated for the
lives and property of the people, and the great interests
of the country to be deemed incompetent to decide upon
the simple question of fact, whether or not a Member was
competent to sit in that House? He entreated the House
to take the matter seriously into considerasi.e, for he be-
lieved the conduct of the lawyers in these a..d in many
other Courts, was orsjudicial to the course of justice.
Mr. SANFORD explained that he proposed that the
assessor should simply give advice upon points of
and not on questions of tart.

On the question being put,
Mr. \VAKLEY moved chat the evidence taken before
the W.lsill Commi:ree be alto primed.
Mr. GLADST'ONE seeo:;ded the motion.

Lord F. EGERTON said he did not ti•iok it right, as
the proccedinv befo:v the Walsall Committee ban only
been incidentally mentioned, to move that they should be
printed. lie thought it was calculated to cast an imputa-
tion upon the Committee, and would therefore divide the
House a•Zainst the nactiln.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said if he thought the eff 'et
of the motion would be to sanction any imputa-
tion against the Members of these Cemmitt(c,, he
would certainly divide the House against the mo-
tion, bui. he thought there could scarctly be such an
impression on the mind of any person. He thought
there were two reasons of considerable importance
why this motion should be carried. By a knowledge • f
the proceedings of these Committees they might de-
vise rules by which those tribunals might be
amended. Another important reason was, that
it might enable them to judge whether it was advisable to
give these Committees additional powers on behalf of the
House and the country—( Hear, hear.) It had always
appeared to him that the Grenville Act tended to make
the question before the Committ e apparently a question
between two parties, each of whom had able Counsel,
each of whom proposed their own views, while the ge-
neral question before the House, whether representation
in the House was duly secured, seemed to he overlooked.
How( ver the remedy, into the question of which he would
not then enter, was a matter of considerable difficulty.
He th,ugat the prolnetion of any evidence of this kind
would show the inefficiency and imperfection of the liw
for the purpose of viorough ievestigatiun, and would thus
be useful, and enable them to discover iu what way a re-
medy could be applied. He did not think any imputa-
tion was intended upon the Committee, for if these ques-
tions had been sent to a Jury or a Judge, and one party
had said—" We have no evidence to offer and cannot
make out our case." they could clearly come but to one
decision. On these grounds and on these general prin-
ciples t!e should not oppose the motion. —( Hear.)
Mr. BLACKSTONE e jibed to set himself right with
the House. He had never intended to cast any impute-
tien on the Committee. He had no objection to the pro-
duction of the evidence before the Walsall Committ e.
The eiidcnce betnre eac!o of Vie three Committees was
then ordered to be laid before the House.

II answer to a qtle!i,in from :dr. ORNISBY GORE.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that it was intended to
issue a C• mmiseio❑ to inquire into the state of the Church
in North Wales.

Colonel SIBTHORP asked if it Was to be a paid Com-
mission ?

Lord J. R USSELL said that the Hon. and Gallant
G. ntlernan bad better ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, at
whose instance the Commission was issued.—( Laughter. )

COUNTY COURTS BILL.

The further consileration of the Report on the County
Courts Bill was postponed to Monday.
ROUGHING OF CATTLE BILL--(IRELAND.)
This Bill was rend a third time and passed.
POOR-LAW BILL.

On the reading of the Order of the Day, for the ad-
journed Committee on the Poor-law alt,
Mr. SANFORD said that he had irtended to make
a statement before the Speaki_r lefi, the Chair respectivg
a charge made by an Hon. and Learned NI, mber opposite
aganst the guardians of the Bridgewater UlllOll. But as
the lion. end Learned Gentleman was not in his place,
he (Mr. Sanford) would take anothei opportunity.
The House then went into Commi tee on the Bill.
On el :use 24 being put, which related t, the regulation
cf the Emigration Fund,
Lord J RUSSELL announced his intention to strike
out the clause fur to present, with a view of inserting here-
after another in its stead. He wished to give the control
of the Emigratim Fund, to the guardians, and take it out
of the hand, of the rate-payers.
Afi.cr some conversation, the clause wai struck cut.
Oa clause 25 being put, which related to the of
paupers,

Mr. DARBY proposed an amendment, to the effect
that paupers might tie hurie I in the palish churchyi,rds.
Colonel SI BT HORP thought there was a general feel-
ing that the Noble Lord hid given up this clause. It was
t, tally unmindful of the feelings of the poor. By the clause
power was given to consign to the grave the body of a poor
person who might die in Union gaol—for so he would call
it—without tf c consent of his relatives. There was but
one further step to take, and that was to consign the body
to the anatomist,. He should take the sense nf the House
as to the propriety of expunging the clause. Ho gave the
Noble Lord credit for tile possession of good feelings and
humanity, and he trusted he would expunge the clause.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon, Gentleman
had misunderstood the meaning of the clause. Its mean-
ing was not to prevent the giving up the bodies of poor
persona to their relatives who might be inclined to bury
them, but to provide for the burial of those who had not
left behind them sufficient effects to bury them, or whose
relatives might refuse to do so; at present the law was
unentain on the subject of who should bury such persons,
and it was to settle the law on that point that this clause
had been introduced. He should not obj,ct to the intro-
duction of words enacting that the body should be buried
in the churchyard of the parish to vthich the person had
belonged.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL thought that, where the
ftiends refuted to interfere the body should be buried in
the churchyard of the parish in which the union house
was situated, but that in other case; every facility should
be aff,rded to the rnbit:viss of the deceased to have the
body interred in the churchyard of the parish to which
the deceased belonged.

Dr. LUSHINGTON had endeavoured, as fir as be
could, to collect the true meaning of the Hon. Member
for Sussex, but he cenfesed he could not undt rstend it until
it was explained by the Right Hon. Member for K
As he understood it, the clause was intended to consult the
f. e lag f the relsvi,ee tf the poor by providing that those
who ti'ed should be buried in the parish to which they be-
longe:l. That might be all very well, but he thought
there ought to be no compulsion. It ought to take place
only upon the application of tt.e friends of the deceased.
In many cases such a provision could not be cart i?d out,
for in some parishes there were no burying grounds; in
ethers when' there were, there was no room ; and
theref..re there must be some provision made in that
respect. Ho deprecated burials in populous places, as he
thought it tended greatly to the injury of the health of the
inhalaitenrs. Another subject worthy of consideration nat
the expeasee attendant upon the burying of paupers; tide
often led to ill feeling, aed the clergymen under the pre-
sent law could not recover any fees. He thought those fees
ought t , be reduced to thy lowest scale; but unless some
enactment took place on the subject, he was afraid the
same ill feeling would continue. He consieered tee prin-
ciple of the chute good, but it required some amend meat.
Mr. DARBY, after a few ohs rvarions, withdrew his
amendment, upon the understanding that Lord J. Russell
would en frame the clause as to carry it out.
Sir T. FREMANTLE wars anxious that the amend-
merit of his Hon. Friend, the Member for Sussex, should be
carried out. He was glad to hear th t the Noble Lord in-
tended to do so ; and, under there circumstances, his
Friend had done right in withdrawing h e amendment.
Mr. WA KLE Y could not go the entire length of the
Gallant Colonel, in objectirg to this clause. In many in.
sutaenctletsiiuFgabritieits
Indied t withoutb.. effect=, and then. the must. ia-
decent cisputes took place as to who should bury the body,
bt
huerite
Wh ea parish
mdi
fi inijectionable that parties should be
Lord J. , which they died If that part of
intimated
no objecti ,n to
RUSSELL intimated that he was willing to
modify the clews, i i that e
Sir A. DALRYMPLE"i'eicdt_ehe en.irely concurred in
p
the seg'eestions oflitehi,ec
the Right
il fm. Gentleman the Merr—
ber far Sussex.
prevailed,
naslioendie instances, the prac-
tice referred to had already
to theaweords of the clause
Mr. DARBY oh,pcte,l
of
wPohoitrh-taawssCiunmedmistshieonepayment
moved' thbautritableyfebees sttorutchkc
jut.
Mr. GORING hoped the Noble Lord would not agree
to the exception.
Mr GROTE said, that in his opinion there was
much difference betty een the clause as it thew stood notand
the clause as proposed to be amended. At present, power
was given to the guardians to order the body to be in-
terred according to their own discretion.
Sir T. FREMANTLE said the case was provided for
by the 29th cl +use.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would have an observa-
tion to make on the 29th clause
Colonel SIBTHORP thought they should have a pro-
vision for sending to the relatives of the deceased, and
consulting them as to where the body should be interred.
Lord G. SOMERSET thought it would be very undo.