The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-27 00:00:00

sty edueationr
Captain BERKELEY—As superior officers.
Mr. ELLIOT reminded the Hon. Member for Mon-
trose that the midshipmen and mates were not of the
lowest class, but generally the sons of high and noble
families; and therefore it surely could be no disgrace to
any assistant-surgeon to mix in such company.
Mr. HUME could not forget that they were boys, and
that the assistant-surgeons were men whose studies were
interfered with.
Mr. COBDEN said he wished to take this opportu-
nity of referring to a subject which, though in some
degree personal to himself, he should not revert to but
that he felt it affected the efficiency of the service and
the economy of the public expenditure. On a former
occasion reference had been made to a statement he
(Mr. Cobden) had uttered in Manchester on the subject
of a line-of-battle ship lying in the harbour of Malta.
When he made that statement he was speaking in the
midst of personal friends, whom he told that he had seen
a ship lying at Malta from November to March; that he
had then gone to Egypt, and on his return had found
the same ship lying there still. An attempt had been
made to make it appear that, instead of speaking of a
matter which had occurred ten or eleven years ago, he
had referred to the state of things last year; but he
must remind the Committee that he made the statement
to persons who knew that he had not been to Egypt
last year, and could therefore have at once known the
statement was false. Though a sort of quarter-deck
contradiction had been given in that House to his state-
ment at Manchester, the fact that ships lay for a long
time in the harbour of Malta remained unanswered.
Since then a perfect stranger had furnished him
with information that the logs of ships were kept
at Somerset House, and that by moving for them
he could obtain a return of the logs of the ships in
question. He had moved for and obtained the return of
the logs of the date he had mentioned, namely, 1837,
when he was in Malta. From the returns, he found that,
in 1837, the time of which he had spoken. the Princess
Charlotte, 104 guns, lay at Malta from the Bth of No-
vember, 1837, to the 20th of May, 1838, a period of up-
wards of six months, and also that the Queen, 110 guns,
lay there from the 7th of October, 1842, to the 15th of
September, 1844, a period of eleven months and eight
days, without ever raising her anchor. He was assured
by a friend who had as ward a midshipman on board
that ship, that the expense and demoralisation arising
from the lengthened stay in harbour was absolutely
ruinous, and that when the ship went out a vast number
of the crew were so sea-sick as to be unable to perform
the ship's service.—(Laughter.) It would be remem-
bered that the Honoureble and Gallant Admiral
below him (Admiral ;Dundas) had on a former occa-
sion read an extract of a letter from Sir William
Parker, the present Commander of the Mediterranean
squadron, expressing his astonishment at the statement
went he (Mr. Cobden) had made, and raising an im-
pression that ho had stated matters which could not be
borne ont by facts. Now, these returns further showed
that the Hibernia was lying in Malta harbour from Aug.
26, 1845, to March 28, 1846, being seven months and
two days, without ever raising an anchor. Ile brought
these facts forward on public grounds. What he had
stated at Manchester was, that ho had seen a ship lying
at Malta with 800 or 900 men on board for six months,
producing thereby great demoralisation, and a vast ex-
pense in every way. As to demoralisation, they all
knew what a region in that respect Malta was, and when
they were told that a line-of-battle ship had on board
from 30 to 40 junior officers, such as midshipmen and
mates, who were the eons of high and noble families, he
put it to the Committee whether anything could be
worse than for such a party to remain ten or eleven
months together in such a harbour as that of Malta.
Under all these circumstances he thought it would be
satisfactory if the Hon. and Gallant Admiral (Dundas)
should state to the House whether he thought such a
practice was consistent with the efficiency of the service,
or the proper economy of the public expenditure.
Admiral DUNDAS stated that since the present
board had been in office ships had not been allowed to
remain in harbour. and it was contrary to the rules of the
service that they should be so. It would have been well
if the Hon. Member had given the Committee the in-
formation of what the Queen Charlotte had done after
remaining the winter in harbour, for then the Com-
mittee would have learned that she went to Acre, and led
in all the operations there, and had never been one
month at Malta since. On a former occasion, he
(Admiral Dundas) had read the communication received
from the American Consul, and did not retract a word
from his former observations, in reference to the state-
ment that the Hon. Member had seen a ship lying at
Malta with 1,000 men on board.
Mr. COBDEN said his informant might have misled
him as to the precise number of men, but this he could
state that the Queen Charlotte, of 110 guns, had on
board 1,119 persons, of whom 225 were supernumeraries,
leaving about 900 as the complement of men on
board. But the question was whether the broad
facts he bad stated were or were not deserving
the attention of the Committee and the Government,
and he hoped he might be allowed to say in all good
humour that the Hon. and Gallant Admiral had more
than once contradicted him in a manner of which any
independent Member would have a right to complain.
lie had been contradicted when he stated that there was
no ship of war 'at Canton at the time of the recent
murder of the English subjects in China. Since that
contradiction he had received a letter from China re-
iterating the fact, That letter he bad shown to the
Hon. and Gallant Admiral, who merely remarked—
" Well all I can say is, if they were not there they
ought to have been there."—(Laughter.) However well
this manner might do on a quarter-deck, it was not the
mode in which business ought to be transacted on the
floor of that House; and ho trusted the Hon. and Gal-
lant Admiral would for the future be accurate as to his
own information before he contradicted any Hon. Mem-
ber.—(Hear, hear.)
A.therAer uuiNDAS said that since the statement
with respect to there being no ships at Canton at the
time mentioned, he had inquired at the Admiralty, and
found there were orders that no ship of war had any
right there.
Capt. BERKELEY thought the Hon. Member for the
West Riding ought to have obtained, in addition to those
he had read, returns of the services which the ships
named had performed while on the Mediterranean
station. If so, he would have found that it was neces-
sary, as the admiral was employed in a somewhat diplo-
matic capacity—it was necessary his ship should remain
at Malta. It would have been found also, that by the
mediation of British naval commanders (Captain Cod-
rington, for instance,) peace had bees maintained be-
tween belligerent parties in many of the ports where
disputes had arisen.
Mr. HUME rejoiced that the lion. Member near him
(Mr. Cobden) had thus triumphed over the attempt to
run him down by the impression created that there had
been no truth in his statement. He had, however, shown
that it was accurate, not merely in respect to one but to
three ships of war which bad been on the Malta station.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said he had read the speech
made by the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cobden) on
the occasion which had given rise to the subsequent in-
quiry and discussions. In that speech he had impugned
the character of the British navy, describing the officers
as skulking from duty. Ile had spoken of the Duke of
Wellingtoe as a drivelling old man, and had spoken of
both services in a manner which was disgraceful not only
to a Member of that House, but to any Englisman.—
(Cries of " Oh, oh.') The Hon. Member had, in the
us pnTeheehcceho
mer referred rNe hisde
trtooLs,Li t
juoosnil.e.d language which was wholly
and expressed a hoopfe t
thhea
tEhXi s EXCHEQUERdi n( rr-.
rosbedden) would not take any notice of the warm ex-
pressions used. It was quite clear that the statements
made by his Hon. Friend were perfectly true, and it
really woeld be a waste of time further to discuss the
matter.
Mr. BOLLING conceived that the Hon. Member for
the West Riding had unjustly abused the navy. If the
ships lay in harbour he abused the admirals, and said
they were afraid to go to sea ; and if they were active,
they were equally abused. What would he have them
to do?— (Hear.)
Mr. BRIGHT said it was desirable for the House to
rid itself of the idea that the services of the army and
navy were not to come under as rigorous discussion,
and undergo as searching an investigation, as they
were accustomed to extend—he feared too little—to
other departments, Bearing in mind that by far the
largest portion of the available revenue of the country
was expended in the maintenance of the military depart-
ment, that was quite a sufficient reason why they, the
guardians of the public purse, should have under their
own eye what was doing in those departments, and
should see that they were kept in the greatest possible
efficiency at the smallest possible expense.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. Member for the West Hiding had not
spoken disrespectfully of the services of these depart-
ments; he bad merely pointed out abuses, and had ac-
tually understated the grievances he complained of, as
wason t her proved by the
le,ho
ureturns wi
gh
hi ch
th theetr
uAdmiraltythathad
e blood laid
of
protecteretheitreeitto; pHreohtectMtheme btearxs -psharelrds
ofrecollect
the
Douglasuthat could
y t;h
ayn
dw
he was disposed to do so.
Mr. G. ROBINSON said, this great: complaint against
the Hon. Member for the West Riding had been that he
had represented the British ships in the Mediterranean
as " slack,"
whilethose of
n the.
conti-
nually running up a
so misapplied to the
io There,Am erican
Deter s werewas
ater m
d down.
British navy, which had never been
in so efficient a state.
Captain
t to have apologised to the country
for the terms in which be had spoken of the navy and
which bad excited a feeling of
esatpßtaiidninHgAoßugßhlS thought the lion. Member for the
West
the Duke of Wellington,
indignation
of
fa
tthroughoutw hlt would have
as n h
to
not
t m n
ino ovue
questionor .
been better to do so than for the returns as to a
m
; for he (Capt.
Harris) admitted there had been too much harbour-
work.—(Hear, hear.)
When the lion. Gentleman,
addressing his constituents,, spoke of what he saw at
Malta, " the winter,' it was naturally supposed that
en in
he spoke of the last winter.
audience who knew that the lion, Member
Malta for the last ten
Riding had not been at Egypt or
Mr. W. BROWN said the speech wasadfdorrestsheed\tvoeasnt

years.
After a few words from Mr. Huiek and Capt. BARRIO,
in explanation, the vote was agreed to.
The next vote was 300,000/. towards defraying the ex.
pense of naval stores and repairs, which, after an inquiry

from Mr. HUME, was agreed to.
200,0001. for the half-pay of °Masers of the nary and
the royal marines.
Mr. fIUME said it was most important that this item,
which was in all 700,0001. or 800,0001., should be
reduced.

The vote was agreed to.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Mr. PARKER then proposed to take some votes OR
account of the items in the miscellaneous expenditure,
which were all necessary for the public service. The

votes on account would no. _ .fley had
been last year. The following votes were then pro-
posed, and agreed to without discussion :-
50,0001., for repairs, &c., of public buildings; for furni-
ture, &c., for various public departments ; for certain
charges for lighting and watching, for rates and taxes ;
also, for the maintenance and repairs of royal palaces
and works in the royal gardens.
25 0001., for works at the new Houses of Parliament.
10,000/., for works required for enlarging and im-
proving Buckingham Palace.
15.0001., salaries and expenses in the department of
her Majesty's Treasury.
8,0001., salaries and expenses of the office of Secretary
of State for the Home Department.
15,000/., salaries and expenses in the department of
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, also Queen's messengers.
10,000/, salaries and expenses in the department of
the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
10,000/., salaries and expenses in the department of
the Privy Council, and the Committee of Privy Council
for Trade.
5001. towards the salary of the Lord Privy Seal.
Mr. FIUME said he, thought it a fit opportunity to
take an objection to that vote, as the Lord Privy Seal
was absent from the country; but afterwards said he
would raise the objection on a future vote.
10,000/., charge in the cffice of the department of
Comptroller-General of the Exchequer, and Paymaster
of Civil Services.
1,000/., portion of the expenses of the Ecclesiastical
Commissioners for England.
4,0001., salaries and expenses in the department of
Comptroller-General of the Exchequer, and Paymaster
of Civil Services.
6,000/., salaries and expenses connected with the public
records; also compensations to keepers of records and
others whose offices have been abolished.
20,0001., expenditure of the several branches of the
Mint.
2,900/., charge of office of Paymaster of Civil Services
in Ireland.
14,000/., salaries and expenses of the Board of Public
Works in Ireland.
50 0001, expenses of stationery, printing, and binding,
for the several departments of Government in England,
Scotland, Ireland, and the colonies.
8,00C1., charge of her Majesty's foreign and other secret
services.
5,0001., expenses connected with the prosecution of
offenders against the laws relating to the coin.
Mr. HUME complained of the extravagance of this
item (the total of the estimate being 9,6000; and said
he should move for returns to show hew it was ex-
pended.
10,000/., expenses incurred by the sheriffs; deficiency
in fees in the office of Queen's Remembrancer; and cer-
tain expenses of the Queen's Prison.
7,0001., expenses of the prison for juvenile offenders
at Parkhurst.
Mr. HUME asked what was done with those juvenile
offenders after they left Parkhurst? He conceived that,
unless some provision was made for them after they came
out, the institution itself would be of very little use.
Mr. V. SMITH said that many of them were sent to
Australia, where they were in great request as labourers,
on account of their moral discipline and excellent phy-
sical condition.
Sir J. GRAHAM was bound to say that ho believed
there was no more really meritorious service amongst
the many distinguished services of the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government than the foundation of the
prison at Parkhurst.—(Hear, hear.) While he (Sir J.
Graham) was in office, a number of these boys had been
sent to Australia, where he hoped they would be able to
earn an honest livelihood by their good conduct.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had not had sufficient
experience in connexion with the institution to entitle
him to answer the question of the Hon. Member for
Montrose; but he hoped that, after what had been said,
the Hon. Gentleman would be induced to think that the
institution was a useful one. In founding this institu-
tion he had gone upon the principle that the reformation
of old offenders was not much to be depended on; the
penitence of men of twenty-five to thirty years of age
often turned out to be a studied s 3 stem of hypocrisy;
and the best behaved convicts when they left England
frequently turned out the worst when they relapsed.
I3ut in boys of ten or twelve years of age, their bad
principles might be eradicated.—(Hear, hear.) Such
was the principle on which the prison had been founded;
and he considered it one which the public ought to
uphold.
Mr. HUME said he doubted the success of the insti-

,t be greater tb

II th

tution at first, knowing how apt thieves were to assume
a hypocritical penitence. Still he had no objection to
their being sent out to the colonies, where a fair field
would be open to their industry. But it was objection-
able for these parties to be transported at the public
expense when honest men could not be assisted to
emigrate.
Mr. V. SMITH said these convicts were only accept-
able in the colonies oil account of the discipline to which
they had been subjected at Parkhurst. It was a doubtful
and fearful question how far this distinction ought to be
made between honest and vicious young men in favour
of the latter; but on the question of economy he thought
some reduction might be made in the vote for Parkhurst,
by calling on the parents and parishes of the children,
where they could be found, to defray a portion of the
cost. The expense might be reduced in another way ;
by requiring the colonists, who were greatly in want of
labourers, to defray a portion of the cost of their con-
veyance out.
Mr. A. HENRY said there were 600 prisoners at
Parkhurst, and the annual expense was 13,000/., of
which 5,0001. went in establishment charges.—(Hear.)
He thought it little better than a means of creating pa-
tronage and giving salaries.
Sir J. GRAHAM thought that the Hon. Gentleman
spoke from an imperfect acquaitst.ess with the matter.
CoLeiidering all the circumstances, the arrangement was
a most economical one. Parkhurst was not confined to
any particular district of the country, but received all
children under fourteen years of age convicted of felony
in any part of Great Britain. By this means the most
perfect discipline was attained, and the object could not
be secured by any other institution at so small a cost.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he had been very anxious for
the reform of juvenile offenders, and had framed the in-
stitution with that view, not out of any desire to in-
crease the Government patronage. In selecting the
governor his choice had been entirely guided by the fit-
ness of Captain Woolford for the office. The other de-
partments had been filled up under the recommendation
of the inspectors of prisons, some of them by indivi-
duals whom he (Lord J. Russell) had never seen till he
met them at Parkhurst.—(Hear.)
Mr. HENRY repeated the expense of the establish-
ment was quite out of proportion to the good it was cal-
culated to effect.
The vote was then agreed to, as were the following:-
8,0004, for the Model Prison at Pentonville.
16,0001., expenses of the prison at Millbank.
4,000/., expenses of the general prison at Perth.
30,000/., for law expenses in Scotland.
35,0004, for the expenses of ciiminal prosecutions, and
other law charges in Ireland.
10,0001., expenses of the metropolitan police of Dubiin.
30,000/., to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, to issue
money for the advancement of education in Ireland.
3,0001., for the School of Design, and fur aiding pro-
vincial schools.
30,0004, towards the charge for consular establish-
ments abroad.
10,000/., towards payment of the extraordinary dis-
bursements of her Nlaiesty's missions abroad.
10,0001. for superannuation allowances, and compensa-
tion to persons formerly employed i❑ the public service.
9,000/., expenses of Non-conforming, Seceding, and
Protestant Dissenting ministers in Ireland.
Mr. HUME hoped this vote would be postponed till
certain returns were published, which might assist the
House in making a fair distribution of the money thus
granted.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it

had been the practice fur many years to vote 36,0001. for
this purpose of which only one-fourth was now asked for.
After a few words from Mr. BRIGHT, the vote was
agreed to.
100,000/. for the Commissariat department, 10,000/. for
half-pay pensions and allowances in the Commissariat
department.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported
progress, and obtained leave to sit again.
Mr. BRIGHT said that when the vote for ecclesiastical
purposes in the colonies came before the House, he would
make a motion on the subject. If they wero to pay fur
the religion of the colonists, they might as well pay for
their bread and butter.—(Laughter.)
QUALIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF
ELECTORS (IRELAND) BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of this Bill,
Captain JONES said he did not mean to object to
the second reading, but he saw no reason for hurrying
it on till certain returns which had been moved for, and
which would throw light ou the subject, had been laid
on the table.

Col. CONOLLY said the only objection he enter-
tained to the Bill was as to the amount of qualification.
Hr. HUME thought the Government had taken a
step in the right direction by introducing the Bill. His
only regret was that it did not go far enough.
Sir R. FERGUSON thought that the poor-law 'valu-
ation should be also introduced in boroughs. He hoped
the Government would likewise consider the subject of
joint occupation in counties.

Sir J. YOUNG said that it was most important that
the qualification should be placed on a certain basis. Its
amount might be safely discussed in Committee. The
shortening of the duration of the elections would be a
great boon to Ireland.

Mr. H. A. 'MIME' RT said the subject of valuation
was so important that it could not be too strongly pressed
upon the consideration of the Government. The House
could not be aware of the extreme inequalities which ex-
isted on this point in the south of Ireland. He would
give the House one extraordinary instance of this in the
district with which he was more particularly acquainted.
There was a kind of scramble between two unions for a
particular parish which bad but few paupers, and the
boards of guardians of each union gave orders to their
respective valuators to value the district. It was valued
by ono at 2,5001, and by the other at 1,8001., making a
difference in a small district of 7001.—(Hear, hear.)
Great dissatisfaction existed in consequence of the want
of uniformity of valuation. That dissatisfaction was
already considerable where it affected pecuniary interests,
and ho had no doubt it would be greatly increased when
it extended to political privileges. He hoped the Go-
vernment would give them some assurance that this
important subject would be taken into their conside-
ration.

Sir D. NORREYS thought the Bill should be made
applicable to boroughs. The most disgraceful scenes
took place in the registration courts from the want of
certainty with respect to the valuation. He thought
that this uncertainty should be removed.
Mr. FitEIVEN thought that a franchise, founded on
an 84 Valuation under the poor-law, was too low, and

uration of elections

The
li

grand jury. _tie limitation of the
to one day would be a great boon.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE was glad to see that the Bill
seemed acceptable to the House. The suggestions of
the Hon. Member for Kerry, with respect to the valua-
tion, would receive the consideration of Government.
The question whether the borough franchise should be
dealt with in the same way as the county franchise
would receive the attention of Government in Com-
mittee.—(Dear, hear.) He hoped that the Bill would
be productive of social as well as political advantages
to Ireland—that it would do away with the conflicting
swearing respecting valuation which existed at present,
and induce landlords to grant leases to their tenants.
Mr. R. M. FOX hoped that the Government would
not delay the Bill, as the constituencies of Ireland were
decreasing till they became almost ridiculous.
The Bill was then read a second time.
BOROUGH ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.
On the motion that the House resolve itself into Com-
mittee on this Bill,
Colonel SIBTIIORP moved that the Bill be com-
mitted that day six months. The Hon. Baronet who
introduced this Bill had thought. fit to include Lincoln
amongst the nine boroughs with respect to which in-
quiry was to be made. He had no fear of investigation
as far as Lincoln was concerned. He considered the
Bill tyrannical, unjust, and unsatisfactory. The Bill
gave a most tyrannical power of searching the hooks of
a gentleman's banker, and even the papers of his solici-
tor. He could tell the Hon. Baronet that there was far
more money spent in Hull at one election—he did not
say by the lion. Baronet—than was spent in Lincoln
from the year 1714 to the present time.—(Laughter.)
If such a Bill as this was allowed to pass, where
were they to stop? He hoped the Honour-
able Baronet in introducing this Bill was not acting
under the advice or direction of the Government.
If this Bill went through Committee, which he should
endeavour to prevent, he should at another stage try to
secure a better attendance of Members than ordinarily
could be obtained in that House. If they were to have
inquiry at all, let it be a general inquiry. Don't leave
out the Flint districts, Hull, Sh rewsbury—(Leughter)—
London, Tavietoels, and (said the Honourable Member
in a shout) Bandon-bridge.—(Renewed laughter.) It
was a shuffling, mean, miserable, pettyfogging, dirty,
villanous measure, and that was but an imperfect ex-
pression of his feelings.
The question having been put,
Mr. C. PEARSON said his accidental absence from
the House had prevented him from moving the amend-
ment of which he had given notice. This circumstance
placed him in a somewhat peculiar position. In his judg-
ment this Bill looked in the right direction, but his ob-
jection to it was that he feared it would net he effi-
cient for the purpose it contemplated. Bribery was of
all others the crime for which the penalties were most
stringent, but yet the number of the offences proved and
punished bore the smallest possible proportion to the
number of the offences committed. It was a crime
which had increased, was increasing, and he feared
would continue to increase, unless a new law was applied.
Human nature seemed insufficient to bear up against
the temptation. The Reform Bill had been far from
curing the disease. In many cases bribery had been
greater since the passing of that Bill than before. —(Op-
position cries of " Hear, hear.") If they looked into
their blue-books, they would find Mr. Parkes, Mr. Cop-
pock, and other election agents, stating that whether
they took Stafford, Warwick, Ipswich, or other places.
the system of bribery would be found to have spread
considerably. Lord Palmerston, in 1837, declared his
opinion that, "at the preceding election bribery had
exceeded anything that was ever known within those
walls." 'The fault was, that under the present law every
one was interested in concealing bribery, and no one was
interested in exposing it. What he would have was,
either an effectual prevention of bribery, or an effectual
punishment for it. He therefore desired that a second
schedule to this Act should contain all towns with above
10,000 inhabitants, and that i❑ the event of a conviction
for bribery, the nearest unrepresented town to that
convicted should have the Member, thus giving it a dis-
tinct interest in the conviction of the town in which
bribery was said to be committed. The effect of this
would be to secure in every case a searching and con-
clusive inquiry. Suppose, for example, Horsham was
convicted, Croydon, a town of 16,000 inhabitants, would
nave the franchise. If Derby were convicted, Belpre.,
having proved the case, would be united with it. He
asked for this alteration as a small instalment of re-
form.

Mr. BANKES opposed the Bill. He denied that the
forsharn Committee had made any impeachment of
corrupt practices against the electors of that borough.
The preamble of the present Bill was therefore erroneous,
and the insertion of the borough in the Bill unjust. He
could not think that the House, in its crusade against
treating, was passing the limits of a jurt correction of
malpractices, and unduly checking the exercise of the
simplest and most innocent hospitality. As matters
seemed going now, a man could not indulge in the Old
English impulse to give his fiends a dinner without
losing his seat for his kind-heartedness.
Mr. NEWDEGATE opposed the Bill, though on dif-
ferent grounds to those of the Hon. Member tor Dorset-
shire. The case of Great Yarmouth was kept by the
Government as a sort of standing excuse for proceedings
such as were contemplated by the Hon. Baronet's Mea-
sure. The Commissioners who were to be appointed
under the Bill would be open to party prejudices. It
was an unwarrantable infringement on the rights of
constituencies, and also an interference with the pri-
vileges of the House, as if they could not deal with such
cases of bribery as were cited_ of their own proper
authority.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE considered the Bill to be partial,
unjust, and oppressive, and as such demanded the
strongest opposition. He would tell the Hon. Member
for Lambeth that the borough which he represented
contained a constituency as pure as that which sent him
to that House. If a fair and general Bill were brought
in, tending to remedy the evils complained of, he would
be ready to give it his cordial support; but so long as
the abuses which generally prevailed in the practice of
elections remained unreformed, he would oppose by every
means in his power the singling out of particular cases,
and of making them the subjects of inquiry, as was pro-
posed by the Bill before the House. Ile had stated that
he believed the Bill to be partial and unjust; he would
also characterise it as tyrannical and unconstitutional,
and though sorry to differ from his friends around him
he should resist thb progress of the Bill during its pre-
sent and ail its future stages.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the violent
opposition to the Bill was not properly directed. The
question before the House was whether they were deter-
mined to put down bribery and corruption. It was very
well to say the Bill was partial; but would those who
opposed it on that ground support a general Bill, if such
were to be brought in? He did not believe they
would. The Bill proposed to examine into cases of
bribery which had been proved to exist in certain bo-
roughs; and if it was contended that the majority of
English boroughs were corrupt, he denied most strenu-
ously that such was the fact. It was all very well for
the present Hon. Member for Lincoln to defend the
purity of that borough as far as he was concerned; but
former election proceedings in that place had not been
so pure, but, on the contrary, a Select Committee had
reported to the House that, in the election before the
last, a gross system of treating and bribery had pre-
vailed there, in which the Hon. and Gallant Member for
Lincoln had been stated to have taken part. [Colonel
Sibthorp here exclaimed " That is false."] The Bill
before the Howe was calculated to check such practices
in particular cases where they were proved to have oc-
curred, so as to operate upon the whole of the borough
constituencies, and he sincerely trusted the House would I
not delay further to go into Committee upon it.
Mr. STUART opposed the Bill, not because it pre-
vented bribery, but because it sought to inquire into
what was alleged to be bribery in an illegal and uncon-
stitutional manuer. It was a Bill inflicting pains and
penalties on the poorer class of voters----(Hear, hear)—
and it was brought forward by the Hon. Member for
Montrose, who complained that the suffrage was not
suffieiently extendtsd. It was a piece of ex post facto
legislation, and as sue 2 should meet with his decided
opposition.—(Hear.) He conjured the House gravely
to consider the provisions of this measure before they
pledged themselves to a course which might plunge the
whole electoral system into interminable difficulties.
Mr, HUME said, that the object of the Bill was
inquiry, not punishment. As to the accusation of its
being ex post facto in its character, every triad was an
ex post facto proceeding, and in this case legislation was
a necessary consequence of acts which had been dis-
covered by Committees of that House.
Mr. HENLEY said that the Bill was not to try a
man for an offence he had committed, but to pass a new
law creating a new offence. He objected to it as includ-
ing a great number of boroughs against whom very dif-
ferent amounts of corruption were charged, and giving
to them all the same sweeping condemnation. The word
" corrupt" was used in the Bill; be should like to know
the exact meaning attached to it. Some might think
the giving a glass of beer to a voter was corruption ;
others might think that for a Government °l:ricer to go
down to a dockyard and promise the voters some of the
good things which those who had the patronage in those
establishments had to bestow was corruption. He aid
not
say it was. But what he said was, that to carry on
this inquiry by means of the public purse, and by paid
witnesses, would constitute a dangerous precedent.
For, be it remembered, there was no money to be paid
for the defence. In any case in which the Committee
had recommended further inquiry, and further pro-
ceedings were necessary, let the inquiry be made us to
that case, but let them not try all in one
general
in-
dictment.

Mr. COCKBURN would give his cordial support to
the Bill, and he hoped the House would, by passing the
Bill. show its determination to put down bribery in every
shape.—(Hear, hear.) The object of the Bill was not to
disfranchise these boroughs, but to institute an inquiry,
by means of commissioners an the spot, who would
have the opportunity of examining witnesses upon oath,
which a Committee of the House could not do. There
was nothing of an inquisitorial or ex post facto nature in
the Bill.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the whole object of the
inquiry was to ascertain whether the offences had been
committed. With regard to the question as to whether
the giving a man a glass of ale or a Government situa-
tionroiie House resuming in a dockyard to influence a vote, was to be con-
sidered corruption, he looked upon the one as well as
the other as an offence which ought to be put down.
After a few words from Mr. ARKWRIGHT, which were
not heard, the House divided, when there appeared—
For going into Committee ... 166
Against it .
tlhiaetun Heoru,se Sir
went 11.
into
VS'i l-
-78
Majority
Wil-
loughby, CommitteeugAfterhb)' a
al
pro'enidv words from
C.
andour t o
Im Sennfr aty, j
ob-
tained leave to sit again.