The Sun.
London, England, 1833-05-25 00:00:00

HERTFORD ELECTION.

Mr. BERNAL moved, that the report of the Hertford
Election Committee of the 2d of April be read. It was
his duty as Chairman of that Committee to bring the
subject before the House, which he should do as britfiy
3 S th? importance of it would admit. He held in his
hand a voluminous report of the evidence adduced
before the above mentioned Committee, occupying
no less than 400 pages ; but this enormous mass of evi-
dence need not terrify Hon. Members, as it would be
unnecessary to go completely through it—(Hear)—but
only to extract shortly the most essential point.., upon
which the House could come to a decision.—(Heal.)
In 1831, Lord Ingestrie was an unsuccessful candidate for
the borough of Hertford ; Messrs. Duncombe and Spald-
ing being then returned. Early in 1832, a feeling got
alive in the town, and clubs were formed for the purpose
of securing the return of a Conservative Member.
Amongst the most important of those was one called the
Union, set a going by a public-house keeper named Drum-
mond. The avowed object of that club was to secure the
return of a Member in their interest ; the members
on entering were called upon to !,I,lge themselves
to do all in their power for the return of tie candidate
supported by the club. The members of the club in-
creased, and at last, by a bylaw, the members Were to be
unlimited. A system of treating was begun by the club—
beer and liquors were given gratis by Drummond, not
only to the members of the club, but to others. The
consequence of these proceedings was, that a requisition
was got tip in the club, early in the spring, which called
upon Lord ingestrie to come forward
as a candidate for
the borough. He at first refused, but afterwards, in
May—he accepted it, and arrived in tlra town in the
month of June. He ought at this stage to observe, that
the House would see the :lame of Mr. Geo. Nicholson very
frequently in the proceedings—that gentlem in was a soli-
citor in Hertford, and, with bis partner, acted as solicitor to
the Marquis of Salisbury, and also as Under Sheriff. It
appeared that the members of this society then addressed
themselves to Nicholson, who, throughout the contest,
acted as the agent for Lord Ingesttie.--(Hear, hear.)
It was in evidence that when Lord Ingestrie made his
appearance for the first time in 1832, the members
of this Union Club, forming a compact and powerful body,

met him and went in -procession, and that at a
dinner given by gentlemen in the same interest, the
Unionists, as a body, attended with their banners. It was
also in evidence, that there existed in Hertford a practice
of distributing on certain occasions little tickets, which
were called refreshment tickets. It was proved that at the
time of the entry of Lords Ingestrie and Afthon the
first distribution of these tickets took place. They were
coloured blue and red, with the initials of the person
charged with their distribution ; and they had also the
valuation of half-crowns and five shillings. They were
distributed by a person named Dack ; and it was
proved that a sum of a hundred pounds, which ap-
peared ent red as an item in a private account,
it the commencement of the election, was paid to Dark
to be distributed. Now he (Mr. Bernal) did not
mean to say that the inhabitants of a • town or
borough on the occasion of a general election should be
debarred from festive amusements, eating and drinkiug, &c.,
but he would say, if they did not take care to draw a broad
line of demarcation, they would soon ascend the steps of the
grossest bribery. He protested that he ‘s as not exaggerating
these transactions, when he could prove by this evidence
that these tickets were not applied solely for the purpose
of refreshment, but in fact, pissed as a current coin
through the shops of the town,—that they were,
taken and received for calico, linen, tea and su-
gar, meat, and sundry articles; that they were,
in short, an election manoeuvre for the distribution of a
new paper currency—(A laugh)--for the purpose of
bribery. This was the case in the beginning of August,
Dack being on that occasion the powerful sub-agent, be-
cause Nicholson admitted that he had in fact no practical
check on the issue of those tickets. But the issue
was not confined to the transaction on the entry of the two
Noble Lords. Subsequently there were two other issues.
Tickets were issued to so late a period as die 2Stli Nov.,
only ten days before the testing, 01 the writ ; and Mr. Pol-
lan'', a respectable draper in Hertford, proved that during
the whole of the canvass ; and when he sent to Mr.
Dock, to know if these tickets would be honoured or
paid, Dock said that they would.—(Hear, hear.) Nay,
more, 121 odd of tickets was received by him in payment
for goods, of which he paid 31, to the butcher as cash, and
received 91. odd from Mr. Dack for the remainder. Was
it then saying too much when he asserted that these
tickets were but a device, and a shallow device, to
evade the law ? The total amount paid on account
of these tickets Mr. Nicholson admitted to be not less
than 3001. Now, as Hertford only contained a
constituency of 690 electors, it was absurd to talk
of these being mere refreshment tickets. He should not
object, perhaps, to a man receiving Is. or 2s. for a
pint of beer in hot weather, hut the tickets were some-
times for 55., and sometimes for 10s.
Lord STORNIONT—Not 10s.

Mr. BERNAL s rid he would now proceed to de-
tail the evidence upon which the resolution he should
propose was founded. The first witness to whose
evidence he would call the attention of the House was
F. Edwards, at p. 275 of the Report, and who stated
that he had a bill owing to him to the amount of
no less than 2201., incurred on the 10th, 11th, and
12th days of December, which were the nomination
and polling days. When he was asked how be expected
to be paid this Bill, he stated that he depended on a person
of the name of A!lons, a saddler, for its payment—just as if
it was likely that a small saddler in Hertford would incur a
debt of 2201. on his own responsibility for the purpose
of sending Lords Ingestrie and Mahon to Parliament.
The ❑ext witness was Mrs. Took, at p. 277, who kept
the ship public house, and she stated that she had a bill
owing her of 1901., incurred on the nomination day. She
stated that a person of the name of Mundy, a friend of Lord
Ingestrie, asked her permission to put up a flag at her house
that he afterwards assisted her to check off the items in her
bill, and he, with a person named Dade, subsequently signed
it. Robert Hill kept the Maidenhead public-house,
and had a bill owing him of 177/. outstanding. Mrs.
Stafford kept the Rose and Crown, and had a bill owing
her of 1101. J. Nicholson kept the Red Cow, and had one
owing him to the amount of :AL for the two election days;
besides a bill fur upwards of 1001. for "bullies," those who
were called " persons for protection"—( Hear, hear)
—and, as lie stated, on the responsibility of a plumher.
Mrs. Kennedy kept the Wool Pack and had a bill owing
her fan• 2201. Wm. Newman, a baker,—a person who
was well known, the Honourable Me,nber believed, to
many who now heard him, by the name of Doughy
Newman,—admitted that at the same time he
kept a baker's shop, he aspired with his house to the
higher reputation of a Tom and Jerry shop, because he
stated that besides having a bill to the amount of Si due
to him as a baker, he had one for one hundred and
seventy pounds for beer supplied at the election.—(Hear.)
He was sorry to be so tedious, but the subject required it.
Jenah Cooke, the landlord of the Wbeatsheaf, stated in
his evidence, that his bill, which was unpaiu, amounted to
nearly 1501., and that his house was open on polling days by
the order of Mr. Drummond. The landlord of the Salisbury
Aims, the principal inn in the place, where Lords Mahon
and Ingestrie stopped, stated that his bill, which was
unpaid, amounted to 4401.—(Hear, hear)—•end this
witness, when pressed, stated also, that though
be should not like to lose the amount, he could not tell who
was to pay. There were other pub! c-houses at Hertford open
on this occasion,but no evidencehad been taken against them.
By this the House would see that unpaid Bills, after the
testing of the writ, amounted to 1,700/. Was that a legal
expense? And that, too, it might be remembered, in a
town, the constituency of which did not amount
to mole than 655. But this was not all: ac-
cording to the evidence given previous to the testing of
the writ, upwards of two thousand pounds were ex-
pended in canvassing and keeping up the interest of
Lords Mahon and Ingestrie in Hertford. For the in-
formation of Hon. Members on this subject, he would
refer• them to the standing orders of the House, by which,
if any Member, by himself or his agents, promised meat
or drink to the amount of lOL to any of his constituents,
that offence rendered him incapable of keeping the seat
which he had obtained by that treating. In 1695, an
Act passed for remedying the serious and formidable
offence of bribery, but, singular enough, it excluded the
treating to the extent of 101., but, at the same time, it
provided, that any treating. that was for affecting an
election was an offence. It was to be regretted that they
had been always coquetting with the subject of treat-
ing, and it was a pity they did not deliberate, and
reach, with the strong arm of the law, those transactions
which frequently occurred for months previous to the
issuing of the writ, and which always threw great
expense and difficulty on the candidates, and not un-
frequently effected their ruin.—(Hear.) He thought
Government should take up the subject with ►he
determination to effect sonic remedy, for it was too
much to expect that the burde❑ should fall on
a single individual.—(Hear.) He, for one, would never
sacrifice his time and health to play the solo fiddler on
any other such occasion,—(Hear, and a laugh.) He
thought there was always a degree of maiden shyness
on the part of Members when the subject of bribery
at elections was toucher! on. There was no point
of union between them, and so it would re•
main, unless a remedy were afforded, until the
end of the nineteenth century.—(Hear, hear.) While
be lamented that two respectable and talented
Nobleman had lost their seats in that House, he would not
shriek from declaring that there was a great body of
evidence affecting the constituency of Hertford. It was
proved that there were still 17 or 1,800/. now lying
unpaid in that town, and that names were
tnixed ❑p with transactions, all of which appeared in
the accounts of Messrs. Nicholson and Longinore.—
The gentlemen he had named had, in their account,
brought in the incidental expenses incurred at the election ;
and be (Mr. B ) trioueht that when it was shown these gen-
tlemen had opened houses in favour of the candidate,
it was not too much to iufer that they had been indirectly
or covertly au'horized to do so.—(Hear, hear.) Do
House should keep in remembrance that it was not called
upon to deal with the seats of Members, but only to pro
nnunce an opinion as to whether the state of the ca nstituency
of the borough of Hertford was such that the elective
franchise was properly exercised there, or whether it was
not so corrupt that some change was necessa, y.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) In fact, the House in this case was called
upon to act up to the declarations made by
Honourable Members when promoting the great measure
of reform. For his own pant, he thought it would be
really better to have a close borough system, by which
seats might be at once purchased for two or three thou-
„,id pounds, than to have a system continued which put
a candidate to a cost of six or seven thousand.—(llear.)
There did not appear to be touch doubt on the winos of
the Members of the Committee as to the corruption that
hail taken place, It appeared that there was a practice

z,.
eliminate to wives, to widows, an -I all the inhabitants of
tile place. He confessed he was at a loss to see upon what
eround-it was that they sought to establish one rule for
he boroughs and another for the counties. It was well
known that iu counties, hounes bad been kept open five
e.,; • months before the testing of the writ. Something had
ee
• , iieen said of the 1,8001. which was spent, but the House
\Y
- oust be aware that it was one thing to talk of that sum
being spent, and quite another of its being charged. He
had known one case in which a charge had been made o f
5001. for soda water..--(A laugh.) The effect of the
present measure would certainly be that of an ex
post facto law ; and he could by no means be brought
•O think that the electors of any borough should
he punished for any crime not within the provisions of
the Act. He hoped also that the House would i sir in
mind that the borough of Hertford had not been defended
in the Committee, and that if they passed the present Bill,
they would be deciding on the case of Hertford without
Giving that borough a hearing. He hoped that the
House in interfering, as it had a right to do, with the
,urity of elections, did not intend to meddle with the
!parity of justice. The Noble Lord afterwards went on to
analyse the evidence giveu before the Committee. He
particulary commented on that of Mr. Russell Davis,
pointing out inaccuracy as to the description of the room
in which a conversation with Lord Mahon was said to
cave taken place. The evidence of George Beck, another
material witness, was disproved (continued the Noble
Lord) on one principal point; consequently his evidence
could not be of any great weight on other points. With
respect to the case of the distribution of blankets, it had
been a practice at Hertford, and elsewhere, for some years,
and should not ba harshly dealt with—for there was
more of charity in the practice than of corruption. The
king away with such a practice would tend less to dimi-
nish corruption than to dry up the sources of benevolence.
He contended that justice would not be obtained in the
lune way from a Committee of that House as from an
open Court upon which public opinion operated ; and
even though it should be obtained, the moral effect upon
the country would not be the same. The Noble Lord
concluded by stating it to be his opinion that the evidence
as to the state of bribery and corruption in which the Ito-
tough of Hertford was said to be, did not justify that
Kruse to vote for the motion before it.
Mr. CLAY considered the decision the Committee had
come Was perfectly right. With respect to the Noble
Lord's analysis of the evidence laid baffle the Committee,
he thought that the reach did not correspond with the
Noble Lord'. npectation. He concurred with the obsei--
7,ltiOn of the Noble Lord, that persons who would render
themselves guilty of low practices, such as accepting
-ickets for clothes, Esc..—if such tickets were for purposes
:Icorruption aPid not of charity—ought not to vote at all.
But upon that pi,tq he thought there was at least a prima
t:rcie case to show that- persons having a right to vote
listed at Hertford wise were willing to lend themselves
a those low and corrept practices. Such an opinion
would be borne out by an emstnination of the evidence, as
it would be found that out of f 424 electors, three or four
:undyed were in the habit fur eye last two or three
•lections of receiving IL each, as polling MOV.,P. He would
eik the Noble Lord if he would say that, after 'fie evi-
lence which had been adduced in this case, there *ad
been a prima fitrit case made out that the electors wet,
not worthy of being intrusted with the elective franchise,
and that the case was not one which called for inquiry?
Ile (Mr. Clay) thought that it was ; and lie wouhl tell the
llouse, that the only way in which they could retain a hold
m the affections of the people, was by instituting a strong
,nd searching inquiry into all cases of corruption which
might arise.
Mr.WYNN said that the question was not as to the pro-
priety or impropriety of the conduct of the late Members.
but as to whether the electors of Hertford had so abused
heir privileges as to call for the severe measure which
was now asked. He could not allow that giving clothes
ir food was an act of bribery which came within the
ineaning of the Act of Parliament which regulated those
inatter., unless it were at the same time proved that it
was given for the specific purpose of obtaining a vote.
Then as to treating—where such had been proved, it had
ilways been visited not on the receiver, but tin the giver,
lie thought it unreasonable that the electors should be
punished for merely accepting of the refreshment offered
to them by candidates ; and, in fact, that was contrary to
ill former precedent. As to the case is question, the
House ought to keep in remembrance that there were only
twelve or thirteen cases---or, at all events, below twenty
eases—of bribery proved among 695 voters. That was a
comparatively small number to the number in all former
'aces in which punishment had been it,flicted. If such a
principle were admitted, it might be easy on the same
~round to stop the issuing of the writ of any place in the
kingdom, and so disfranchise it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL having voted fir the
Reform Bill, the object of which was to prevent all cor-
ruption, would consider himself as deserting the principles
on which lie gave that vote if he did not now support
those resolution., founded, as they were, on evidence which
clearly proved corruption. If the bribery and treating
acre proved, were the House to disgrace their Committee
by disavowing their resolution? The only fault he had
to find with the resolution was, that it was not sufficiently
strong to meet the case.—(Cheers.) It was incumbent
upon the House to follow up the principle of the Reform
Bill—purity of election ; and the House must allow of
the inquiry, or they would be disgraced ttroughout the
country.—(Cheers.)
Mr. F. POLLOCK thought the resolution premature,
,f not utterly uncalled for. He had not even heard what
lie resolution was to be till it came that evening before
ihe House; and supposing other Members to be in the
-acne predicament, how could they be called upon thus
eaddenly to vote for a resolution without having had
ime allowed to read the mass of printed evidence, exfend-
ng over not less than 450 pages, containing 15,000
'rimers by 40 witnesses. If the resolution were inter.(!ed
'o act as a check open future elections, he would most
eadily vote for it; but as he understood its present
moaning, he was by no means prepared to support it. As
-o the disfranchising the borough, or enlarging its presate
boundaries, he saw no grounds for any such thing.
Mr. HARDY strongly supported the resolution.
The Earl of KERRY would not have risen but for
'he observation of the Hon. and Learned Member for
Huntingdon. The Hon. and Learned Member complained
al the evidence not having been long enough before the
House. It had been for six weeks on the table, and that
vas a sufficient time to make it known to every Mem-
ber. The case supposed by the Noble Lord (the Mem-
,er for 'Monmouthshire) of general treating in a county,
,could scarcely take place; but if it did, lie could assure
'lie Noble Lord that the Parliament would tiod means,
not to disfranchise the county, but to regulate the eon..
stituency.—(Hear, bear.)
Sir H. HARDINGE said, the evidence before the Com-
mittee only went to unseat the two Noble Lords who
were returned for the borough ; but it did not go to
prove anything against the character of the hot ough. It
only showed that treating had prevailed, and that wto no
offence against the law of Parliament. If the House did
agree to the resolution, it would be making an ex post.
law against the borough of Hertford. He coue-
plained that a similar measure had not been adopted witL
regard to other boroughs; and in the case of Newry,
where gross bribery had prevailed, the Hoe. Member,
,vho generally supported the Government, retained his
seat, and no other measure was taken but to order one
individual to he criminally prosecuted. He could not con-
cur in the motion.
Mr. WASON said gross bribery had been proved to
exist, and he thought treating was bribery ; and he
wished to know what remedy the Noble Lord who pia,
posed the motion meant to apply to that conduct?
Mr. MILDMAY was of opinion that treating and
bribery were squally bad ; one was pouring into the
pocket, and the other was pouring down the throat; cue.
,vas the use of drops of gold, and the other of drops of
brandy.--(A laugh.) He knew not why that man should
he turned out who was wafted into his seat on the %quip,
Ai hank notes, while he was to retain his seat who waa
Buffed into it by the smoke of tabacco.—(flear, hear.)
They had already sent their case to a Jury, for so the
Committee might be considered, and if they refused the
further inquiry which that Committee recomtnended, they
would refuse to carry the verdict of their Jury into exe-
cution.—(Calls of " Question.") lie could conceive no-
thing worse than the man who, being himself blest with
,vealth, seduced those who had it not, to barter their po-
iitical privileges for sensual indulgence or pecuniary ad-
vantaees.—(Question.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY opposed the motion.
Mr. WARD had a petition to present from one hun-
'red and trxty-two residents of the borough of Hertford,
ohich he had not been able to present to the House. It
,as most respectably signed, and ferty-one of the per.oto
vho signed it had either not voted at all, or lid spa their
otes between the different parties at the last eletc:nearlie.
chat petition showed that there were many casorso
eidation as well as bribery ; and the
,sa
t
sieiy
tes d,o7ve
ehe bf
ituilktia!:A:witteloi ie:sv,dtl en,bicn:
stlrweieo:ii,..nek7ycsbdett
laledi!ec,;;ni:‘,7,,,rtioettr,vasreoPeetdoelithtbgliti,,,y.ida!mh:‘,ll:,7::::nge,h,:itaixae:rnctu:sg:ttt:
i:idt-e..f;
still
~seeable inhabitant..—(Question ) hail some s att..
!tents to make to the Mouse, sapported by affidavits.-.-,

of long standing in the borough of Hertford to give
ten shillings to each of the voters to drink the
health of the candidate after the election was over ; and
that there were 690 registered voters, of whom 670 had
voted. If any man could read the report of the evidence
this case, and not come to the conclusion that this con-
atituency was most corrupt, he could only say that the
state of mind of such a man was to him most amazino.
There was one other point to which he wished to call :the
attention of the House. It was this. Every voter ex-
oected at the close of the election to receive a fee of 10s.
rront each of the successful eanelidates. Now there were
670 persons who polled at the last election. The voters
of the boroughs consisted of freeholders, of householder,
not receiving parochial assistance, and of 101. householder-
under the Reform Act. When the witnesses were asked
how many persons had applied for these ten shillings, they
answered 300 or 4,00.—( Hear.) The origin of this fee
was very simple. It had formerly been the custom of
the successful candidates to dine with the most respectable
of the inhabitants of the borough at the close of the ele .-
tion, and to such of them as could not on account of their
station join in that dinner it ha I been the practice to give
a few shillings, at first 55., afterwards 10s., to enable them
to dine together to celebrate the event. In this manner
the giving of this fea had had its origin ; but, whatever
that origin might have been, he tl ought it deserved no
other description but that of _-'igateck bribery.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) He wished to put it to ilte_flouse
whether the practice pursued in the case of Charles Little-
ought to be countenanced by being passed over without
notice? It was not now dealing with the candidates,
successful or unsuccessrul—with Lord Mahon or Lord In
gestrie, with Mr. Duncombe or Mr. Spalding—but with
the borough of Hertford, and with the fitness of adopting
some measure to purify it. It had been proved, among
other things, that 1501. had been given away in blankets,
but he would not insist upon that, and merely remark
that they and other things were bought of one Twaddle,
who kept a slop-shop, and who, according to the evi
deuce, received no other remuneration for the trouble he
took at the election than that derived from the goods be
sold. As to what was termed direct bribery, this case
might want the marked and disgusting features obtruding
themselves in the instances of East Retford or Penryn ;
hut it was clear that there was a corrupt influence—an
atmosphere of corruption always floating about the town
of Hertford ; there were always plenty of Mephistophiles
whispering in the ears of the voters, like the daemon in
Goethe's " Faustus," when the heroine in a celebrated
passage was obliged to call upon ber neighbour for the
loan of her smelling bottle. Swift had talked of a
shower of mitres, but in Hertford there was a con-
stant pouring of new hats, new coats, and new shoes,
which would not fit all the voters, but seemed measured
to a nicety for the heads, backs, and feet of the electors in
the interest of one of the parties. Upon this subject he
begged to refer the House to the evidence of Edward
Hardy and John Meade; and it would also be seen,
besides, that a Mr. Drew cut an important figure, as he
presented one voter with bed, blankets, sad shoes ; and
another with 61. 10s., and a couple of fat pigs. Mr.Twad.
die offered a person of the name of Tysoe 30/., if be
would support " the two My Lords ;" and to others he pre-
sented smock-frocks, shoes, stockings, and hats, out of his
own repository. By the evidence of Elizabeth Meade (p. 176
of the Report), it appeared that her husband had his rates
paid. An extraordinary device had been hit upon in her
case in the way of bribery; her son had been robbed of a
sum of money, and, long before the election, he had gone
round the town with a petition to raise it, but in vain.
Shortly before the election, as he was a voter, he was sent
for by Mr. Dack, and seven sovereigns were given to him
by seven different persons, whose business it seemed to be
to go about the borough corrupting voters. This case
was at least suspicious, and the same might be said of that
of Charles Diller, who owed between 4/. and al. to Dr.
Norwood, who had proposed Lord Mahon ; Diller was not
only not required to pay this debt, but actually received
money from his creditor. It was not, therefore, too much
to say, that the whole atmosphere of Hertford was in-
fected ; and he (Mr. Bernal) wished that the whole
House could have seen, like the Committee, the gross pre-
varication by the witnesses, and the total disregard of
honour and solemn promises by the voters. Ile was not
the advocate of either candidate; he was actuated by no
party feeling ; he meant to state the facts only as a legis
lator, and in that capacity he required the House to
interpose for the correction of a gross abuse. Many were
apt to say that this immorality, this disregard of all obliga-
tion, was common to vulgar life, and especially during an
election ; but he entreated the House to open its eyes, and
to look at the matter in the face, fully and fairly. Robbery,
murder, and the worst crimes, grew out of such a state of
profligacy. He especially directed the attention of Mem-
hers to the evidence of Hooding, Dillon, and Aylett ; one
roan actually said that he would sell his promise, though
he could not sell his vote—that there was a market for
promises, though none for votes ; and it ought not to be
forgotten that bribery and corruption brought with them a
train of evils which the wisest statesmen would be unable
to correct. It was a disgrace to the British nation and to
the British Legislature, that such cases should occur in
1833. Whose fault was it ? The fault of the House. There
were mean,' to prevent it, and since much had been re-
cently done to make the House incotrupt, something ought
to he done to make the voters incorrupt. The first motion
he should have to propose would be " That the briber;
and corruption which had prevailed during the last election
for the borough of Hertford deserved the most serious con-
sideration of the House." If that were carried, he should
follow it by another proposition—a" That a Select Com-
mittee be appointed to consider arid report upon the best
torahs of preventing bribery and corrupt practices at all
future elections for the borough of Hertford." The last
resolution suggested on new practice, but, as he (Mr.
Bernal) thought, not a bad one. There was one analogous
case, but supposing tine proposition without precedent, it
was fit to establish one. Some had asked " Why not dia.
franchise the lower order of freemen of the borough of
Hertford ?" To this he replied that he did not think there
was a sufficient case for disfranchising the borough, but
that the best mode of proceeding would be, by extendin4
the limits, to infuse new wholesome bioodinto it; by this
course, if corruption were not exterminated, it would at
least be neutralized. The Hon. Member concluded by
moving the two resolutions he bad just read.
Mr. WALTER (we believe) seconded the motion.

Mr. W. STEWART was beard only at brief intervals.
He contended that the only case of bribery brought home
to the Noble Candidates for Hertford was that of Russeil
Davis ; and, in his opinion, that man's story was lucre
dibie. It appeared by the evidence, that the blankets of
which the Hon. Gent eman had spoken, were distributed,
not only to voters, but to non-voters. The allegations of
bribery were not sufficient to warrant the disfranchisement
of the borough ; and all the precedents, such as the cases
of Eist Retford, Shoreham, Penryn, &c., were much
stronger than the facts made out against Hertford.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET thought he had a
right to complain that the Hon. Member for Rochester
had kept the House completely in the dark as to what the
nature of his motion would be. He had asked the Hon.
Aleir.ber what would be the purport of his proposition;
and he regretted to say, that he could obtain nothing like
satisfactory information on the subject. The Hon. Mem
her did not state to what extent he meant to propose the
punishment of the borough of Hertford. He admitted, it
was true, that a borough ought to be punished for a cer
rain degree of impurity, but he did not state what that
extent of impurity should be which ought to bring down
upon any given borough the displeasure of Parliament,
and the penalties which thence ensued. The House
was unfortunately left in total ignorance as to the
purposes of the Honourable Member tor Rochester.—
not that he imputed to that Honourable Gentleman
the design of intentionally keeping them in ignorance;
but such had certainly been the eff,ret of the course which
he had pursued. The House, be was sure, would egret
with him that a case had been made out rather for un-
-eating the sitting Member, than one upon which the
(louse could proce
which had
,(1 to u
beenshown
toI have t
In isop opinion,
the expenditure
place before the testing of the writ, was of a kind tha
aught not to be visited with the degree of punishment
which was now proposed. He saw, when he went down
Rochester immediately before the election, a great deal
f rejoicing at the anticipated approach of the Hon. Gen
tlemsn by whom the present motion was introduced. H-
did not know whether the distribution of the tickets took
place before or after ti testing of the writ.
Mr. BERNAL could say, certainly not after.
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET—It was an indis-
criminate distribution of tickets, and, therefore, not within
the meaning of the Act ; but lie would only er.y, that the
ise of Hertford was as far from being within the mean-
ing of the Act, for the distribution of tickets was indis-