The Sun.
London, England, 1846-05-20 00:00:00

Mr. GISBORNE thought it extremely inconvenient that
the House should go into the question at all; but now that it
had done so, he was very glad that the Committee was likely
to be granted. He did so upon principle, for there were many
analogous cases, and he considered that such a state of things
was unsatisfactory. By bringing the question prominently be-
fore
the House, it would lead to such amendments in the law
relating to elections as would put an end to these abuses. He
did not mean to go into the case of Mr. Rockett, as he did not
know all the particulars connected with the Bridport election ;
but he thought the Committee might Le granted.
Sir R. INGLIS differed with the Hun. Member for Dorset
on various grounds, but principally because the result of the
decision of the Committee in this case, had the effect of
adding one to that triumph which her Majesty's Government
had lately achieved, and which was already too large.—( Great
laughter.) When the House declared that certain minutes
of an Election Committee should be laid before it, he could
not see why they should be treated as mere waste paper..He
of
might be allowed to say, that there was a wide suspicionshte be
a
compromise of bribery.—( Hear.) He did not
againstwish
the con-
ducth of any Hon. Member in that House, bu
un-
derstood to impute anything like a suspicion
had appeared that there were proceedings whicht
he
bore
curious aspect, at the late Bridport election. .He considerere a thought
very
rlytd
the subject ought now to remain as it was.
named e
had
ad Walshhea ,
dwas
Rockettcalled
before the Committee, who
Mr. WAKLEY said thheatstaated
that
vote for Romilly, and accordingly the vote was struck off, and
mant nt
placed to the other side. He believed that no one would deny the
legal and legitimate right of the present Hon. Member who sat
in that House for Bridport, and, therefore, he could not suffer
by the issue of an inquiry. But the House owed it to itself and
to future legislation to set such matters at rest. The Hon.
Gentleman the Attorney.. General had said that to allow such
a Committee wonld be to do that which could not be done so
well as by the preseri..• power, but he (Mr. Wakley) thought
they would not discharge their duty to themselves, nor to the
satisfaction of the public, unless they allowed this inquiry to
take place.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that what
his Hon. and Learned Friend said was, that Parliament
had laid down certain rules for inquiry in such cases, and that
such an Act of Parliament was the proper power to be applied.
The complaint before the House was that one voter had been
transferred from one poll on which he ought to have stood, to
another. The question for the House to consider was
whether there was not a regular course for judging of the
matter, without a Committee of that House being appointed.
He was of opinion that the inquiry, under the circumstances,
was wholly uncalled for.
Mr. ROMILLY said that when this election had concluded,
he felt so totally indifferent to it, from the manner in which it
had been conducted, hat he had not resolved to petition against
the return of the successful candidate. If, however, the Com-
mittee were appointed, he would give every assistance in his
power for the tidiest investigation.—(Hvr, hear.) It should
be remembered that the Act of the Noble Lord (John Russell)
made the expense of the inquiry fall upon the parties interested,
and not upon the public; and that alone would be a sufficient
cause to prevent anything like a wish to prosecute such an in-
quiry.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he would only trouble the
House with a few remarks upon the question before
it, which he considered a very proper one.
He did not think there was any other mode for making this in-
quiry more effectual than the present constitutional one, and
that was the power conferred by 1. Victoria, by which he con-
sidered the public were sufficiently protected. But the Com-
mittee might have thought it was not incumbent on them to
have pursued the inquiry further than they had done, and that
therefore they did not deem it necessary to have made a special
report. He (Mr. Aglionby) assumed that the Committee had
had no evidence before them to the effect that any bribery had
taken place, because no statement to the contrary had been
made. But this House still had the power to grant this
motion, and if a prima
.facia case should' be made out, the
public at large should bear the expense of it. However, the
party petitioning, who must be a voter, could have no object,
for he could not either seat or unseat a Member. He would
concluded by saying he would vote for the Committee.
Mr. C. WOOD said that there must have been some mis-
statements on the subject, and entered into a long statement
of the nature of the duties of an Election Committee. The
only object of the inquiry was to ascertain whether bribery had
oxisted. The petition stated that they had sufficient reason to
think that bribery r ad existed, and if any compromise were to
be made in case of any subsequent objecti-n, the inquiry should
be made as to that compromise, but not as to the bribery. If
they were satisfied that the compromise took place for the pur-
pose of screening bribery; if it was established in their minds
that bribery really did exist, any Committee, under those cir-
stances, might order an inquiry to be made, and enter into a
fin ther scrutiny. If it was the opinion of the House that pro.
ceedings should be instituted with regard to the bribery, it
seemed to him to be useless to institute a second inquiry as to
the compromise.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that the inconvenience which had
arisen was, that in the desire to condemn the proceeding of the
tribunal, the Noble Lord made accusations against it without
any information with regard to the facts which he stated. Had
the Noble Lord spoken from information, the House would have
been primed with some of those long harangues with which it
had been favoured during the last two months. How could
those who were not present, and who did not know what evi-
dence was given before the Committee, or what admissions
were made by counsel, who could only speak from the informa-
tion which they obtained from printed papers, venture to im-
pugn the proceedings which had taken place. In consequence
of the attack which had been made, he wished to say one
thing. It was quite clear that the present Hon. Member for
Bridport was justly and fairly the Member for the town which
he represented, and that Mr. Baillie Cochrane had no claim to
that seat, as was insinuated in the speech of the Hon. Member
for Dorset. When the counsel for the petition against the
sitting Member threw up his brief, it was sufficient
pound for any Committee to act upon. With respect to
any future inquiry in that House, the vote of every
Member would be to the fullest extent in favour of
the present Member, and if they were to divide on the subject
he should vote that, if any inquiry was made, it should be a
full and searching one. When the Noble Lord the Member
for Lynn made accusations against the conduct of Members of
that House who were as honourable as the Noble Lord was,
he wished he would recollect that, under the circumstances, it
was the duty of the Committee, as he himself had said, to de-
cide on the evidence laid before them, and to do justice. They
did decide on the evidence, and they did do justice to the Hon.
Member for Bridport.
Mr. BANKES said that his Right Hon. Friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, in the definition which he had
given of the question of privilege then before the House,
admitted at the time of his speech that the subject must be put
to the House as a question of privilege. He would not deny '
that the Hon. Member now sitting for Bridport was de facto !
the real Member for the borough, and his seat could not be .
taken from him, but he would say that the Hon. Member was :
sitting there against the will of his constituents, and he put it ]
to the House whether inquiry ought not to be made with a 4
view of finding a remedy for the evil. He (Mr. Bankes) had '
discharged his duty to the House, and had limited that duty
,1
within the bounds which he considered necessary. It was
his wish that the House should be able to satisfy itself that this
was a genuine petition, and the best mode of ascertaining that
was by bringing it to the bar of the House. The Hon.
Member for Weymouth had substituted an amendment to the '
original motion, to which he was perfectly willing to agree.
The Hon. Member had proposed that he (Mr. Bankes) should
sit on the Committee, but he had already two Committees of
great importance to attend to, besides a group of seven railway
Bills, and that he thought quite sufficient to keep his time
occupied. He would allow that a vote was polled upon one
side that ought to have been given to the other, and therefore
the prayer of the petition was " that the House would take the
premises of that petition into consideration, and take such
measures as should seem fit to the House. " His Friend the ;
Solicitor-General had said that there need not be any specific
allegation in the petition.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL—No.
Mr. BANKES—Then he went the whole length of stating
that there should be no allegation, and that the petition should
merely state that the sitting Member ought not to be alto wed
to take his seat. To proceed under the Bill of Lord John
Russell would have been the most convenient mode in this case,
bfeurthhiem(tAolra.vaßilanhkimess)ehlf of a measureadnotdones wo,rieh was not
because it wasmdifficult
in
anotherthis petition
as
t i
ewe was disposedrequired,
andan d
use.for a
any
yTfurther
g iproceedings
who would be the petitioner It would not be easy to find a
petitioner in a case which promised no result, and in which
there was no object to be gained by the electors of the borough.
If the object was to disfranchise the
borough they would be
the last people who would come forward as the petitioners.
He apprehended that the passing of the statute did not pre-
clude them from adopting any
other course which might appear
e atWith desdesirableßussell i
tt ow
at hs edmi
ffi.
lt
e
emsel
veshoyfiitt
w;
haennd i
thwe 0
ed
li
dd
not see why they should attempt to
proceed
be
Sirrathße.r obstruction.PEEL
nEEsaidthat
the attention of the House had been
address
to the House,emotionofhis aHon.n dwho
Friend, 1
a(1 who had just eoncluded
chaislled t
stated a fact which ap-
peared to him to deserve the consideration of the House—
namely, that when the voter before the Committee declared
that his vote was given to a candidate that he did not vote for,
and that his character was ut inli ' red by that informal vote, the
Committee had declared that The consequence of that was, that a
that vote was to be transferred to
the opposite candidate.
hmyajtohrei t ys t
aotfe
teen
lea
wwas f dtehciisd
country,ed in a vaosu
c
f r of the other, and that
tfaereedas histidseathi
ew itsr
esen
con-
cerned the decision could not be
Member for Bridport (Mr. Romillin)eswals entitlaed to hisp seat as
a statuteable right ; and no decision on the part of that House,
no power or authority but an Act of Parliament could deprive
him of a right to which he Was entitled by the law of the coun-
try, and the reverse of any decision would '
not be effected in
that manner. The House o':.iiii to consider whether, on the
allegation which has 'neon made, i
an inquiry ought to be made
into the affair:. If there was no mode of conducting the inquiry,
;nould vote for the original motion of his Hon. Friend
that the party should be called on to appear at the bar of the
House ; bat as that means had not been acceded to, he th,.ught
that the inquiry should be conducted by means of a Select
Committee, who should examine evidence, and thus render
their investigation complete. If that Select Committee were
instituted, the original object contemplated would be entirely
answered. He thought they sould adhere to the Act of the
Noble Lord, and not institute inquiries except under the gene-
ral provisions of that measure. There was a constant tendency
in that House to interfere with those functions which, for a
wise and beneficial purpose, were remitted to Select Commit-
tees. What was the use of the provision of the Noble Lord?
Why, to defeat concealment of improper practices by compromise,
and to defeat not only compromise, but to institute inquiries
into bribery. That Act gave the Committee appointed the
power of adjudicating, and the right report,
setting forth whether there to make a special
was any reasonable apprehension
that an inquiry into bribery was necessary.
coursetake what In makingthat
special report, the House was left at liberty to
it thought fit. If there had been suiteient ground in the pre=
sent instance to support the charge of compromise against
the Committee over which the Right Honourable Gentle-
man presided, there was no doubt that charge would have been
made. Evidence had been taken before that Committee ; and
if the facts developed before them had rendered a special report
necessary, there would have been some ground for this inquiry
into a compromise ; but as that had not been made, he could
not
advise the House to proceed. The Noble Lord's Act
did such that an inquiry in compromise or bribery
not depend on a petition being presented within
fourteen days after the election, for it provides, " That
any case, where ene
petition the House o person, who was entitled to vote, shall
tiens of compromise ntot he grounds of any reasonable allega-
they could institutue an ti
em, any time within three months,
they should prove extensivnegannirt It was not necessary that
had to do was simply to declare his
bribery. All that he
general bribery in the particular borough
belief in extensive and
voter, and to enter into his rcc of which he was a
fide believed to the best of his kengmfances that such he bond
he made this declaration, and entered"edge to be the case. If
then a provision wa's made for the into. his recognisetnces,
mittee of Inquiry, which Committee all)
an Election Committee. All this could
had
dointment of a Com.,
all the functions of
be called into •by the petition of one single voter alleging his belief
that
existed. But did the Act impose expense on the action
eatt briberyitin
p
No ; for if the Committee reported that there wasreasoonaebrle
ground for the allegation, they would order the expenses of the
petitioner to be borne as in any other public matter. If they
were dissatisfied with the law let them alter it, though he be-
lieved that as it stood it admitted extensive and searching in-
quiry. Great inconvenience had arisen from the old system of
appointing Committees for every individual case, and the Noble
Lord had therefore brought forward thii remedy. These were