The Sun.
London, England, 1848-04-14 00:00:00

LYME REGIS ELECTION.

On the motion of Mr. HUME,
The Clerk read the resolutions of the Select Com•
inittee on the Lyme-Regis election petition, which
charged Mr. John Attwood with bribery; and
The HON. MEMBER then proceeded to say that a pe-
tition had been presented from the inhabitants of the
borough praying that an immediate and searching in-
quiry be made
in order
proceedings of Mr. Attwood at
the late election, order to relieve the constituency
from the consequences of any erroneous impressions.
By the 49th George 111. c. 118, it was enacted that if
any person paid, promised, or gave any sum of money
to procure his return, he should for every such gift,
payment, or promise, forfeit the sum of 1,0001. There
was the clearest evidence of promises in this cases. It
was further enacted that if any person promised to pro-
cure any office or gift, in order to procure the return of
such person, he should be ineligible to sit in Parlia•
tnent. The borough had not in this eftse been disfran-
chised, but all those gifts and promises had been
clearly proved, and there was a standing order of
the House, declaring that the. House would proceed
,vith the utmost activity against any person, whether
the Member or not, who should be guilty of those cor-
rupt practices. If preceslents were required, he would
refer to the case of Mr. Henry Swan, for the borough

of Penryn, in the year 1819, Only one case was there
proved, yet the Attorney-General was ordcred to pro
secuto him. Again, hi the case of Sir M. Lopez. in the
borough of Barnstaple, who was similarly proceeded
against. These cases, however, were nothing in com-
parison with the Lyme Regis case, where it appeared
that upwards of 100,0001. had been laid out in the pur.
chase of houses iu order to secure votes, not for Mr.
Attwood only, but for any person Mr. Attwood might
recommend. lie begged to move, therefore, that the
Attorney-General be instructed to prosecute John Att-
wood, Esq., for bribery and corrupt practices at the last
election for Lyme Regis.
Mr. P. WOOL) seconded the motion.
Mr. BANKES said the cases which the Hon. Meinber
had quoted were not precedents. Mr. Swan and Sir
Manasseh Lopez had both been unseated for bribery ;
but Mr. Attwood was only collaterally
implicated. fle
did not say that a person collaterally implicated should
not be prosecuted ; but he did say that it was a matter
which should not be hastily adopted, and he was not
therefore satisfied with the meagre statement which the
lion. Gentleman had made. The matter would c(r.
tainly have been much better brought forwattl by the
chairman of the Committee. lie was not aware that
any member of the Committee ever was present, and he
put it to the Hon. Gentleman whether it would not be
more fair to postpone his motion to some future time.
Mr. HUME said if any one thought it unfair to pr..
ceed at present he was quite ready
to postpone his
motion. He had no personal feeling, but was actuated
solely by a sense of public duty.
Sir GEORGE GREY suggested that it would be
better for the lion. Member not to adjourn the motion.
but to withdraw it, and to bring it on again at some
future time.

Mr. HUME then withdrew the motion.
COUNTY COURTS.
Mr. COCHRANE moved for leave to bring in a Bill
to amend the law relating to the recovery of small
debts in England, the 9th and 10th Victoria. He was
uf opinion that the grossest injustice had beenin-
flicted under this Act, and it was much harder upon
the poor man than the sth and 6th Vie
toria, which abolished imprisonment for debts
under 201., and for which this was a substitute. It was
his intention originally to have moved the entire repeal
of this monstrous 8111, but he proposed now to move the
insertion of two clauses. The first clause provided that
no person should be imprisoned except on the debtors'
side of the gaol, and that the imprisonment should be
limited to three days for each instalment of debt. The
second clause limited the fine for contempt of court to 21.
instead of 51., or in default seven days' imprisonment, as
at present
Sir G. GREY said if the Hon. Gentleman had adhered
to his original intention of moving the repeal of the Bill,
he should certainly have opposed it, because he believed
the measure had proved highly beneficial, and that the
courts bad been much appreciated by those who had
recourse to them. At the same time, he had been led
to suppose that there might have been some abuse of
the powers given by the Act. He was quite ready to
admit that the subject required inquiry, and he should
not, therefore, at present oppose the introduction of the
Bill.

Mr. G. BANKES thanked the Right Hon. Gentleman
for permitting the introduction of the Bill. If the powers
of the Act had been abused, the persons guilty of the
abuse ought to be punished,
After a short conversation, leave was given to bring in
the Bill.