The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-23 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDA V

should, on a future occasion, ask when the Peninsular
medals would be distributed.
NEW BISHOPS.

Lord STANLEY, in reference to the Bill which
had passed last session, authorizing the formation of
new bishoprics, and that he believed the understand-
ing between the Government and the heads of the
Church was that four new bishops should be ap-
pointed, and it was so stated in the preamble of the
Bill, as it was originally introduced into
their Lordships House, although those words
had boen struck out in the House of Com-
mons, the Prime Minister having at the same time
pledged himself to appoint three new Bishops in
addition to the Bishop of Manchester, so soon as
they should have funds for the endowment of
those new sees. By the recent decease of
the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, a great
addition had been made to the fund, and he
asked, therefore, if the Government adhered to that
agreement, and if they intended to proceed to the ap-
pointment of the new Bishops without delay.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE said that the
Government still adhered to the agreement alluded
to by the Noble Lord, and whenever the means
appeared to be sufficient for the purpose, it would be
for her MajeEty to determine what new Bishop
should be appointed. The Noble Lord well
knew that there were several Bishops whose in-
comes were lower than the sums fixed by
the Ecclesiastical Commission, and certainly they
had a claim to have their incomes raised to the ave-
rage before any new Bishops should be appointed.
The Bishop of SALISBURY was sure it would be
higl-ly gratifying to the Members of the Church to
know that her Majesty's Government still adhered to
tie &gement which they had entered into with the
heads o' the Church for the appointment of new
bishops, and thought it desirable that as little delay
as possible should take place in their appointment.
The Earl of DEVON rose and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

heard, recapitulated the reasons raised by him against
the motion on the last occasion it was moved. He
thought the House adopted a wise course when it
declared its intention to wait until the evidence taken
before the Committee was printed, and Hon. Members
had had an opportunity of perusing it. After read-
ing the evidence, he (Mr. B.) did not think that
there was sufficient ground to punish the electors very
severely. If the House thought proper on a former
occasion to vindicate the conduct of the electors, he
should not think it his duty to propose the disfran-
chisement of the borough. No doubt the elec-
tors who took the bribes did their best ;to
cause Mr. Attwood to open his purse-strings,
and although it was said that but a small number
were bribed, in his opinion fifty or sixty, the
number proved to have so conducted themselves, was
a very large proportion of the elections. The Hon.
Member then read the evidence of one of the wit-
nesses, who stated that a number of the electors went
to the Duke's Head, to draw Mr. Attwood out."
A paper was there signed. He was asked if they
soid that that was their intention ? to which
they replied, they did, and that they meant
was to make Mr. Attwood open his purse-string 3.
What was the state of the borough ? The Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the borough (Mr. Bag-
sha w) said the electors had increased from 180, in
1831, so 280 at the last election. It seemed that the
place had been specially favoured by the
Government. It was understood to be Earl
Grey's intention, in introducing the Reform
Bill that places possessing a population of 4,000
should return two Members. Harwich had only
a population of 2,371, but the Government,
in order to make up the requisite number, took
in the adjoining parish of Dourcourt (as we
understood); but the population had of late years
been reduced, as its number was now 3,829, showing
a falling off of 10 per cent. In the neighbourhood
there were parishes possessing a population of 27,000
or 28,000: he did not wish to include them, but
looking at the tendency of the electors to take bribes,
he did think he was justified in moving a 3 an amend-
ment that leave be given to introduce a Bill to extend
the lin its of the borough, with a view to increasing
the number of electors.—(Hear, hear.)
The amendment having been seconded,
Mr. HUME said when the House considered that
the Members for Cie following places had been un-
seated for bribery, that it was incumbent upon the
House to consider whether some means ought not to
be taken to vindicate the character of the House—
(Hear, hear)—namely, Great Yarmouth, Kin•
sale, Carlisle, Lancaster, Dundalk, Harwich, Bewd-
ley, Aylesbury, Derby, and Horsham.—(Hear )
As soon as one proof of bribery was established the
ease was not prccteded with any further, and thus
the House never became informed of the real amount
of bribery and corruption carried on in these places.
A Bill was recently prepared for the purpose of
authorising inquiries into these matters, notwith-
standing any decision having been come to upon the
subject by the Committees, for the purpose of aster
taining to what extent this evil had been carried on.
He thought that it would have been better to have
suspended the issue of all the writs for those places
in which the Members had been unseated until the
whole of the Election Committees had concluded
their labours, and that then a general Committee
shculd be appointed to inquire into the whole subject,
and suggest some modifications of the existing law
on the subject. He had understood that some of
the Committees had come to decisions which
if generally acted upon would lead to the unseating
of nearly every Member in the House—(Hear, hear)
—and that the most pure and honourable acts on the
part of candidates might be construed into illegal
acts, and be considered sufficient to cause them to
lose their seats.—(Hear, hear.) He would suggest,
therefore, that the Hon. Member should withdraw his
motion, and allow the issue of this writ to stand over
until the close of the labours of the Election Com-
mittees.

Mr. MACKENZIE thought that the proposition
of the Hon. Member for Montrose was a most mon-
strous piece of injustice, as it would up the issuing
of the writ for this and all other places for an in-
definite period. lie could not agree in the remarks
which had been made with respect to the constituency
of Harwich, that it was getting worse than formerly,
on the contrary, he thought that there were visible
many signs of improvement. He should, therefore,
most certainly press his motion.
Sir B. HALL could not concur in the opinion that
any great improvement had taken place in the
borough, with respect to the conduct of the elec-
tors, or with reference to the parties who went
down as candidates for that borough. There was
a change in the • system, but there was no
improvement. It appeared that a new system of
corruption had sprung up latterly at Harwich. It
was found impossible in consequence of the exposure
which Mr. Roebuck's Committee bad made of that
system, to obtain money in a direct manner for the
purposes of bribery, and hence this new plan
had been resorted to. If the House would
turn to page 91 of the evidence laid before
the House, they would see from the evidence
of Mr. Cottingham, the agent for the management of
the property of Mr. Attwood, what kind of cor
ruption was now adopted. Mr. Cottingham was
asked, in the Committee, what conditions he was
in the habit of imposing upon tenants taking
the heuses of Mr. Attwood ? his answer was,
that all those persons who rented the houses
of Mr. Attwood were given to understand
that their votes would be required to be given in
favour of.lllr. Attwood ; and he afterwards stated that
one or more parsons had been, in consequence of their
not voting for Mr. Attwood, turned out of their
houses ; and it was very easy for this to be carried
into effect, as the tenants were most, if
not all of them, he believed, yearly tenants.
That had been the practice pursued at Harwich, be-
cause it had been found impossible to go on with the
direct system of bribery, and he therefore thought it
was the duty of the House to cause an inquiry to be
instituted into the matter. Many of these boroughs
were becoming notorious for their corruption, and if
some steps were not taken to put a stop to
the evil, not only would the House fall into disrepute,
but demands would be made upon them from out of
doors for a new Reform Act and new schedules. He
found that there were three boroughs in the country
where the number of constituents were severally 107,
145, and 182, while there were 25 boroughs where
the electors (lid not number in each case
more than those of Harwich. Surely it
was time that something should be done to remedy
this state of things.—(Hear. hear.)
Mr. B. COCI-IRANE said he had looked into
some of the reports of the Committees, and he cer-
tainly agreed with the Hon. Member for Montrose,
that in one or two instances the decisions were
monstrously inconsistent and unjust. He therefore
hoped this suggestion of the Hon. Member for the
appointment of a Committee woull be adopted.
Mr. HENLEY said they were wandering from
the question before the House. That question was
that a new writ be issued for the Borough of Har-
wich, and he confessed he had heard nothing to in-
duce him to think that there was any reason why the
writ should not be issued.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir DE LACY EVANS certainly agreed with
the Hon. Member for Montrose, that some of the
Committees in coming to their decisions had been
actuated by exceedingly delicate motives, and
the consequence was that several Honourable
Members had been severely dealt with. He
thought that as no special report had been made
by the Committee, it would be unfair to the borough
to refuse to issue the writ.
Dr. BOWRING considered that a sufficient case
had been made out for enquiry. He thought the
House had quite enough before it to suspend the
issuing of the writ, and to put the matter in a train
of inquiry. He trusted, therefore, the House would
reject the issuing of the writ.
Mr. ELLIOTT supported the issuing of the writ.
The Committee had found one case of bribery, and
one case only, and that not having been brought
home to Mr. Attwood, he thought he could not wi▪ th-
hold his vote for the issuing of the writ.
Mr. ELLICE said they must look somewhat to
the character of the electors. The fact elicited in
the course of their inquiry that Mr. Attwood had
purchased a great deal of property in the borough
since the previous election, when he was unseated on
precisely the same grounds as on the recent occa-
sion, invested the matter with a great deal of
suspicion ; and if the House consented to the issui▪
ng
of the writ without enquiry, people out: of doors
would think the House was returning to the prac-
tices that prevailed before the passing of the
Reform Bill.—(Hear.) Mr. Attwood admitted that
he spent 10,0001. at the previous election. The
notorious fact was still before the public,
that the property purchased by Mr. Attwood
was for the purpose of creating votes. He
remembered some time ago being blamed by. an
Honourable Member, because he cited the notoriety
the borough of Stafford had obtained with respect to
bribery (he hoped it had much improved
since) as a ground for suspending the issuing
of the writ, but a Committee of the House of Lords
subsequently reported that it had been proved
to their satisfaction that the most notorious
and profligate bribery had not only existed
at the last, but at the previous elections. Never-
thelessa the writ was issued. When a case of this
kind occurred, the House was bound to insti-
tute an inquiry before the writ was issued. .He
confessed he entertained considerable doubt as to
the most advisable course to adopt. He thought it
would be well for the Government to take the
matter to their consideration—(Hear)—as it was not
merely this borough that was iconcerned, but the
general system that prevailed.—(Hear.)
Sir S. WORTLEY thought it would not be re•
spectful to the House as be filled the
office of the Chairman of the Committee, to say