The Sun.
London, England, 1848-05-13 00:00:00

to
of the right to sit for a small borough—he believed Lich- I had been broken up in a manner neither satisfactorT
field. 'the House at length bicame convinced of the themselves nor to the H owe.
dangt rof allown g these questions to be determined cry Ato r a short deeieltory conversation the matter
mere party censideratiers ; and Mr. G enville, eeme dropped.
twenty or thirty yrars ato rwards, brought in a Bill to Lord G. BENTIN.CK inquired whether .the Right
eut an end to the system; and since that time the con- Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Tide
stant object had been to adopt precautions to prevent the would have any objec•tion to permit the resoluti.ot.
tab:
judgment of the House being influenced by party and intended to move on Monday to be printed n
political considerations on such queetionse and no one votes? Such a course would give Hon.
had laboured more earnestly or more successfully to notice of the matters they would on Monday ba
elevate the character of Parliament in this respect than discuss.
resent
the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The question then was, wile- Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would consider .the
tiler the tribunal appointed by Act of Parliament, and proposal of the Noble Lord, but could not at ere the
which they had invested with powers which, with
an pledge himself to its adoption. 1
Act of Parliament, would be unconstitutional, sheted be On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the r_
superseded by a vote of the House. A triberial had teen re-o'utien that the House would, on Monday nele,.
Menewbeirsrefu,eo
appointed to adjudicate on all such matters, with full solve itself into a Committee of the whole lioasa
judicial powers to exatrette into alleged abuse s, din the purp.ee of taking into consideration the nievignetires
order to.talte pet cautions against groundl as c.anplaints laws, was "then agreed to. and the House adjonr a "
the parties complaining were required to give a guarein a Quarter past Teelve o'clock.
tee of their sincerity. lie could conceive nothing of
more importance than that Members of Parliament
should be allowed to exercise their functions free from
the threats of molestation on the ground of such acme
sations ; and surely if there were any parte to whom
the exercise of those functions tree from such molesta-
tion was more important, it was to the minority.—
(Hear, hear.) At the same time he admitted that if
any special or peculiar Case was shown they were it t
to be precluded by the existing law from pellet ming
those functions which the House, as a great tribunal of
the country, had a right to exercise —(Hea".) But what
did the petitioners allege in this case ? The allegations
of bribery in distinct terms. And, further, it was al-
leged that the interference of the Marquis of Exeter with
the undoubted right of the borough to elect Members
to serve in Parliament was such as to amount to
systematic bribery and intimidation of the electors
within the meaning and intent of the laws against bri-
bery.—(Hear, bear.) This was not a mere general alle-
gation, for the petitioners stated that the Marquis gave
promises to certain electors that they should occupy
certain eligible holdings provided that they voted far his
candidates. These were the material allegations, and,
according to the decision of the Committee in Mr. Ate-
weod's case, this amounted to bribery.—(llear, hear.)
But why did not the petitioners observe the law them-
selves, and resort to the tribunals to prosecute their
cases. And as they had not done so, was there no
danger, if they were now permitted to bring on the
case in the way proposed, and escape from the
guarantees which were required in all other cases,
that the Acts of Lord Grenville and the Noble Lord
(J. Russell) would be superseded ; and that instead
of a judicial tribunal they would again have these
questions decided by majorities of the House, with the
accompanying evils of party confl.ct and injustice? He
might be told that the parties were pour; and that having
laboured under this grievance for a long time, nut
having the means of appealing to the ordinary tribunals,
they now came to Parliament to relieve them. But Par-
liament had even provided for that in the Noble Lent'.
Bill of 1842. A clause in that Bill provided that if a
petition. alleging general bribery at any election was
presented within three months after the alleged acts of
bribery had taken place, the House might entertain the
petition, and appoint a Committee to investigate with
all the powers of an ordinary Election Committee; and
that if the Committees should report that there was rea-
sonable and probable ground for the allegations of the
petition, they might order the costs to -be borne, as in
the case of a Committee appointed on any public matter,
by the House. The House then had taken every pre
caution to ensure a full investigation. Why then had
not these petitioners who alleged systematic bribery
taken advantage of the Act of Parliament, and prose
cuted it under the clause he had referred to? He dis-.
carded all considerations but those of a judicial charac-
ter ; but feeling strongly the danger of great public
inconvenience resulting from a departure lime.
the principle they had in all such cases of late years
adhered to, and teaching parties to believe that they were
free from the stringent conditions Parliament had laic
down on persons making charges of this nature—feel•
tug that the house, if it agreed to this motion, would be
at once undertaking, not in its iudicial, but in its politi
cal•capacity, the task of deciding upon the election of its
van Members—he should vote against setting an ex
ample which might be attended with dangerous cou?e-
quences.—(Hear.)
Mi. W. P. WOOD regretted that the Right Hon.
Baronet, without entering into the allegations, excepti a
to one point, should have determined to vote against the
motion. The question was not as to the right of any
Member to sit in that House, but whether the Marquis
of Exeter or the inhabitants of Stamford were to return
the two Members for that boroueh. With regard to
what the It+glit Hon. Baronet bad said as to the peti
ioning on the ground of bribery, there was no case foi
such a petition here, for the parties complained
against were neither the candidates nor their
agents. Again, with regard to the right of
petition," within three mouths, in those instances
e here persons had been placed in possession of eligible
holdings, on the unde.rsianding that they were to vote
tor the Marquis of Exeter's candidates, it was well
known they must have occupied the holding twelve
months before the e.ection, or they could not have voted.
Where, then, was the remedy ? A petition on the
ground of bribery was out of the question. Again, in no
caw did the Act provide ior the ease of a landlord who
said to his tenant, " If you don't vote fur wy candidate
eou shall be expelled from your occupation: That was
nut bribery—it was a species of intimidation for which
the 1 w provided no remedy. Yet that .as the alloga-
don on which almost the whole of the petition turned.
the admission made by the Right Baronet the Meinbei
ior Stamford and the Noble Marquis proved his (Mr.
Wood's) case. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member ter
Stamford a-mitted that fourteen electors had been ejected.
but by a sort of inferential circumlocution ineine
that, having been ejected with others, they might have
been ejected for different reasons. It would have been
much wore satisfactory it' the Right Hon. Baronet had
been able to declare positively that they had not been
ejected on account of their having voted for particular
caeuidates.—(Cheers.) Upon that broad fact alone he con-
sidered that the petitioners had made out a case for
inquiry.—(Hear, hear.) It had also been insinuated
that the mover and seconder of this mutiun bad been
concerned in the drawing of the petition. It was just
possible it had been drawn under legal advice, but if su,
it did not say much fur the legal ability of those charged'
with that duty. He could only say for himself that he
had never heard of the petition until a day or two
before it Was pieced in his hands, and he believed iha'
the-Hod. Seconder had never known of it until shown te
him by him (Mr. Wood). Highly as he might think of a
Nobleman against whom, he admitted, no case had beet.
established in proof, he must nevertheless claim more
for the petitioners than what the Noble Marquis seemed
willing to accord to teem, whets he stated that they did
not themselves believe what they stated. He conceived
that the petitioners were as fully entitled to credit as the
Noble Marquis.—(Hear, hear.) The ore), way to decide
the question was by having it. investigated, and he con
leased he should have thought that every friend of the
Noble elarquie would have been the foremost to support
a motion for inquiry, that he might, if it. his power, dis-
prove the allegations wade against him.—(Cheers).
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ••• ••• • 178
Against it .•• ••• ... 177
Mejerity ••• ••• ... —1
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. •
Lord NtORPE I H said he would goon with the Public
Health Bill on Monday. after the statement of his Right
lion. Friend upon the Navigation Laws.
Lord J 'RUSSELL said it was only intended to 'sub-
mit the resolutions on the Navigation Laws on Monday,
and postpone their further consideration till Friday.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the resolutions would
be framed so generally as not to commit any Hen. Mew
bee beyond this—that it was fitting to amend the Navi
gation Laws; but a Bill would be subsequently proposed
and circulated, that the country might understand the
nature of the measure.
Mr. HENLEY considered that in submitting his reso •
lutions the Right lion. Gentleman opposite should at
least give an outline of what he proposed to do. It
would not be fair for the Right Hot. Gentleman to make
a speech, and then to leave his speech, unanswered at
the time, to produce an ex parte effect upon the country.
Sir R. H. INGLIS suggested that the Right Hon.
Gentleman could lay his resolution on the table without
any speech.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not assent to so unusual a
course.
Alderman THOMPSON quite concurred in the pro-
priety of the suggestion thrown out by the Hon.Barone
opposite.
sarMy,r.thWe WAWN inquiry tthbaet
ffourrmthee in
rr
Committeequiry was
havingneces-
Nn i
r. prematurelyilusiEaeocse
denied
been
t'ithcLat the labours of that Committee
had been abruptly concluded. Their investigation had
been of the most complete and searching nature.
Mr. M. GIBSON fully corroborated the statement
that the inquiries of the Navigation Committee had been
of the fullest character.
Mr. NEWDEGATE was of opinion that this impor-
tant subject should not be unduly hurried forward.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he was ready to make
the arrangement that, after stating his resolutions on
Monday, the further consideration of them should be
postponed until the following Monday.
Mr. s rwutri said he believed that the Govern.
went did not themselves know what the measure was to
be, or why did they not give an outline of it?
Sir G. GREY asked, did the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman want to have a discussion on the subject forth-
with?
Captain HARRIS said that there had not been suffi-
cient inquiry by the House of Commons into the ques-
tion how far the navy was manned from our commercial
marine. He had reasons to know that two-fifths weie
derived from this source. He called upon the Govern-
ment not to proceed with this subject till they had before
them the report of the Lords' Committee on the subject.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the Navigation Committee of
that House had most laboriously examiued into the
subject.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER urged
the House to adopt the mode prepoeed by his Right
Hon. Friend, and to abandon the altogether irregular
and most desultory discussion in which they were then
engaged.
After a few words from Mr. WAWN, which did not
reach us,ARDO defended the proceedings of the
Mr. Re
parrht,, of Ho, Members
Committee
Com-
mittee, which he contended hal been conducted with
spietr:esicdtefaoitrtnheesHonont Hoare.
ously prosecuted a laborious inquiry, mandoho
) tdua 05... y pi
tuoupitl:
n nu
tie the , lst. sot of their
deniedtiheirm that the
eetinghadthey been unable to make
a gotr
o
their labours to an abrupt rt-e.ernmitti e had brought
vunclusion, ai.d felt bound to
do so, because it
was an unfair statement, calculated to
mislead the House.
71:69.14 WISS Still Of opinion that the Committer
..o; :.t eseeente. itaoe'd, seliee „

RAILWAY COMMITTEES•

GROUP 11. A VD
SOUTH YORKSD IRE, DONCASTER,
GOOLE.

Mr. Blackstone in the chair. • I Act,
The object or this Bill is to amend the origins., ..
and empower the company to extend their line to ren'
word, and make alterations in the aidsworth 13rancb...
The Committee passed the preamble, and agreed w
the clauses. COLN"
MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LIN i
SHIRE. • lin•
This Bill is to enable the company to carry their
acriis* Slietlield•stteet, in Manchester.
Preamble proved, and clauses aereed to.
MANCHESTER SOUTH JUNCTION AI4ID
ALTRINCHAM. ~
Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to.
,

GROUP IV.
VALE OF NEATH. . •
Sir Edmund Hayes in the chair. til°
This Bill is to enable the Wales COW' go,
contribute towards the capital of the Vale of NeltSb
and to amend the original Act. •
Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. „for.
OXFOIW, %VW-WESTER, AND, WOLV". •
TON (No. I) ~., to ir
The object of this Bill is to enable the corapup4 p
crease their capital.
Preamble proved; clauses deferred. rtAgr'
oXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVER--
TON (No. 2). • 10
This Bill is to enable the company to Make dell. llor
d 510311 f
in the line, and empower the Shrewsbury sn-..A.Ddasf,
ham, and the Birmingham, Wolverhampton! s'titl•
1 ttfulway Companies to contribute towards the esPl- ,
Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. ', •

GROUP V.
Sir Robert Peel in the chair. vfRCITO
SOUTH-WESTERN (POWER TO -
ST EA M-BOATS).
Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to.
LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH
Mr. TALBOT opened the case for the promotTh c,OO
Bill, to enable the London, Brighton, sac!. S°11!:;a0Pf
Company to become the proprietors of the boatV7
between Brighton and Dieppe in their own rigis`