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

Mr. GISBORNE thought it extrtestAly inconvenient that
the House should go into the notation at all; but now that it
hail done so, he was very gla.citirat the Committee was likely
to he granted. Ile did so upon principle, for there were many
analogous eases, and he considered that such a state of things
was unsatisfactory. By bringing the question prothinently be-
fore the House, it would lead to such amendments in the law
relating to elections as would put an end to these abuses. Ile
did not mean to go into the ease 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 It. INGLIS differed with the Hon. Member for Dorset
en various grounds, but pr3neipally hecauie the result of the
decision of the Committee in this ease, 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, ho could
not see why they should be treated as mere waste paper. Hemight be allowed to say, that there was a wide suspicion of
a
compromise of bribery.—(hear.)
onnota ogainst t h ee
cuo
(di 000fd
at
no
yi
lion.te Aa
In:rat yg
nl i
tklemta Hlisuoesupdsiieed, but he thought it
uct
had appeared that there were proceedings which bore a very
curious aspect, at the late Bridport election. He considered
the sulject ought now to remain as it was.
Mr. WAR LEY said that a man named Walsh was called
before the Committee, who stated that he had heard Beckett
vote for Hominy, and accordingly the vote was struck off, and
placed tothe other side. lie 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 Atto',:sey.,General had said that to allow such
a Committee would be to do that which could not be done so
well as by the present 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 Parliatneut was the proper power to]; 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. ROM I LLY 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 as,istance in his
power for the fullest investigation.—( Hear, hear.) It should
he 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 I. 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. Ile (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 bad 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 er 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
-xisted. The petition staled that they ha.? sufficient reason to
think that bribery rad existed, and if any compromise were to
be made in case of any subsequent objectisn, 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, mad enter into a
fu. 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. lie 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 lion. Member was
sitting there against the will of his constituents, and he put it
to the House whether inquiry ought net to be made with a
view of finding a remedy for the evil. He (Mr. Bankes) bad
discharged his duty to the Hothe, and had limited that duty
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 lion.
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
Bina, 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 proceell under the Bill of Lord John
Russell would have been the most convenient mode in this case,
but he (Mr. Bankes) had not done so, because it was difficult
for him to avail himself of a measure which was not much in
use.or a n
yThe furtheroriginal
proceedings petition
anotherin t hi this
petition casewaswadaisrperin
osedireodf,
and tt
for
who would be the petitioner ? It would not be easy to find a
petitioner in a case which promised no result, and in which
tltifetrbenwoabs
jennotowbjaescttotodbisefrganaienheitale
onbythe electors of the borough.
thefhvoarrodugaha
tthhoeypewtiotiuolnderbse
the last people who would come
He apprehended that the passing orfnothneraestatte did not pre-
clude them from adopting any othe might appear
desirable to them. With regard to the wActchoford John
Russell, it was difficult to avail themselves of it; and he did
not see why they should attempt to proceed by it when it would
besrairthletria)ri obstruction.PEEL
Laaidthat
the attention oifiothheapouse had been
thechaislleadddtoress t motiono the
House,is aHon.nd w ho Friend,
hat wcohnientidned
wstated a lanestt
peered to him to deserve the consideration of the Houser.
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 injured by that informal vote, the
Committee had declared that that vote was to be transferred to
the opposite candidate. The consequence of that was, that a
majority of one was decided in favour of the other, and that
by the statute law of this country, as far as his seat was con-
cerned the decision could not bet questioned, and the present
Member for Bridport (Mr. Romilly) was entitled to his seat as
a statuttable 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 ought to consider whether, on the
allegation which had heen made, an inquiry ought to be made
into the affair. If there was no mode of conducting the inquiry,
he should 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 thought
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 could 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 th rights anyreasonable to m ake a
apprehensionrepor report,
setting forth whether there was
that an inquiry into bribery was necessary. In making that
special report, the House was left
it thought fit. If there had been
astultiibeeireteyt tgoretaukeedwinhatthceopurresf
icio° nmeperroamh
es e
Ga ge
ea itni
es
-t
tshenet
Cinestetatencietteteo
esuveprpowrthitchhe
tchhearßgeighotf
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
notanaydvciasesd:thweenhdeHreouse to proceed. The Noble Lord's Act
isiefoialsrtensuocth that an inquiry in compromise or bribery
petition the Houseonoonn ee r
Aigioernto:
grounds
winodini
go
ofw abeingsany entitledr presented
within
in en days after the election, for it provides, " That
eathp
allega-
tions of co •
they should prove extensive compromise to them, time
easonteabvleeteshall
any within three months,
they could institutue an
lynegaufrie.general bribery. All that he
It was not necessary that
hisor beliefongh
of in
whichextensive
e was
aand
a
had to do was simply to declare
general bribery in the particular
fide believed to the best of his knowledge
that such he ben
cttohi be er
et
choegcase.zft
n
voter, and to enter into his !Teo
he made this declaration, and entered ignet
then a provision was made for theeels!.
Com-
mittee of Inquiry, which Committee appointmentiad alli of a
nctions of
an Election Committee. All this could be catlleedfu.
by the petition of one single voter alleging his belief tittnatto actionbribery
existed. But did the Act impose expense on the petitioner?
No; ; for if the Committee reported that there was reasonable
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 114 therefore brvuOt forward this remedy. Time were