The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-07 00:00:00

WEDNESDAY

tione. Let it not now defeat inquiry by a technical objec-
tion, but include an inquiry into the proceedings at the Fal-
kirk district with that which was to investigate the proceed-
ings at St. Alban's. He moved an amendment to that effect.
Mr. ROEBUCK seconded the amendment.
Mr. BAIR ') said that he had given no sanction to the open-
ing of public-houses for his election, and he did not believe
that his agents had done so —(Hear.) At the same time he
said that it the House desired to make any inquiry into the
proceedings at the last election, he had no objection that it
should do so. (Cheers.) That bcenes of drunkenness took
place there could be nu doubt—(Hear)—for it was a com-
mon practice in a borough.—(Hear, hear.) It could be no
wonder that there should be scenes of drunkenness, because
there was a population that received in wages 10,0001.
weekly. The principals of those establishments come in to
the election, and the men naturally also come into the town
to make merry.—(Hear.) But then, as to the last election.
the agents of the petitioners went through the borough, and
finding they could not subtantiate a case against him, the
petition was withdrawn.—(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that there was no
one in the House that could have heard but with pain the
sad details that the Hon. Member for the West Riding had
given of the proceedings at the Falkirk election. Nu one
could be told that there should be such debauchery without
feeling very deep regret. Though he deemed it desirable
that an inquiry into such scenes should be made, still he
could not but feel the strongest objection that such an
inquiry should be mixed up with an investigation into other
transactions that were totally and essentially distinct.
The Bill that was now proposed had to go through another
place; and they must take care to do nothing that would
prevent its success there. In the one case, St. Alban's, they
had evidence taken before a Committee upon oath, and they
had a Bill prepared by the Chairman, at the desire of the
Committee by whom the case had been investigated. Such
a Bill, he said, was sure of success when it went to another
place; but the case mentioned by the Hon. Member for the
West Riding was based not upon the evidence taken upon
oath, and it would be unusual to engraft, by way of a rider,
such an inquiry upon another formally proposed to the
House. He suggested to the Hon. Member to make his a
substantive motion, and not to endanger the Bill by com-
bining the two inquiries.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that he might be permitted to
recall to the recollection of the House some remarkable cir-
cumstances which he had on a former occasion brought
before that House. There bad been six instances, after a
general election, of what he had ascertained to be corrupt
compromises. He had brought the circumstances on his own
personal s'ntement before the House, and Sir Robert Peel
gave him the Committee he asked for. • Not satisfied with
that, they had passeda Bill enabling parties to give evidence.
He had mentioned six cases, and Mr. Charles Buller men-

tioned another-Bridport; and he asked the House to en-
graft Bridport on his (Mr. Roebuck's) motion, and the
House agreed to do so, and then all these cases were brought
before the Committee of which he was chairman. Where,
then, was the difference between the two cases ? The At-
torney-General said that the one case was established on
oath. But what had been done with him referred only to
his own personal statemeet. It rested on that alone. And
now what occurred on the present occasion ? The Hon.
Member for Falkirk district demanded inquiry?-(Hear.)
Who, then, were the objecting parties? Not the Hon. Gen-
tlemen opposite. - (Hear, hear). Then there was the Hon.
Member branded by the statement of the Hon. Member for
the West Riding of Yorkshire.-(Cries of " No, no.") Let
Hon Gentlemen wait until he finished. Thus was the Hon.
Member branded if he did not get the opportunity which he
asked for.-(Hear.) Who then stood between the Hon.
Member and his exculpation ? Surely the Attorney-General
would not stand between him and it. What then prevented
the wish of the Hon. Member for the West Riding being ac-
ceded to, and thus helping the Hon. Member for the Falkirk
districts to a vindication?-not because he needed it. -
(Hear. )Oh no-but because he was accused.- (Cheers.)
To be accused was one thing; to be guilty was another; but
the Hon. Member was accused, and no doubt he would be
considered guilty if be were not allowed:to defend himself. -
( Hear.) For what would they say? fhat friends who
well understood the thing did, when he pretended to
be ready to exculpate himself, help him by their votes with
a most useful cloak, by which he might cover himself from
the accusation when it had been made.-(Hear.) He asked
was that a position to let the Hon. Member occupy ?-( Hear.)
He assumed that the Hon. Member was-and he said this
with all violence to himself-innocent.-(Laughter.) Yes,
in such cases as those of Bolton, and Aylesbury, and Fal-
kirk, he did violence to himself in supposing that persons
were not guilty when they were charged with a knowledge
of the practices of corruption.-(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
The Hon. Member who made the motion had talked of
bribery only ; but corruption and treating must be included
in the motion. Would the Hon. Gentleman say that one
house, not to say forty-one houses, open for treating, could
have been only open for purposes of patriotism? -(Laughter.)
Some one with a purse ready to pay those men who presided
over houses where treating of men, women, and children took
place must have been there, sent there by some one.-(Hear.)
It was a disgrace to that House to sit there, and the country
would repudiate there, if they dealt with great cases of immo-
rality, and allowed guilty parties to aide off on a mere
technicality raised by the Attorney-General. The tech-
nical objection which had been raised ought to be over-
ruled, and the Hon. Gentleman ought to be afforded a full
opportunity of exculpating himself. This he could not do
under the Bill, and therefore it was right fur the House to
provide the Hon. Gentleman with the means of full exculpa-
tion. He begged of the House, if they desired to have a
moral influence in the country, not to interfere, but to let the
Hon. Gentleman have a fair trial, for the Hon. Gentleman
really was on his trial-(Hear)-and to let him clear him-
self, as be said he could, from the charges brought against
him. Of all the cases ,he had ever brought under the no-
tice of the House not one equalled in atrocity the present
case, and he trusted it wouid be fully sifted by the House.
16. ELLICE, jun.' was unwilling to have anything grafted
on the Bill that would jeopardize it. It was clear the other
case was a matter for a commission to inquire into, and this
could be done by another Bill, which, when introduced,
could go on par/. passu with the present Bill. He objected
to the amendment, not because he wished to throw any ob-
stacle in the way of inquiry, but because it would obstruct
the (Hear.)
Mr. G. BANKES would say that the difficulties of the St.
Alban's case were sufficient of themselves, and he therefore
considered the amendment entirely. inadihisiible. If the
Hon. Member for the West Riding wished to defeat the in-
quiry, he could-not take a more effectual step than by this
amendment. If the Act of Parliament, consequent on the
movement of the Hon. Member for Sheffleld, had not been
thought strong enough at the time, why did the Hon. Gen-
tleman not make it stronger? The Act in question provided
for the case of the St. Alban's Committee, and he really
thought the Hon. Gentleman ought not to use a tyrannical
power of placing Members of that House in. the position of
the Hon. Member for St. Alban's.
Ma. ROEBUCK said the Act in question was brought in by
Lord John Russell, and not by him. '
Mr. BANKES was quite aware of that. He thought the
Hon. Gentleman ought to have bees content with the reme-
dies provided by that Act, rather than resort from time to
time to the tyranny of ex post facto law.-(Hear.) With
respect to the question before the House relating to the in-
troduction of a Bill by the Chairman! of the Committee, he
should only say, as the Bill was brouglat in on the recom-
mendation of the Committee, that it ought-to have weight with
that House. With reference to the Commission' he should
not be disposed to part with the control of the House over
it. He would not name the Comm-lash:hairs, but he suggested
whatever the number might be, that the House would keep
the inquiry in their hands in order that it might be made
searching and impartial.
Mr. HUME thought his Hon. Friend ought to withdraw
his motion, and proceed with the Bill.
Mr. FORBES knew the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baird) and
his family, and could speak as to the vase good they did in
the neighbourhood. He believed his Hon. Friend shad been
hardly dealt with in the matter. People had been sent all
over the kingdom to get up evidence, and the gentlemen on
the other side had given all the weight of their names and
eloquence to make out the case agaihst his Hon. Friend,
they at the same' time being the partisans of the defeated

ce
Lord 3. RUSSELL would only say a few words on the
question. In the first place, the motion-0f his Hon. Friend
was founded on the report of the Election Commiqe,e, which
stated that extensive bribery had been practised in the
borough of St. Alban's at the last election. He couldnet
conceive a more legitimate ground for the introduction f a
Bill—(Hear)—and he had no hesitation in s • 0
saying he should
give his vote in favour of the introduction. But the Hon
Member for the West Riding had brought forward another.
case. He could not say that inquiry ought place
not to take
with respect to that case, because from the notoriety and
scandal of that case it could not be passed
over by the
House; but he could not agree in the proposition for having
Commission.
On Tthhee
the two cases tried by the same
Chmhi
report
cases-
stood on different grounds ; one of them rested
•
of the Select Committee, the other only rested on a petition
presented to that House. What course the Hon. Member
for the West Riding ought to take he was not prepared to
say ; but as he did not think the two cafes should be mixed
together, he thought they ought to be treated separately, and
the Hon. Member have leave to withdraiv his BilL
Mr. FRESHFIELD could hardly trust himself to' utter
the sentiments of his mind at the unfounded imputations of
the Hon. and Learned Member for Sheffield; That Hon.
and Learned Member owed it to himself and the House to
state on what his suspicions were founded. He asserted
that on the occurrence of the death of ,his Hon. Friend who
represented Boston, when be was induced to go down there,
that everything was conducted respectably. There was no
music, or anything to create entertainment provided.
Mr. LOCKHART could corroborate the statement; of his
Hon. Friend (Mr. Forbes) with reference to the liberality,
charity, and piety of his Hon. Friend Mr. Baird.
After a few wordsi from Mr. H. BERKELEY,
Mr. COBDEN said he was in the' hands of the House as
to the course he should take. It had been suggested to him
to make a substantive motion for a Select Committee on the
matter, but the example of St. Alban's was not one to en-
courage an Hon. Member to have recourse to a Select Com-
mittee ; however, as the matter was before the House and
the public, he thought it the duty of the Government to, see
what ought to be done in the matter, and he ventured to
suggest that the Ldrd Advoctheate for Scotland would be the
Pmatter
roper person to take charge of .__( Hear.)
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the original
motion agreed to. HER 4
On the motion of Mr. LABOUC E, the following gen-
tlemen were nominated a Select Committee on the Steam
Navigation, &c., Bill .
• • Mr. Labouchere Mr. Hume , Mr.
Cardwell, Admiral Berkeley, Mr. William Brown, Mr. Ander-
son, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Mr. Alexander Hastie, Mr.
Philip Miles, and Mr. Grogan.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to extend the benefits of certain provisioni of the General
Merchant Seamen's Act relating to apprentices bound to the
sea service, to apprentices bound to the sea service by boards
of guardians of the poor in Ireland, and to enable such
guardians to place out boys in the naval service.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE obtained leave to bringin a Bill
to amend an Act for empowering grand juries in Ireland to
present bridges, and tolls to be paid for passing the same, in
certain cases.
Mr. HUME postponed till to-merrow (this day) his
motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of
assessing and collecting the propertyetax ; and whether the
injustice of levying the same rate of charge upon terminable
as upon perpetual annuities, and upon fluctuating and
varying incomes from trades and professions as upon fixed
incomes, cannot be greatly modified, or altogether removed.
On the motion of tne ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRE-
LAND, the following gentlemen were nominated a Select
Committee on Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Bill :.--Mr. A ttor-
n ey-General for Ireland, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. French, Mr.
Keogh, Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
M'Cullagh, Mr. Anstey, Mr. Grogan, Viscount Bernard,
Captain Jones, Mr. Sergeant Murphy, Colonel Taylor, and
Mr. Sadleir.
Sir W. G. CRAIG moved for a Select Committee to con-
sider the state and operation of the Acts relating to the an-
nuity-tax levied in Edinburgh, Canongate, and Montrose,
and to report thereon ; and whether any amendment on
these Acts, or re-adjustment of the tax, would be expedient;
and whether any other fund may be rendered available for
the purpose to which the annuity-tax is now applied.
'Agreed to.
The Process and Practice (Ireland) Bill passed through
Committee.
The Rouse adjourned at lialf-past One o'clock.