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

rf,Y "relinfilr rt"*

WEDNESDAY

Cone. Let it net now defeat inquiry by a technical objec-
tion, but include an inquiry into the proceedings at the it
district with that which was to investigate the proceed-
ings at St. Allein'e. 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 lied done S 9 --(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 scenes of drunkenness took
place there could he no douht—(llear)—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 snake merry.— (Hear.) But then, as to the last election.
the agents of the petitioners went through the borough, and '
finding they could rot Subtantiate a case against him, the
petition was withdrawn.—(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped that there was no
one iu 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. No 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 Unit, 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 had been six instances, after a
general election, of what he had ascertained to be corrupt
compromises. He had brought the circumstances on hie own
personal statement before the House, and Sir Hobert Peel
gave him the Committee he asked for. Not satisfied with
that, they had passed a 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 statement. 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 cpposite.- (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 he were not allowed:to defend himself.—
( Hear.) For what would they say ? That 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 1
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
heve`been only open for purposes of patriotism? —eLaughter.)
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 them, if they dealt with great cases of immo-
rality, and allowed guilty parties to ride 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 he 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 would be fully sifted by the House.
r. 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 pan 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 Bill.— (Hear.)
Dlr. G. BANKES would say that the difficulties of the St.
Alban's case were sufficient of themselves, and he therefore
considered the amendment entirely inadmissible. 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 Sheffield, 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 llon. Gentleman ought not to use a tyrannical
power of placing Members of that House in the position of
the Hon. Member for St. Albanae
Mr. 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 ea post facto law.—(Hear.) With
respect to the question before the HQUSe relating to the in-
troduction of a Bill by the Chairman of the Committee, he
should only say, as the Bill was brought 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 Commissioners; 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. Free' Dd. ought to withdraw
his motion, and proceed with the Bill%
Mr. FORBES knew the Hon. Gentlaman (Mr. Baird) and
his family, and could speak as to theta t good they did in
hid; neighbourhood. He believed h on. Friend had been
hardly dealt with in the matter. Pei' l had been sent all
ifs
over the kingdom to get tip evidenc&and the gentlemen on
the other side had given all the weight' of their names and
eloquence to make out the case against his Hon. Friend,
they at the same time being the porta/ens of the defeated
candidate. (Hear. )
Lord J. RUSSELL would
only say a few words on the
question. In the fiist place, the motion of his Hon. Friend
was founded on the, report f the Electal-le Committee, which
stated that extensive bribery .
had .been practised in the
borough of St. Alban's at the last election. He could not
conceive a more legaiMate ground for' the introduction of a
Bill—(Hear)—and he bad no hesittilielo in sa-ino;
y b 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 not to take place
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
the two cases tried by the same Commission. The cases
stood on different grounds ; one of them rested on the report
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 lie was not prepared to
say ; but as he did not think the twd cases should be mixed
together, he thought they ought to be treated separately and
the Hon. Member have leave to withdraw 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 he was induced to go down there,
that everything was conducted respeetably. There was no
music, or anything to create entertainment provided.
Mr. LOCKHART could correborate 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 words 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 hive recourse to a Select Com-
mittee; however, as the matter was before the Hou,se and
the public, he thought it duty bf the Government-to see
what ought to be done in the matter,i and he ventured to
suggest that the Lord Advocate or Scotland would be the
proper pereon to take charge of the matter.—( Hear.)
The amendment .was then withdrawn, and the original
motion agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. LAEOUCHERE, the following gen-
tlemen were nominated a Select Committee on the Steam
Navigation,
&c., Bill:—Mr. Labonchere, Mr. Hume Mr.
Cardwell, Admiral Berkeley, Mr. William Brown, Mr. Ander-
son, Mr. Alderman Thompson, Iflra..filexander Hastie, Mr.
obtained' caveto bring in a Bill
Philip Miles, and Mr. Grogan.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE
.i . . •
to extend the benefits of certain provisions 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 boya
inthe naval service.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE, obtained leave to bring in a Bill
to amend an Act for empowering grand juries in ereland to
present bridges, and tolls to be paid for passing the same, in
certain cases.
Mr. HUME postponed till to-Marrow (this day) his
motion for a Select Committee to inquire into the mode of
assessing and collecting the property-tax ; and whether the
injustice of levying the same rate of charge upon terminable
es upon perpetual annuities, and -upon fluctuating and
varying incomes from trades and professions as upon fixed
incomes, cannot be greatly modified, pr altoreether removed.
On the motion of the ATTORNEYr GENERAL for IRE-
LAND, the followina gentlemen were nominated a Select
Committee on Civil Bills, (Ireland)&c. Bill :-.-Mr. Attor-
ney-General for Ireland, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. French, Mr.
Keogh, Mr. Napier, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Reynolds, Mr.
M'Cullagh, Mr. Austey, 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 amid 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-adjustinent 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 House adjourned at Half-past One o'clock.