The Sun.
London, England, 1867-05-31 00:00:00

THE EIIPEIIO3 MAXIMILIAN,

Mr. 3.loNii. :Liked the. SccrAary fur Foreign Affairs
whether ho any. inforarttioa contirtniog tho report
that 11/13 iu e:rettlatioa that J:tar:..z had or.hred tho
Mlximilian to be shot ?
. . .

Lord STANLEY Maid he had no such information, and
with r:!speet to the zdloged ....aptur3 of tho Ealinrur all that
was known %vas what h:,,1 appeared in the newspap-r:,
and in those reports there were two contradictory state-

merits.
REPRESENT..A.TION OF THE PEOPLE DILL.
The house went into committee on this b:11.
0 i clause 8 (the disfranchising clause) being proposed,
The cas.NuEr,Lon of the EXCHEQUER sail he
proposed the postponement of the clause in order that he
might bring up an amended one.
Sir G. GREY objected to the postponement when it
was clearly stated when it was to be discussed.
Col. PATTEN hoped it would be taken into considera-
tion before the house was called upon to consider the
schedules of the bill.
Mr. LIDDELL thought it was of the gr.mtest import-
ance that the course to be adopted with respect to the dis-
franchising certain boroughs should be clearly known
b-,fore they came to consider the distribution of seats.
Mr. BRIGHT e:nggested that the bill should be
divided into two parts. (No, no.) That with respect to
the franchise could go forward to another place, and then
they would have title to delibera ely discuss that relating
to the distribution of seats, which they had not, yet done.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would read the-addition ho proposed to make to the clause.
The right hon. gentleman then real a kind of preamble,
which recited that, in consequence of the reports of com-
missions appointed to investigate the charges of bribery
made against the electors of Totnes, Great Yarmouth,
Re:gate, and Lancaster, ho proposed to preface the
clause with that intro Inctioa.
The motion for postponement was withdrawn, and .
Mr. BAXTER moved an amendment to the clause to
the effect that Lancaster and Great Yarmouth should
retain one member each.
Sir R. BOWYEIt said ho had a motion on the paper
for the striking out of the clause altogether, as be con-
sidered it a great hardship that a number of p3rsous who
were not guilty of bribery i could be punished for those
who had committed that offence.
Mr. GLADSTONE thought the hon. member for Dun-
dalk (Sir G. Bowyer) perf?ctly right that the principle
of the clause is raised by the motion of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, and not only as to the clause
in general, but as to each town severally. Fur each
town severally is named in the preamble, which the
right hon. gentleman Most properly proposes, -and
although it may be that the preamble would he satisfied
by enacting a portion of the clause and stopping short
of absolute disfranchisement, yet it implies that
something of the nature of penally is to be inflicted.
Ile thought the ergunva!s of the hon. member fin Dun-
d ilk are inadequate to sustain the conclusion at which he
"' (their.) this is own_
sidered a bill of pains and rualties. No doubt, as it ex-
cludes front the exercise of a public trust persons who
have hitherto been in its pos;ession, it is capable of being
s:) stated ; but it would be a false view if the house consi-
dered that that was the principal aspect in which it was to
be regarded. What we have to provide for is the pure and
etneient exercise of the franchise. (Hear, hear.) We aro
bmod to take measures for that,- and if so happens that in
the honest and deliberate adoption of those measures we
inflict inconvenience, upon any one, that may be a misfor-
tune witieh we regret, but it is not to stand between us
and our principal duty. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman
contends that a bill of pains and penalties has always been
treated by itself. (Hear, hear) No doubt where particular
boroughs had been found gulty o: 'gross corruption, the
Government of the day has not waited to inflict a penalty
until the occasion of a Reform Bill—(laughter)—but when
a case arose they dealt with it. And it happens that the
Case of these four towns arises at the very moment when
a Reform Dill is brought before us. lie did not say that
that proved that this ought to be dealt. with iu this bill,
but it proves that the force of precedents against this is
very small. Butt this is no more a bill of pains and penal-
ties to disfranchise one of these towns than to disfranchise
any of the small boroughs that appeared in Schedule A of
the Reform Bill. (Cheers ) Lie did not say that those
boroughs were of the same importance, but he was arguing
a question of prin- iple. Th, bon. member says we aro in-
_ fleeting a groat wrong on the new voters. The interests of
the new voters and the old voters must be considered as
becond to the public and national interest. (Cheers.) Too
much has been sail about these new voters. It is taken
for granted by many that these new voters will purify the
old ones. As the right hon. member for Calne said last
year, "You seem to think that health is contagious as
well as disease." (Laughter.) And his honourable
friend seemed to think that the disease of these
old voters will be neutralised and cured, and their bad
morals destroyed by the introduction of the new voters.
lie was sorry that the capital town of the county in Par-
liament, of which he had the honour-in part to present,
is one of the towns embraced by the enactment ; but he
c mild not hesitate on that acc mut. No doubt it would
have its champions, as Yarmouth has. That is quite right
under the circumstances. Every town in this position
ought to have its- advocates who take a warm and highly-
coloured view on its behalf. (A laugh.) Ho found from

the report of the commission that in Totnes, where the
total number on the register was 421, there wore 158
bribers and bribed, or 38 per cont.; in Reigate, 912 on the

register, and 346 bribers and bribed, or 38 per cent. ; in
Yarmouth, 1,617 on the register, and 528 bribers and

, .
bribed, a little less than 32 per cent. Aud wo must bear
in mind that this is not the first limo Yarmouth has been

before us. (Hear, hear.) On a former occasion the house

passed a measure of disfranchisement of the freemen, who

contribute very highly to the category of guilt on occa-
sions like this. In Lancaster, there were 1,493 voters on
the register, and 916 bribers and bribed, or 64 per cent.
But it is only fair to say that out of 980 freemen, 708 are
corrupt; and out of 439 householders, nearly as many. He
could not agree in the wish these cases had been dealt with
in a. separate bill. In this country, in a case of this kind
we generally push a good principle to excess. In the re-
gard for the sacredness of private rights, which is the
foundation of low and order, we are sometimes apt to fol-
low mete phantoms abed simulacra of right which we fall
down and worship, as if they corresponded substantially
well that definition; and soineemes real public right is
sacrificed to imaginary private right. (Ileer, hear.) Ile
could net agree with the hon. member for Birmingham
that we are unable to deal impartially with this subject
on the present occasion, for the number of seats to be had
Iron: each borough is not likely to blind our view with
regard to 'the general question of the redistribution of
scuts. lie trusted that the Government will accede to the
motion of the hon. member for Wick, or some such motion
with regard to the redistribution of seats. He supported
this clause on this principle, that local communities must
in a case of this kind be held responsible for the acts of
large portions of its members. (Cheers.) And that proposi-
tion is strengthened when you recollect • that in all these
cases, besides the number of individuals whose corruption
you prove, there is a further percentage of corruption
which you fail to prove, and beyond and above that, be-
sides those who are actually tainted with bribery in com-
munities where it has unhappily prevailed, there are others
who wink and laugh at bribery, and make light of it., and
by conniving participate. (Hear, hear.) 'No doubt there are
many honourable, upright, and perfectly clean-handed men
who are indignant at such acts, but the proportion of such
innocent persons is not so largo as upon an indulgent con-
struction of the case we might suppose. The question in-
volved by this clause is a very serious one. With regard
to the question of bribery, above all others, we are apt to
beat about the bush. There is nothing so easy as to make
speeches in favour of severe laws against those who take
bribes--and there is nothing so delightful to an excited
audienceas to hear denunciations of those who give bribes
—but our severe penal enactments are almost wholly in-
sufficient for the purpose. It would be ludicrous to profess
to abolish bribery by severe penal enactments against per-
sons in their individual capacity. Ho admitted that the
plan of dealing with local communities is open to the ob-
jectien that if they are disfranchised on evidence obtained
largely from them, this may check the disposition in future
to give such evidence. (lear, hear.) But, on the other
hand, the evidence is reduced to absolute inutility, if on
that account, having made an investigation at the public
charge, you refuse to act upon it. (Cheers.) The
punishment of communties is likely effectually to check
all bribery. We shall create a public opinion in these
local communities adverse to bribery—(hear, hear)--
and it is this, as well as the exercise of influ-
ence and example, to which we must chiefly look for this
discouragement of brib.ry. (Hear, hear.) He could not
for a moment defend any one who, in his ambition to ob-
tain a seat in Pa-liament, has been led to taint himself in
connection with these transactions; but how does it arise?
Not because the candidates have such an avidity for ex-
penditure that they ere determined to force bribery upon
the communities- (laughter)—but because, misled by the
brilliancy of their object, they fall into the operation of a
system ingrained in these communities, mixed up with
their local habits and practices for a length of time. (Hear,
hear.) It is there the source of the evil lies, and there
you must attempt to purify it by the purge of great
severity, if you intend to make any serious effort to re-
form. (Cheers.) Therefore he was anxious this clause,
or one highly stringent in its enactments, should be
passed. (llear, hear.) He was not prepared to say he
did noe wish to draw distinctions between small and large
communities in this matter. Largo communities aro at
present without a check which operates upon small com-
munities. The latter know they will be disfranchised. Is
there a man that will stand up fur Totnes ? (Laughter.)
But there is a latent sense of the importance of large
communities which tends to weaken the operation of
checks. (Hear, hear.) Cuusequently we must be pre-
pared to deal with large communities upon nearly the
eame principle as small communities - (cheers) - subject to
this exceptiou, that if a community, which has no title to
representation except the fact that it has possessed that
right, abuses that right, there is no argument remaining
to be made in such a case. Ho hoped the Government
will adhere to the stringent measures they had proposed.
(Cheers.) He could not conceive a worse proposal than
that made by the lionourabl member for Montrose, for
taking away one of the members for a borough which has
a double representation. It is perfectly clear that,
whatever putiishinent you -yruc---must - break the
habit of bribery. You mly do till.; by teal (Es-
franchist meet, or by disfranchisement for a term
of years; but to adopt this proposition would be
equal to saying, °• You have Liken bribes from two mem-
bers, and this is so intutyrable that we can bear it no
longer; but we have no objection to your taking bribes
from one member." (Laughter.) He gave the Govern-
ment great credit for the decisive course which they had
adopted as far as this proposal is concerned, and he hoped
the house would resolutely support them, and he trusted
that the Government themselves will be worthy of the
proposal they tied made. (Cheers.)

Mr. 11. BAILLIE (who was unable for several seconds
to obtain a hearing in consequence of the calls for Mr.
Lowe, who rose about the same time) said that, inasmuch
as we were not living under a Mosaic dispensation—(laud
langhter)—he did not see why we should assume the
power of visiting the sins of the fathers for successive
g tuerations upon th,dr children. (Hear, hear.) It would
be more just to suspend the riglits of corrupt boroughs for
ten or fifteen years —(no, no) —and this would be a amore
severe punishment than that proposed for Lancaster, as
under the Government Reform Bill, the electors, though
disfranchised for the borough, would become county

electors.
Mr. LOWE wished that the hon. member for Norfolk
(Mr. Howes) would make the discussion more regular by
moving to leave out the borough of Yarmouth from the
preamble. (Hear, hear.) He wished to call to the mind
of the house certain considerations which had not been
brought prominently before it. Rather less than a third
of the electors of Yarmouth are proved to be guilty of
corrupt practices. And if it were so, that the case
stands now as it did when the offences were committed,
or when the commission reported, cr the Government
introduced the motion, he should have no difficulty in
voting for the disfranchisement of the borough. Bat
the case clues not stand so now. Since that time wo
had gone through a revolution. (Cheers.) The prin-
ciple upon which the franchise was to be conferred was
that it wss a privilege or trust, or agency deputed to
certain places which were thought fit to exercise it
for a public good. The principle upon which it was
now conferred, phrase it how we may, was the right of
every citizen who had a settled residence in the country
to be represented in Parliament—(hear, hear)—and there-
fore they should well consider whether the principle in
respect of bribery, which was applicable in the past, could
be applied to the new state of circumstances of the coun-
try. 11 they took the gToss number of inhabitants in any
particular borough and divided it by seven, they would
arrive at what new constituencies Will be. Applying that
rule.to Great Yarmouth, its constituency of 1,650 will be
increased by something lik 4,500 voters. The right hon.
gentleman the member for South Lancashire said that
they should punish the innocent
.with the guilty. Granted;
brit upou what principle? Were tley going, because of
the fault of 500 voters, to prevent coming into being 4,500
electors, who otherwise would be admitted to the fran-
chise under the bill ? (Hear, hear.) It was said that they
would contaminate the new v ters ; but was it to go forth
that the House had no confidence in the new constituen-
cies? (Rear, hear.) Was the House prepared to admit
that they were not to be entrusted with the franchise?
There was another consideimtion. The right hon. gentle-
man the member for South Lancashire argued that the
S'Z.3 of the borough had nothing to do with the question;
but if they laid down that rule, he fancied that they would
end by disfranchising all the borough constituencies in
the country. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He bad no par-
ticular sympathy with transactions such as those which
took place at Great Yarmouth, but as ho was convinced.
that, as in America, we shall have to wink at bribery in
the new constituencies, he thought the House should aet
warily in the matter -not as if they were at the fag-cud
of an old system, but at the beginning of a new one. It
would be of evil augury for the plan which they were
about to establish if they were obliged to commence in the
first case of flagrant delinquency by au absolute reversal
of the precedent which they were asked to lay down in
the disfranchisement of Great Yaemouth. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HOWES contended that a system of disfranchise-
ment, if carried indiscriminately into effect, was one of the
worst things that could be devised.
Mr. BRIG la said that whatever opinion lion. members
might hold upon the question, they would all find that it
wad. very unfortunate for a fair discussion and determina-
tion of it that the case of the four boroughs should be
t rought before the House on a cittuse in a bill of such mag-
nitude. He believed that since the 11.forra Act of 1832
only two boroughs, Sudbury and St. Albans, bad been dis-
franchised ; but he ventured to say that if those boroughs
had been of the sizo of Lancaster and Great Yarmouth they
never would have been disfranchised. They were dis-
franchised, in the first place, because they were so small
that they ought not to have existed at all; and, secondly,
because being so small, there was no expectation that there
could be created in them any constituency of a less cor-
rupt and more reliable character; so that their representa-
tion iu the future would be satisfactory and creditable to
the country. Whet was the true course in the case before
them. This—to. disfranchise every Individual elector
whose corruption had been proved. Their names were
known ; they were on the table. (Rea-) The proposition