The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-15 00:00:00

ÜBLIC WALKS:

Mr. BUCKINGHAM •in bringing forward his motion on
this subject, referred at some length to the inquiry which was
entered upon during last session by the Committee on Drunk-
enness, and which terminated by recommending the institu-
tion of some measures to afford recreation to the people by
some means calculated to divert them from having recourse to
spirituous liquors. Of that Committee Gentlemen of all opi-
nions and of all shades of belief were Members, and all agreed
in the lamentable effects shown to result from drunkenness,
as well as in the pressing necessity for devising some means
for putting a stop to it. The Report, after stating that it was
the unanimous opinion of the Committee that some endeavour
ought to be made to put an end to this lamentable and
wretched state of things, recommended amongst other pre-
ventive means, the classification of the houses of public en-
tertainment, the refusal to grant so many licenses to those
places, and the concomitant establishment of public walks
and gardens in the immediate vicinity of all the large ma-
nufacturing towns for the recreation of the population.
The motion which he was about to make, had this lat-
ter object in view, and the way in which he would go
to work would not be by demanding the assistance of the
Government, neither would he ask for the power of com-
pelling each town to tax itself for the purpose of raising the
sums necessary for the establishment and maintenance of
the walks and gardens he was desirous to found, but he would
propose that in each town it should be competent for fifty rate-
payers to sign a requisition to the Mayor or other chief civic
authority in the township, to call a public meeting for the pur-
pose of putting the question of establishing a public walk to
the vote ; that in case the motion were rejected it should not
be allowable to propose it again within one twelvemonth from
the date of the meeting ; but that if it was agreed to, it should
be competent in the meeting on the spot to nominate a Council
or Committee for the purpose of carrying the resolution into ef-
fect. He prooosed that a Committee should be appointed with
power to receive designs and plans, and estimates for the laying
out of public walks, and that they should give the preference
to that plan which should be considered by the majority the
best. He proposed also that the Committee should have
power to raise a sum of money by a rate to meet the expenses,
with this limitation, that the sum so raised should never ex-
ceed sixpence in the pound, and that it should be paid off at
the rate of 5 per cent. every year, which would discharge the
debt at the end of 20 years. He proposed the same machinery
for the second Bill, which was to provide public institutions of
a literary and scientific nature in the towns. If these propo-
sitions were carried into effect, every town in England would,
at the end of 20 years, have those institutions which would,
it was to be hoped, tend most essentially to improve the habits
and the morals of the people. He hoped the House would in-
dulge him by allowing him to introduce the Bill, lay it on the
table, and have it printed ; and if any objections should occur
to any gentleman on the subject, they could be considered on
the second reading. Having now trespassed upon the House
at considerable length, he should simply move for leave to bring
in the Bill in the terms he had stated.
Mr. BROTH E RTO N seconded the motion.
Mr. POTTER expressed his warm approbation of the mea-
sures proposed by the Hon. Member for Sheffield.
Mr. WYSE supported the motion.
Mr. W. ROCHE also supported the Bill.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill for the formation
of public walks, and also the Bill for the erection of public
institutions.

Mr. BUCKINGHAM then moved for leave to bring in
the Bill for the better classification and regulation of public-
houses.
Mr. HUME entreated that the Hon. Gentleman would not
press this Bill, but would content himself with his two former
Bills. No good effect was produced by the repeated altera-
tions made in the laws relating to public houses.
After an observation from Dr. BO WRING, _ _

Mr. BUCKINGHAM said all he asked was to be allowed
to bring in his Bill, and have it printed, in order that its de-
tails might be understood. If he found between this and the
second reading that there was a general disapprobation of the
measure, he would not press it further.
Colonel L. HAY opposed the introduction of the Bill.
Mr. WILKS expressed his disapprobation of the continual
intermeddling which took place with public houses.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER hoped the
Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his motion.

M. BUCKINGHAM then withdrew his motion.
BARON DE BODE.

Mr. G I SBORNE moved for the re-appointment of the Se-
lect Committee to examine into the facts and circumstances of
the claim of the Baron De Bode.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed
the motion, and said that the House could not accede to it, un-
less it was prepared to forget all the rights of all other parties.
This was not a new claim, for it had been under discussion
ever since 1816, and when the Baron De Bode had every_
thing to his •own mind.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE was of opinion that the case of the
Baron de Bode was an extremely hard one, and from his
inquiry into his claim he would say without hesitation that
the real nature of that claim had never yet been adjudicated
upon at all.—( Hear, hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that the present
attempt was nothing less than that of making the House of
Commons a Court of Appeal from the decisions of the or-
dinary tribunals of the country. The claim of the Baron de
Bode was, he contended, the most quixotic ever brought be-
fore the House.

•V•Mr. O'CONNELL did not at all know the Baron de Bode,
and he was therefore disinterested in saying that he had been
treated with great injustice and hardship, which injustice
would be sealed by the House if it decided on refusing the re-
appointment of the Committee.
After a few words from Sir R. Imams, Mr. EWART, and
Mr. W. RocHE, the House divided, when there appeared for
the Committee—

Ayes
Noes
Majority -118
The motion was, therefore, lost.

Mr. RIGBY WASON moved that the petitions from Great
Yarmouth, of the 26th and 30th of June, alleging that the
sum of two guineas had been lately paid to many of the voters
at the house of one of the most active partisans in behalf of the
sitting Members, and praying that the House would cause an
inquiry to be made into the circumstances stated in the peti-
tion, be referred to a Select Committee. The Hon. Member
had no interest in the case, further than through a sincere de.
sire to see the principles of the Reform Bill carried into effect,
and the practice of bribery effectually checked.
Mr. PRAED had understood within this hour that the Hon.
Member did not intend to bring on this motion. It was so
understood in the House.

Mr. R. WAS ON, as we understood him, denied he had given
such an assurance to the Hon. Member.

Sir FREDERICK TRENCH begged to call the atten-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Member to his having said
to an Hon. Member in the House, who was now near him,
when asked would he bring on this motion, " Certainly
not."—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. R. WASON had certainly, in the course of conversa-
tion, been asked was it his intention to bring on the motion.
He recollected saying that the motion upon the Baron De
Bode's case had been several times a "burking" motion ; it
would, perhaps, be so to night and the House would be
counted out. If so he should certainly not be able to bring
it on.

Mr. PRAED said the Hon. and Learned Member would
do well in future, when he introduced to their notice a case
involving the characters of any individuals belonging to that
House, to forbear prefacing it by any strong language or im-
putations personally offensive to such Hon. Members.
After an interruption by Mr. R. WA SON, which we could
not hear,

Mr. OR AED resumed, and said that, as in this instance, it
was not intended, he believed, to affect the seat of himself and
colleague, he could not see what would be the benefit of refer-
ring the allegations of the petitioners to a Committee. There
could be no doubt that the time had gone by when House could
interfere with propriety as to these individuals charged with
bribery as agents of the sitting Members, or with having, u
voters, received bribes. The thing was out of their power, if
the House wished to be consistent. Was this a case which
ought to be referred to the ordinary jurisdiction of the Courts
of Law ? Most undoubtedly it was, and it was exclusively fit for
the ordinary Courts of Justice. Well, then, he would ask, what
good could be the reference of these petitioners' complaints to
any Committee but an Election Petition Committee ? But
these parties had let slip the time for presenting an election
petition,

-Mr. PR YME said there certainly was a good reason for
going into this inquiry, even upon the showing of the Hon.
auci Learne..l ,iember, for he had not, for himself or his col-
league, denied that material allegation in the petition, that
motley to a large extent had been distributed.
Mr. PRAED had, upon principle, abstained from any alle-
gation of his own innocence in this case, as he always should
V% here he was himself a party attempted to be inculpated.—
( Loud cheers.) Considerations of delicacy would also induce
him to refrain from going at all into the case of his Hon. Col-
league, with whose conduct he had no means of being ac-
quainted. _ _ _

There was a loud cry for the question.
Mr. WYNN thought it was a case in which the House
ought to look well to the precedents upon this subject on their
Journals before they entertained the proposal for an inquiry.
It was said, whatever might be the result, the present Members
could not be affected by it. But suppose that it should be
proved that they were guilty, through their agents, of bribery,
and a report to that effect was made to the House, was it not
(Anr to any one that it would be the duty of the House to
expel them ?—( Hear, hear.) He would, therefore, say, let the
petitioners proceed in a Court of Law, if they thought they
could substantiate the charge of bribery, and, possibly, steps
may be taken for that purpose already. Was it then fit that
the House should depart from the usual course, and sanction
such a proceeding as that proposed ?—( Hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY was surprised that there should be any
opposition to. a Committee.

.Mr. T. BARING said that considering the proportion of
voters that had signed the petition, as compared with the whole
number of electors, as well as the way in which the petition
was signed, he thought that the House would establish a bad
precedent if they agreed to the motion. The population
of Great Yarmouth was 25,000—the number of electors about
1,600, and of these only 357 had signed the petition, besides
171 householders not entitled to vote. He had numerous
letters to prove that many signed without knowing to what
they put their names, and the names of others had been put
down for them.—( Hear, hear.) Among the petitioners were
seven O'Donnells, Mr. O'Connell twice—( A laugh)—R.
Peel twice, and Mr. Stanley once.—( Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. TYNTE and another MEMBER,
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took place,
and, on the return of the reporters,
Sir R. PEEL was addressing the House. He said he
should give his vote against the motion, because the effect of
it would be to do away with an Act expressly framed for simi-
lar cases, and because it would tend to destroy the equity and
impartiality of their proceedings. The Hon. Member doubted
whether it would have have such an effect, but in his opi-
nion no system so effectual for their purposes could be de-
vised. They were not contending for principle. What they •
were contending for was to refer all election petitions to a
tribunal, though not the most peifect, yet one which had'
been expressly framed for such cases as the one before the
House. Thc objnet of those who supported the motion was
to do away with a standard long recognized as a rule for the
proceedings of the House on all election petitions, If they
established such a precedent they would not only do away
with the Grenville Act, but take the case out of the hands
of the parties and determine the result by the decision of the
House.—(Hear.) Now what was the case of Liverpool, which'
had been adduced as an instance ? On that occasion the
House had no power to compel the attendance of Members,
and he did not believe that out of the whole Committee mere
than three regularly attended, when a Select Committee of the
House enforced attendance. But in appointing such a Com-
mittee as that proposed, they should lay down a plan riot to de-
cide on the right of the Members to sit, but, what was of
more importance, to decide on the franchise of the borough.
Now when it was recollected that many of the names were
fictitious--that one name was given seven times, his own twice,
and others in a similar way, would they decide a case of ,
such importance on a petition like that ? But more, if they •
sanctioned such a principle, where would they stop ? It
would not be necessary always to have so many as 1,300 to
petition against the Members. If they established the. pre-
cedent that the petitioners were not required to enter into
their recognizances, or be liable for the expense, every town
would consider themselves justified in petitioning against the
return of some Member. Lord Grenville passed a resolution to
meet cases of this kind, in which it was declared that petitions
ought to be postponed for 14 days after the meeting of Parlia-
ment, and 28 days more were allowed for receiving the petition ;
but if the parties did not petition by that time, then no inquiry
could take place. He would ask, was the character of Mem-
bers of Parliament to be placed in jeopardy by such a mode. of
proceeding ? Next, the Noble Lord introduced a mer.,sure
which made a considerable alteration in the Grenville. Act,
but still some security was required. The plan of the Noble
Lord was much less reprehensible than the proposed plan;
which would do away with the responsibility of the parties and
destroy the character of Members of Parliament. Looking,
therefore, at these circumstances, and considering that the.
Members would not be bound to attend the Committee—that
the county and not the parties must be liable for the expense
that any limited number of petitioners might make allegations•
against Members, and that the decision would depend on the
influence of party feelings, he should therefore, for the'
security of the constituency and the safety of the character of
Members of that House, vote against the motion.—( Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL would state very shortly the
grounds on which he would vote for the motion. He had long
been of opinion that the Grenville Act provided a very
inade-
quate and very insufficient remedy when the public were ag-
grieved. He remembered when questions of that kind were,
first mooted. Sir Edward Seymour moved an inquiry at the
bar against several boroughs charged with notorious bribery.
The charges were proved, and Sir Edward received the thanks
of the House for instituting the inquiry, The Right Hon.
Baronet seemed to call for some new Bill to correct the
defects of the Grenville Act. He agreed with the Right Hots"
,
Gentleman, arid he should not be wanting to bring forward
such a measure when he saw a probable dawn of it passingbOth
Houses. He had already proposed several Bills which had nearly
succeeded through all their stages. Two Bills were sent to the.
House of Lords. One was rejected, because it was introduced
too late in the Session, and the other was so altered, and s°
many new provisions inserted, that he did not think himseli
justified in requesting the assent of the Commons to it. See'
ing then that he could not frame an effective Bill which cool
meet with the assent of the Lords, were they to allow cases 0.
r bery to pass because the general law was not sufficient
( Hear, hear.) must say, therefore, that undoubtedly some
inquiry was due. The petition was not fabricated, and be
therefore conridered it entitled to their attention ; and be
thought, the people would not treat the people of Yarmota*
fait if they rejected it. The number who had signed the
I,'etition were very considerable ; and, under all the circle:o'
stances, he thought there were sufficient grounds for procreetl-
ing with the inquiry. Cases of this kind did not often occur
—(hear)—but Stafford was an instance in point. After the
Committee had reported, a Bill was introduced 'by the Hon'
Member for Buckingham, founded on the Report, which ne
one had opposed. All he proposed then r' as to act as they
had done last year. While they were anx!ious for the rights
and privileges of the House, and claime, the liberty of speet
if they neglected to attend to cases .of this kind, the pubh
would believe that they were careless of the body they.re"
presented. For these reasons he would vote for the motion.
( Hear, hear.)
Mr. DENNISON supported the motion.
Lord SAND ON opposed it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said much good had been done by the,
inquiry to which the Noble Lord had alluded, for, accordino
to what had been stated, bribery there had ceased. As W the
circumstance of Members not attending the Committee, it vt°
necessary only to refer to the Ipswich Committee. That OW
mittee sat from ten to four, and hardly more than one was. alr
sent. But certainly it was a strong fact, that though thee age;
gations had been before the House for three weeks, no one
had denied them, not even the Hon. Member for the
aorotte.
Supposing bribery to exist, he did not see how the House
could refuse the motion for inquiry, and the more so when 111
persons had declared that they were convinced, from their owS
knowledge, that bribery had been committed, and had offer' to come forward and prove it before a Committee. It was 0t
to be supposed that those who had signed feigned names to the
petition could be friends to it.

Sir T. FREMANTLE contended that there was. no Os"
logy between the case of the borough of Stafford and the an°
now. before the House. The Hon. Member then referred tcP
the case of the borough of Hertford, and maintained that there
bribery was notorious, and he was surprised that the Nob
Lord in noticing it had not acted upon his own resolution.
Lord HO WICK said that if inquiry were refused upon a°
other grounds than that there were not found a partyob°
would undergo the vexation and expense of proseeutie g ae
election petition, there would be no means of vindicatii, ig te
honour of this House or punishing the guilty, and the putse
'
would have a fair right to conclude that there was no intento".
on the part of this House to put an end to bribery atld corrnr
tion.
After a few words from Mr. M. PHILLIPS, :And Mr. T.
BARING, the House divided. The numbers were-
For
the motion
Against it
Majority
On our return to the Gallery, we found the House di
eussion on the best mode of selecting the Committee.
Mr. WA SON proposed that six Members of the u°4-
mitten should be chosen from the Ministerial side of the 14°„
A-'
and five from the Opposition side. He said five from the,`"ric
position tide, because he intended that the Members fbr
and Norfolk should be on the Committee.
Sir H. HARDINGE said that if the present coturseler°
persisted in, he was certain it would be found that tube ca.,tl
of other boroughs and counties would be brought forwler
calling in question the seats of Hon. Gentlemen on the tile
side of the House.—(Cheers.) He said this, because o'.
decided party feeling he saw displayed that night.—f Cline-re%
This inquiry must lead to others. He had the fzreatcst fer
spect, as he was sure every member of the House hatiP,oli,
the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (the P+bas
citor- General), but he did not think it at all unlikely. "fe•
the circumstances attending that Hon. and Learned. GeTibe
man's election might be called in question and be hope" of
same facility would be afforded for inquiry as in the case°,o
York and Yarmouth.—(Cheers.) He did not think the' I%ed
of appointing the Committee at all satisfactory, and he '011',.,00
that twenty-four hours might be allowed for deliberatio ere)
a point of so much importance.—( Cheers, and cries of " 'P°l;asl
Mr. HUME said that if any improper proceedin gsnuld
taken place at other elections, he hoped that they also, vfr
be brought under investigation. t
thsie
The CHANCELLOR of' the EXCHEQUER Bald
he did not think it fair of the Hon. and Gallant Men, ,$ber 10,4 e
Henry Hardinge) to have alluded so particularly t(4 the
of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-General. stot
Hon. and Gallant Officer ought to have recollect,,ed that I's
case had been before a Committee already, when there oe
ample opportunity afforded to all parties to :drove any; ic;el
the' suee°seg thtkiselves enabled to sustain. on the :Alai,