The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-06 00:00:00

THE WAKEFIELD WRIT.

The adjourned debate on the motion that a new writ be
ordered to be made out for Wakefield, was resumed by
Mr. Sergeant PIGOTT, who said it appeared to him that
the reasons upon which the motion was based were no
reasons at all. It had been reported by the commissioners
that bribery had been openly carried on by the canvassers
of both political parties, and that the practice of corruption
was common among all classes; that it was notorious to
the whole population, and excited but little reprehension.
If, therefore, the house decided that a writ should go, it
would be because it was desirous that the borough should
have an opportunity of exercising its corrupting tastes, and
in the same Parliament. (Ironical cheers from the Censer-.
vatives.) It behoved the house, for the sake of public mo-
rality, to visit such a flagrant departure from public inte •
grity with its severest censure. He was of opinion, how-
ever, that a definite term of punishment ought to be awarded
in such a case, and he had yet to learn that the bill which
had been introduced for that purpose would not be passed
this session. It was not unconstitutional that a writ should
be suspended during the pleasure of the house. That was
the case at Liverpool in 1831, and at Stafford in 1835, when
the writs were suspended in consequence of reports of select
committees. Again, the writ for Nottingham was suspended
in 1842, not upon the report of a select committee, but by
the exercise of the prerogative of the house. It was not
only not unconstitutional, but a wholesome lesson was
read by it to constituencies which he thought would not
be thrown away; fcr, just as the practice of duelling had
been put an end to in this country by the firm expression
of the state of the law on the subject by a judge who they
had only lately lost, so he believed that a firm expression
of the policy of the house with reference to bribery was
all that was needed, if not to eradicate bribery from the
constituencies, at least to diminish it very considerably.
Fc.r those reasons he should support the motion.
Mr. KNIGHTL EY said he differed trom the view of
the question taken by the hon. and learned gentleman who
had just spoken, and considered that the suspension of a
writ was a proceeding unconstitutional in the highest de •
gree. He hoped the Government, therefore, would not op-
pose the motion now made.
Sir G. GREY said, in the case of Wakefield there could
be no doubt that bribery had occurred, and that those who
derived no advantage from it had not taken the means in
their power to check it. A committee had reported to the
house on some cases of this kind, and recommended that in
such cases there should be temporary but not absolute dis-
franchisement. That recommendation had not been acted
upon. The committee recommended five years ; in the
case of Wakefield the suspension had been for two years,
and he thought sufficient time had not yet elapsed, and
that it was not expedient that that constituency should
have its electoral rights at present restored. (Hear.)
Mr. HENLEY said the precedents quoted by some hon.
members in reference to this case were in most cases inap-
plicable. He thought that if the principle of five years' sus-
pension was to be acted upon, the Government or the house
should have, either by law or resolution, settled the matter
definitively. He would vote for the issuing of the writ.
Colonel SMYTHE said the question for the house to
discuss was, whether Wakefield had been sufficiently pun-
ished. He thought two years' disfranchisement was
punishment enough. The taking away of its position as
the county town was also felt as a very serious grievance,
and made the people more than ever desirous of having
their borough franchise restored. He must say that he
had been greatly surprised at the course taken by the
Home Secretary, who had said that, if the second division
on this question on a former night was in favour of the
issue of the writ, he would not oppose it ; and yet in defi-
ance.of that statement, he voted against it. He hoped.
that his vote that night would restore the confidence which
hon. members on that side of the house had heretofore felt
in him. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. BENTINCK aaid he heard the speech of the hon.
and learned gentleman who had opened the debate that
night with the greatest surprise, because he said it involved
no grievance to the people of Wakefield. He thought the
right of the electors of Wakefield ought not to be dependent
either on the caprice of the house or of the Government of
the day. The matter ought to be placed on a clear and dis-
tinct foundation. At present the course pursßed seemed to
be most unconstitutional. He had no sympathy with any
delinquent borough, but he contended that all such boroughs
—except when specifically deprived of the franchise—should
be treated alike, and on that ground he would, on this occa-
sion, vote for the issue of the writ.
Lord PALMERSTON said he thought there was a great

deal of force in the observations of the hon. gentleman who
just sat down, namely, that the house should take some de-
cided course with respect to these delinquent boroughs, and
not allow the question to be decided by the caprice of either
the house or the Government. His right hon. friend the
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had shown the rea-
sons why it had not been thought right to place Gloucester
and Wakefield under the operation of a bill which would
suspend the exercise of their franchise for five years. But
if it should be thought right, when they went into committee
on that bill, to extend its operations to these two boroughs,
he would urge upon the house that that would be a strong
reason why they should not come to a decision that night
to issue this writ. If he understood the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Bentinck) aright he was prepared to vote for the total
disfranchisement of these two towns. (Hear, hear.) But
not being prepared to go that length, he would submit to
the house that the writ ought not to be issued now,
but to wait until they went into committee on the
bill referred to, and then consider whether the sus-
pension for five years should be extended to the twc
boroughs. (Cheers.) The house ought really to consider
what would be the consequence of issuing the writ upon
public opinion, under existing circumstances. What was
the use of appointing commissioners to inquire into alleged
bribery and corruption if after their report, stating that
both existed to a large extent, had lain upon the table of
the house for a few months, the delinquent boroughs were
reinstated in their position. (Hear.) It was not simply for
the satisfaction of ascertaining that bribery and corruption
existed that they went to the expense of making these in-
quiries. It was expected that when boroughs were con•
vieted of bribery and corruption, some penal action would
follow.-To do otherwise would be trifling with the subject,
and produce the impression that the house thought bribery
and corruption a trivial and venal offence not to be visited
with any penalty. He entreated the house to consider that
its own character was at issue in this matter. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI said the point before them was, whe.
ther they should suspend a writ without the authority of
law, but it appeared to him that in their eagerness to punish
Wakefield and Gloucester, they might be committing
mistake which would entail much inconvenience. The
bhouse e oughtnoble lnotord t. o
Ibver
tnefl
fuoernc
boroughsed b y a
wvagueere suspended, and
ande
toproceed The right hon.
gentleman in ex post
isnusstpaennedeetdhaint
thean
writh
arbitrarysonld
issue.
manner,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
and he thought in this
was sorry to find that the right hon. gentleman intended to
vote for the issuing of the writ, as it would place the house
in an awkward position
h on
house
foreth the country.ot
facto legislation, and that it ought
ought not to suspend the writ.
His noble friend (Lord Palmerston) stated that the house
during the present session would have an opportunity of
kwsaari dd
t
deciding upon the amount of punishment which should be
inflicted upon these boroughs, so that the objection of the
right hon. gentleman was fairly met.
Mr. MACAULAY said the speech of the right hone
gentleman had not at all indisposed him to vote in favour
of the motion.
Mr. lIODGSON attempted to address the house, amidst
cries cf " Divide, divide."
Sir G. GREY said a few
words in explanation.
Mr. GEORGE condemned the conduct which Govern-
ment had pursued on this question.
Sir G. LE WIS briefly explained the course which he had
pursued on the occasion of the former discussion on this
question, and which, he contended, involved no inconsis-
tency whatever.
Major ED WARDS complained of the decision which had
been come to by the commission which was appointed to in-
quire into the election for Wakefield, and he contended that
not snore than one-eighth of the electors were involved in
the charge of corruption.
The house then divided, and the numbers were--
For issuing the writ
Against it..
Majority 5O
The announcement the division was received with loud
cheers on the Ministerial side.