The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-05 00:00:00

NORTHERN DIVISION OF LEICESTER.

Mr. STIRLING, the chairman of the committee ap-
pointed to try the petition against the return of Lord J.
Manners hnd Mr. Hartop for the above county, announced
that the committee had cometo the resolution that those hon.
members were duly elected.
The house suspended sitting at four o'clock.

The house resumed at six o'clock.
LIMERICK CITY ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. GASKELL reported from the City of Limerick
Election Committee that Major Gavin had been duly
elected. (Hear. hear.) The committee also reported,
" That certian riotous and tumultuous proceedings took
place at and after the election, but it was not proved that
they took place at the instigation or with the sanction of
the sitting member. That no application had been made to
the returning officer to adjourn the poll; that these pro-
ceedings were not proved to be of such duration or of such
a character as to prevent electors from going to the poll."
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. OersLow, early next session, to move an address for
a royal commission, to consider whether some equitable
mode of assessment might not be substituted for the pre-
sent system of turnpike and bridge tolls.
Mr. BRADY, on Thursday, to call attention to the die-
missal of a poor-law medical officer.
EAST INDIA (CIVIL SERVICE.)
On the motion of Mr. KINNAIRD, an address was
agreed to for copy of a despatch from the Government of
India, dated the 3d of Jnne, 1859, reviewing the report of
the commissioners for the revision of civil salaries and esta-
blishments throughout India.
CATHOLIC SAILORS IN THE NAVY.
Mr. HENNESSY asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether the Government were prepared to carry into effect
the recommendation of the late Board of Admiralty respect-
ing the treatment of Catholic sailors in the royal navy ?
Lord C. PAGET said that strictly speaking there was no
recommendation on the part of the late Board of Admiralty
left with their successors. There was in existence a letter
from Sir John Pakingtou to Lord Derby in answer to a
memorandum without signature which asked for further
facilities for Roman Catholic worship in the fleet and hospi-
tals. Sir J. Pakington distinctly stated that he had not taken
the opinion of the board on the subject, and consequently the
present board had no official knowledge on the matter. He
might state that the present board were most anxious, as
far as was consistent with the discipline of the navy, to
give every facility for divine worship to Roman Catholics
and other sects dissenting from the Church of England.
THE WEE DON INQUIRY.
Mr. WISE asked the Secretary of State for War when
the report of the royal commissioners appointed to inquire
into the state of the books and stores at Weedon, Wool-
wich, and the Tower, would be presented to Parliament ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said the report would be laid on the
table before the adjournment.
eNAVAL YARD IN SCOTLAND.
Mr. COCHRANE asked the Secretary to the Admiralty
whether, as Scotland furnishes so much of the material for
ship-building, and such a large proportion of the workmen
employed in the dockyards, it would not be for the public ad-
vantage to have a Government building-yard established in
Scotland ?
Lord C. PAGET was afraid he must inform the hon. gen-
tleman there was no intention on the part of the Government
to propose any such scheme.
BENGAL ARTILLERY.—DELHI AND LUCKNOW
MEDALS.
Mr. TORRENS asked the Secretary of State for India
whether it was intended to increase the strength of the regi-
ment of Bengal Artillery; also, when it was intended to dis-
tribute the Delhi and the Lucknow prize money and the
medals, for services in the field against the mutineers, which
some time ago were promised to the troops.
Sir C. WOOD said that instructions had been issued to
enlist 12 new troops or companies of Bengal Artillery. The
medals could not be issued until the roll of names of those
entitled to them was received from India.
COURSE OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
Lord PALMERSTON wished, before the business of the
evening commenced, to maks an appeal to those hon. gentle-
men who had notices on the paper for motions on going into
committee of supply. If theywere allowed to go into supply
at once they might be able to finish it that evening, and it
was needless to say how mnch the duration of the session
depended on their getting all the votes. Hon. gentlemen
might make their motions on bringing up the report, and he
would take care it was presented at an early hour to-morrow
(Friday) evening. (Hear, hear.)
Sir De L. Evans, Mr. Lindsay, and Mr. A. Smith ex-
pressed their willingness to postpone the motions of which
they had severally given notice.
BODMIN "ELECTION PETITION.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he rose for the purpose of bringing
before the attention of the house a matter affecting their pri-
vileges, and he meant to conclude with a motion. It would
be in the recollection of the house that a petition was pre-
sented against the return of the hon. member for Bodmin.
It would also be in the recollection of the house that the
petition was withdrawn. It had come to his knowledge, and
he believed it was quite correct, that the hon. gentleman
the member for Bodmin being charged with bribery, cor-
ruption, and treating, had agreed to the following compro-
mise—that he should at the end of the session retire from
the representation he now held, that he should apply for the
Chiltern Hundreds, and that in consideration of his do-
ing so the person presenting the petition should withdraw
it. It seemed to him that was what he was justified in call-
ing a corrupt compromise. The hon. gentleman having been
elected to a seat by corrupt practices, and when this charge
is made he allows the petition to be presented and all the
requisite forms to be gone through, and then at the last
moment retires because he is afraid that the imputations
made by the petition will be verified. He warned the house
against sanctioning such a course after the seeds of bribery
and corruption which had been sown all over the country,
not by one or two, but by a dozen candidates. It behoved
the house to be careful how it sanctioned such proceedings
by its aid and authority. He had appeale Ito the noble
lord opposite on this subject some nights ago, and had
warned, him of what was likely to occur, and that hon.
gentlemen would apply for the Chiltern Hundreds to en-
able them to avoid the punishment. (Hear.) If the house
wished to govern the country they must uphold its charac -
ter. (Hear.) He was bound to say it had been materially
shaken here by the abominable scenes which had recently
been exposed. The hon. member for Bodmin thought
to escape the punishment of his misdeeds, and to avoid the
jurisdiction of the house, but they ought not to let him go
until the iron brand had been affixed to him. He was known
to say that the committee had dealt very tenderly this ses-
sion with persons in his position. He might be met by
some apt prim prater by a reference to old misdeeds, be-
cause he had attempted to lay bare those misdeeds—he had
for the honour and dignity of the house, and would do what
that honour and dignity required. He had no mistrust of
the noble lord opposite, and it was rather with a view to
strengthen his hands that he moved the following resolu-
tion :—" That in the opinion of this house any Minister
will be guilty of breach of privilege who shall advise the
crown to confer the office of Steward of the Chiltern Hun-
dreds, Steward of the Manor of Poynings or East Hundred,
or of Northstead, or the office of Escheater of Munster, on
any person who, being charged with corrupt practices, has,
with a view to prevent inquiry, entered into an agreement
to vacate his seat in consideration of the withdrawal of the
petition charging such corrupt practices."
Mr. HADFIELD seconded the motion.
The question having been put,
b er Col.fo r
sNOßTHheffield
wwhisehthedertoheashk
adthg,eivheonn.naontideeloefarhniesdnimoteinoin-
to the hon. member for Bodmin.
Mr. ROEBUCK—I have done so.
Lord PALMERSTON
apprehended there was no diffe-
rence of opinion between the hon. and learned gentleman
and himself as to the principle of the resolution. He quite
agreed that if any member of the house was charged in a
substantive and distinct manner • vith practices such as those
to which the motion related, it would be perfectly
unbecom-
ing in any Minister of the crown to enable
such member to
avoid inveztiption by giving him the Chiltern Hundreds,
or any other office which would vacate his seat. That being
so, he must submit to the house that the lionand . learned
a • gentleman had not made out any sufficient ground for such
a general resolution, (Hear.) If the hon. and learned
member intended to point such a resolution against
the hon. member for Bodmin, he apprehended the proper
course would have been to have given that hon. member
notice—(Mr. Roebuck had done so)—if so it was un-
doubtedly- the duty of the hon. Member for Bodmin, to have

attended in his place if he had timely notice that such a
charge was to be publicly made ; if he had been in his place,
the hon. and learned gentleman ought to have stated he had
good reason to believe such a corrupt compromise had been
made, and to ask the hon. member whether he disavowed
the charge ; the course to be taken would depend on his
answer. If he denied the charge, the same course would be
adopted as had been taken some years ago on a similar
motion of the hon. and learned gentleman, to appoint a
select committee to inquire into the case and ascertain
whether or not the member charged had made a corrupt
compromise. (Hear.) Pending such an investigation it
would be impossible for the Government to enable an hon.
member to avoid the result by giving him the means of va-
cating his seat. (Hear, hear.) At the present stage of
the proceedings he submitted such a general resolution
would not lead to any good result. It would only tend to
embarrass the Government. How were they to ascertain
who was charged, by whom, and on what grounds ? He
would suggest to the hon. and learned gentleman that he
should allow the matter to stand over till to-morrow, and in
the meantime request the hon. member for Bodmin to at-
tend in his place ; he could then be asked, whether he ad-
mitted the charge. If he denied it, and the hon. and
learned gentleman stated he had good grounds for believ-
ing it to be true, it would be for the house then to decide
what inquiry should be made.
Mr. DISRAELI thought that this was a question into
which it behoved the house not to impart any party views.
Indeed, whatever, might be the conclusion at which it might
arrive, it would not so much affect those with whom he
had the honour to act, for assuredly the results of the elec-
tion petitions which had occurred since the last Parliament
were not such as to cast any blame on that side of the house.
(Cheers.) He thought it became the house on a question
of this character not to avoid the subject-matter of the
debate. He had no doubt that the committees of that
house had done their duty, and that they had investigated
the cases referred to them with as much effect as possible.
There had been, no doubt, some petitions presented without
due cause, and others which, if investigated, would have
been found frivolous. (Hear, hear.) But if the house found
that petitions were presented charging corruption and bri-
bery—if it found after a time those petitions withdrawn,
and that was followed by a request from the sitting mem-
ber to have the Chiltern Hundreds, then he must say that
such a series of events would have the worst effect on the
public mind unless they were followed by inquiry. He did
not catch with sufficient clearness the terms of the motion
of the hon. gentleman to be able to say how far that motion
was adapted to meet the circumstances of the case. But he
agreed both with the noble lord and the hon. and learned
gentleman in,the spirit of the resolution. He must say be
thought it became the house to adopt some resolution, and
to act upon it with decision. He thought, too, that in many
instances investigations ought to be followed up after the
cases left committees, not out of disrespect to the commit-
tees, but for the public good. He had given his vote the
other evening in the case of Dartmouth with great reluc-
tance, and only because, after the statement of the hon. gen-
tleman who was chairman of that committee, he did not feel
justified in voting otherwise. But he thought that the house
ought to look with great strictness and suspicion at those
cases, and to take some step to check them for the future.
There were only two courses open to them. They might ad-
dress the Crown for the issue of a commission, or they might
strengthen the hands of the Minister in order to enable him
to refuse the issue of the Chiltern Hundreds. No one could
doubt this, that it was absolutely necessary to sustain the
character of that assembly by laying down some rule on the
subject before the prorogation of Parliament.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was not
quite sure that the right hon. gentleman had followed out
his opening statement that this subject ought to be kept
clear of party politics, by the statement with which he
immediately followed as to the effect of recent

petitions. As he was a member of the Government,
and immediately connected with the subject of

this motion, he would say a few words upon it.
The power of appointing gentlemen to the Chiltern Hun-
dreds was the only patronage which came directly through
the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. (Laughter.)
He did not, however, resent the interference of the hon.
member with this patronage, because the mode of distribut-
ing it was a difficulty which he in common with other Chan-
cellors of the Exchequer had felt. They had no right to ex-
pect, from members applying, any statement whatever, and
any regulations made might have the effect of strengthen-
ing their hands. There was already a species of rule laid
down by Mr. Goulburn in the year 1842, when the hon. and
learned gentleman made a motion on the subject of corrupt
practices. On that
..occasion Mr. Goulburn wrote a letter,

upon an application for the Chiltern Hundreds, laying down
the rule that in the case of members admitting the corrupt
practices, the Chiltern Hundreds ought not to be granted. He
would go further, and say that where there is prima facie
evidence of corrupt proceedings the stewardship ought not to
be given. For instance, if an hon. member was in his place
and stated that he had reason to believe that corrupt practices
existed, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer
would be justified in granting the Chiltern Hundreds. If
the house could lay down a rule it would no doubt turn
out to be of great assistance to the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. All that he asked if this were done was that the
rule should be laid down in definite and clear language, so
that there might be no difficulty in applying the le.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the right hon. gentleman had de-
scribed the very course which he had taken. A petition had
been before that house distinctly charging a member with
corrupt practices; that petition had been withdrawn—that
was the second step. The third was, that he had risen in
his place and stated that he had reason to believe a corrupt
compromise had been entered into. Then at the end of the
session the member asked for the Chiltern Hundreds. Was
not the nail driven home f Could any one doubt that a cor-
rupt compromise had taken place ? When they went home
would they not all adMit that he had only said what was
correct? He had thought it right to bring the subject for-
ward, and he now left it in the hands of the house.
Sir G. GREY said that all that was asked for by the
Government was that steps should be taken showing the
existence of the charge, before anything was done. In the
case which occurred in 1542 the members were in their
places, were interrogated, answered some questions, and
declined to answer others. There was some reason, some
tangible ground for acting. But would the hon. gentle-
man get up in the absence of the member most affected,
having as he said, given him notice—(Mr. Roebuck : By
letter)—but not knowing whether that letter had reached
him. Inasmuch as this was a question of privilege; and
might be brought forward to-morrow the first thing, he
certainly thought the hon. gentleman ought not, in justice
to absent parties, to press the matter now. He should, if
the matter were pressed, move, the adjournment of the
debate.

Sir H. CAIRNS said that the right hon. gentleman had
mistaken the object of the hon. member in referring to one
peculiar case only. The object of the hon. member for Shef-
field was, as he understood, to lay down a general rule ap-
plicable to that which seemed pretty generally to be admitted
to be an abuse. He must say that when there was a petition
presented and withdrawn and its withdrawal was followed
by an application for the Chiltern Hundreds, there was such
a prima facie case as to render it desirable that the hands
of the Government should be stayed.
Colonel FRENCH thought that the hon. member for
Sheffield would do well to assent to the motion to adjourn
the debate. From what had occurred it was clear that the
Government would not grant the privilege of the stewardship
of the Chiltern Hundreds in a case like that to which the
hon. gentleman referred.
Mr. WHITESIDE did not think that the hon. and
gallant member was justified in the statement which he had
just made. On the contrary, it appeared that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, in a case like this, did not see that badge
of evasion which most hon. members, no doubt, saw pretty
clearly. If there were several petitions, followed by with-
drawals and applications for the Chiltern Hundreds, the
hon. gentleman might think how strange it was, but the
simplicity of his heart would not carry him beyond that.
(Laughter.) He must say that he thought that in such
cases ground for inquiry existed, and that existing, that the
writ ought not to he allowed.
Sir G. C. LE WIS thought there was no difference of
opinion between both sides of the house as to the end which
they ought to have in view. He had himself acted on that
principle in the case of Mr. Sadleir. That individual being
under a criminal charge, a question had been pnt In the house
to him (he being then Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether
he would grant him the Chiltern Hundreds? To that he had
replied that, pending the criminal proceedings, he should
certainly not do so. But he would put it to the house, that
upon a question of privilege, without notice, they ought not
to agree to a general resolution of this sort. The motion ought
to be printed, so as to give the house generally a fair oppor-
tunity of considering its terms before acting upon it.
Mr. HOPE said that in his own case the rule which the
hon. gentleman the member fur Belfast seemed desirous to
lay down, viz., that in the event of a withdrawal of the pe-
tition the member could not have the Chiltern Hunchtds,
operated most unjustly. In his case the petition had been
most unjustly presented, and was withdrawn without his
knowledge.
Mr. BRIGHT could conceive a case in which a member
might be justified in acting in the manner in which the hon.
member for Bodmin had done. In the case of a member whose
friends had done things without his sanction, he might not
like to come before a Parlitmentary committee on account of
the expense, and yet his asking for the Chiltern Hundreds
might have no corrupt motive. Some members might berich,
but others might be of moderate means. He (Mr. Bright)
had no acquaintance with Dr. Mitchell, but he could ima-
gine the question of a probable expense of £l,OOO night be
to him one of serious importance, and in that case he might
have perfectly incorrupt reasons for what he had done. He
had withdrawn in time for the issue of a new writ, and all he
had done might quite possibly have been done without cor-
ruption. In his (Mr. Bright's) opinion it would be quite im-
possible for the house to pass a resolution asserting that in
all such cases the retiring member had been guilty of cor-
ruption. The principal question, however, was, not what
was to be done with the member, but what was to be done
with the borough. There was a case in the north of a small
borough which did not bear the best character. Rather
than go before a committee with the risk of disfranchise-
ment, it had been arranged in that case to refer the election
to the arbitration of a member of Parliament, but they could
not therefore stigmatise the sitting member with corrupt
practices. He hoped that the hon. and learned member
for Sheffield would consent to the adjournment of the de-
bate, as if anything was to be done, it must be done by
alteringthe words of his resolution, and it would be not
only fair but necessary to require that Dr. Michell should
attend in his place.
Lord STANLEY could not quite agree with the hon.
member for Birmingham that the resolution would act
harshly in cages such as that which the hon. member had
quoted. No doubt it would be impossible for a member to
withdraw and thus escape the ordeal of an investigation,
but if his case were before a committee no personal stigma
would attach to him, because the committee would care-
fully distinguish between his acts and those of his agents.
There was no difference of opinion in the house as to the
necessity of some amendment in the practice, the only ques-
tion was the way in which it could be brought about. The
proposition of the Government he understood to be that in
every case of petition in which the sitting member applied
for the Chiltern Hundreds they were not to assume corrupt
knowledge on his part, but to grant the hundreds unless
some other member would take upon himself the responsi-
bility of charging corrupt practices. Now if that course
were adopted, it was quite clear that 99 cases out of every
100 members so situated must escape, because there was an
immense difference betweeninoral certainty and that amount
of legal proof which would justify an indifferent member in
corning farward. (Hear.) On the other hand, Ault the
hon. and learned member for Sheffield proposed was to as-
sume from a certain combination of suspicious circum-
stances that corruption had been practised. The suspicious
circumstances in this case were that a petition was pre-
sented, and afterwards withdrawn, and then the sitting
member applied for the Chiltern Hundreds, it being only
six months since he had been at all the expense and trouble
of an election. He (Lord Stanley) thought that such a
combination of circumstances formed a prznza facie case of
corrupt compromise which would justify some action on the
part of the house, would Quggo4t that In the recoluticn
there should be inserted, "Any member who beep.