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

IRISH CONVICT PRISONS.

Lord NAAS called attention to the recent changes in the
Board of Directors of Irish Convict Prisons. He dwelt upon
the merits of the Irish system, as shown by its results, and
upon the dependence of the system on the energy, know-
ledge, and experience of the heads of the departments. It
was proposed to make a considerable alteration in the con-
stitution of the Board of Directors, and he urged the Go-
vernment to reconsider its determination.

Mr. CARDWELL admitted the value and efficiency of

the system of convict discipline in Ireland, and explained
the extent and reasons of the alterations made in the board ;
adding that he was engaged in further inquiry upon the
subject.

The discussion of this subject was continued by Mr.
Whiteside, Sir G. Lewis, Mr. Monsell, Sir G. Grey, and
other members.

The Speaker was at length allowed to leave the chair,
and the house went into a committee of supply, but it being
then 12 o'clock, the Chairman was ordered to report pro-
gress.

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 Couser-

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; for, 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 ajudge 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.
For those reasons he should support the motion.
Mr. KNIGHTLEY said he differed from the view of
the question taken by the hon. and learned gentleman who
had just spoken, and considered that the suspension of s
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 shoal&
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 hous's to
discuss was, whether Wakefield had been sufficiently pun-
ished. He thought two years' disfrancb!.sement 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 ha
had been greatly surpri:ed at the course taken by the
Home Secretary, wbe 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 pursued 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 b.ad 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
iohfnei t
wt shouldhoaultdbeu bill,;gt
urge
hueoxputogennh r
itsg hot
p,
e.Wrahte
no
ut
sh et yo
twheens
et i
tnwt oo committee
,
tle 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 two.
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-
victed 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
and Gloucester, they might be committing a
mistake which would entail much inconvestiencp. The
house ought not to be influenced by a vague promise made
by the noble lord. Writs for boroughs were suspended, and
suspended in an arbitrary manner, and he thought in this
instance that the writ should issue.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
was sorry to find that the right hon. gentleman intended to
vote for the i.ssuinangdofththaet witroiut,gahstint
owtotuoldsupslpaecnedththe
the writ.
in an awkward position before country. The right hon.
gentleman said the house ought_ not to proceed in ex poet
facto legislation,
His noble friend (Lord Palmerston) stated that the house
during the present session would have an opportunity of
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 hem.
gentleman had not at all indisposed him to vote in favour
of the motion.
Mr r.GG. EGORREGYE sa
ciodn a
de f
Mr. HODGSON attempted to address the house, amidst
cries of " Divide, divide."
me few
ewd o rrdnee in
had pursued on this question.
conedxuPclatnwahtiiocnh.
Govern-
ment
Sir G. LEWIS 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 bad
been come to by the commission which was appointed to in-
quire into the election for Wakefield, and he contended that
not more 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 of the division was received with loud
cheers on the Ministerial side.
SUPPLY.
The report was received and agreed to.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the house adjourned at five minuteopast two o'clock.

LONDON : Printed and Published by DIURDO YOUNG, 01
No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tiz SuN Office, No. 112,Strand,
in the Precinct of the Savvy, in the County of Atid'illl•
patiadayt July 0, UAL

I