The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-18 00:00:00

grain.

MR. COBDEN AT _ROCHDALE.

MANCHESTER, WEDNESDAY NIGHT.
A grand soiree was given to Mr. R. Cobden, M.P.,
at Rochdale to-night in honour of his election as
member for that borough. The occasion being the
first on which the hon. gentleman was to address
his constituents since his return from America and
his subsequent refusal to accept a seat in the pre-
sent Cabinet, it had been looked forward to with
much general interest. The soiree was held in a
spacious
marquee erected in the Caslemere field,
which was tastefully decorated with flags of all
nations, banners, and floral devices. About 2,500
persons, including a considerable portion of ladies,
were present. The doors of the pavilion were
opened at 5 o'clock, and, the first two hours being
occupied by a light repast, at a quarter to 7 o'clock
Mr. Cobden appeared on the platform, and was
greeted with loud cheers. The chair was taken by
Mr. A. Stewart, the Mayor of Rochdale ; and
among the principal guests were—Mr. J. Bright,
M.P., Mr. E. A. Leathern, M.P., Mr. F. Crossley,
Mr. Titus Salt, M.P., Mr. T. Bazley, Mr. G. Had-
field, M.P., Mr. Sharman Crawford, Mr. George
Wilson, &c.
The MAYOR having briefly introduced the busi-
ness,

Mr. G. ASHWORTH moved the first resolution—

VIZ. :-

" That this meeting most cordially welcomes
Richard Cobden, Esq., as the representative of this
borough in Parliament, and expresses its high gra-
tification that the electors of Rochdale have, by
returning him unopposed, given him the highest
proof of their esteem, and placed him in a position
again to advocate and enforce in the House of Com-
mons those great principles of commercial freedom
and political reform which have distinguished his
career." (Cheers.)
The resolution having been seconded by Mr. J.
PETRIE, and carried by acclamation.
Mr. RICHARD COBDEN, M.P., on rising t•
speak, was received with vehement cheering. He
said,—l arn rather out of practice, for I think it is
now two years and a half since I addressed a pub-
lic meeting out of Parliament, and I am afraid
that with the disadvantage of being under canvas
I may fail to make myself heard by every one here
present, unless you indulge me with silence during
the short time I occupy your attention ; and, first,
gentlemen, let me tender to you my long-deferred
personal homage for the kindness you showed me
when I was 4,000 miles distant from you in having
returned me for your constituency, which I make

no secret is au honour which I covet beyond that of
any other constituency. (Cheers.) In having re-
turned me voluntarily, and as I may say, almost
without solicitation—(hear, hear)—l return you one
and all my hearty thanks for the honour and kind-
ness you have shown me. I thank those gentlemen
at a distance, some of whose letters caught my eye,
and who have rendered substantial support to my
cause ; and I will venture, if I am not travelling be-
yond the bounds of strict party discipline, also to
express my acknowledgments to our oppenents, who
on this occasion, as I leain, sheathed their swords,
and granted me an armistice, which, I hope—at all
events., it will not be my fault if it should not be so
—may ripen into a permanent peace. (Cheers.)
And now, gentlemen, when I read and hear of the
transactions at the last general election, I think my
acknowledgments are still more due to you in hav-
ing thought of me during my remote absence ; for,
_ _

if I gather correctly the tenour of the last general
election, it was this—that there was a more than
usual avidity to obtain seats in Parliament—(hear,
hear)—there were more contests than usual to
achieve that honour, and, unless I am greatly mis-

informed, some of the aspirants for that honour did
not confine themselves within the strict rules of pro-
priety and discretion. Now, I do not think it out of

place here at our first meeting to saya few words
on that subject while it is fresh in our memories. We
have presented to Parliament upwards of 40 peti-
tions, praying inquiry into proceedings at so many
different elections, but I am informed that if all
those had petitioned who had proofs that corrupt
practices had been resorted to, the number of
election petitions would have been double what
it is. Now, I am going to say some-
thing which I am afraid in these days, when
we are so fond of soft phrases, will be considered to
be unpalatable ; and yet heaven forgive me if I am
not telling the truth when I say that I do not be-
lieve that Parliament is in earnest to put down this
system, or it would have been accomplished long
ago. For what do the re-election petitions mean,
atter all ? Let us say a word or two about them
while one is fresh from the scene of their operation.
What is the meaning of an election petition? Why,
that, in the first place, it is one where the petitioner
having been duly deprived of his seat by the im-
proper and corrupt proceedings of his opponent,
has to appeal to a tribunal for justice, and that tri-
bunal is the most inaccessible and the most costly
in the civilised world. (Hear.) For I venture to
say that a man who presents an election petition to
the House of Commons goes before a tribunal, the
expense of which makes the law or equity which
is administered at the Court of Chancery dirt cheap
to it, Cheap, indeed ! (Hear.) In fact, the prin-
cipal obstacle to a petition at all is, that the party
praying for the redress of his grievance—I mean
the grievance of having been deprived of a fair
chance of being elected by the free and unbought
suffrages of his countrymen—that proceeding is so
costly that no man can tell him beforehand how
much it may cost him. It may cost him £5OO, or
it may cost him .£5,000; and no Parliamentary
lawyer who had one shred of conscience would ever
venture to say he could guarantee him against the
larger amount. (Hear.) The consequence is that
very few men have the courage to present a peti-
tion, and by so doing undergo the risk and the ex-
pense of following it out before a committee of the
House of Commons. But, supposing he does so,
what does it end in ? And this is the great charge
against the committees of the House of Commons.

What does it end in ? If the peaOnersUeceeds in
proving the corrupt proceedings of his opponent, the
result may be that his opponent is declared unseated.
But that does not give him the seat. It merely says
that there shall be another election in
the box ough,
and that he may go again and, if he likes, incur the
same expense with the same prospect of an election
petition, and that those very men who have
been shown to have sold their votes before may
have the privilege of selling them again—(cheers)
—another election in such a case being nothing
more or less than a fresh harvest to corrupt voters,
who make merchandises of their privileges as free
citizens. Well, such being the case, what wonder
is it that not one-lialf of those who lose their elec-

tions venture to petition for a redress of their
grievances ? A friend of mine lost his contest for
a very large hot ough in one of the eastern counties,
and he told me that he had a clear case against his
opponent for bribery, but he did not intend to
petition, and for this reason—he petitioned once
before, and his expenses on that occasion were £5OO

a day, and if he went before a committee again he
had no guarantee that it would not cost him as
much, and therefore he abstained from presenting
his petition at all. Well, now, this is the state of
things, and I may bcasked, what is the remedy for
it ? If the House of Commons were in earnest to

put down this system a remedy would be found.
In the first place, make these inquiries cheeanpoeir.amtaonausnd
more accessible. If you cannot have a tribunal
on;
eventsthe spot
spareto t
inquireiie aggrievedinto thes e proceedings,party this
hexepiesnpdrintvuerde;toanhdavNevhaerevas_l
hee has a case, and where
would not say where
you have frivolous and vevatious petitions, but
where there is a good case for the petitioner—let
the expense be borne by somebody else than by
him. If the country
is interestedf in putting down
the system—if the very
system oundations of our repre-
sentativeitself depend on purity at their
source, why, then, who so interested as the great
body of the community in not allowing these 40 or
50 boroughs that.od awrheonaorwe gtohien g scot free
haretetot
should
go
un-
punished? A
so properly pay the expense aspthose communities
themselves by whom these transactions are per-
mitted? Or let the expense of the inquiries into
them devolve upon the whole country at large if
that be thought more expedient. (Cheers.) Well,
I say, let the inquiry be carried on in such a
way that it shall not be the punishment and
probably the ruin of the petitioner ; but, beyond
that, I say, let there be some punishment inflicted
Attorney-
General, those who are detected as guilty parties in
would
in
the ord e
tirtehte in
suchtto rnof bribing
these transactions. (Cheers.) I will venture to
case
that say if, when a case of bribery is clearly detected,
putby
down bribery
11 the
t
Househe parties o f
Commons
detected
and corruption, more than anything
else
House of Commons could resort to.
G shouldene ra lb, be
that dprosecuted
very criminally
soon
(Cheers.) For-
merly the system of corruption and undue i fl
n u-
ence in our constituencies was confined very much:
to a privileged class in this country. One nobiel
family contested a county against another noble
family, and they spent £lOO,OOO a-pi •
ece. And %ill