The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, June 1.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. MACICINNON said, that in rising to move
nat the writ be issued for the town of Southampton,
ne could assure the House that he did so from no
personal motives. It was matter of perfect indiffer-
ence to him whether the writ was issued or not. All
he desired was that perfect 'fairness should be done ;
and if bribery and corruption were proved, such
practices ought not to escape ; but, if no fresh
evidence were adduced, or arguments urged, he
trusted the writ would be issued. He hoped that the
same meed of justice would be dealt to Southampton
which was dealt out to Ipswich. The Reports of the
Committees in both cases were almost the same. In
the case of Ipswich the Committee reported that they
were of opinion that extensive bribery prevailed at the
last election for that borough, and that the writ ought
to be suspended until the evidence was printed and
submitted to the House. That was the Report--
but what was done ? It was decided on Thursday
that the writ should be issued. Was not that in direct
opposition to the Report of the Committee ?—(Loud
cheers from the Opposition.) But it was done to do Jus-
tice to the Borough of Ipswich—(lronical cheers)--the
House not thinking there was sufficient evidence before
them to deprive the people of their just rights. The
Report of the Southampton Committee was, that evi-
dence was given before them that an extensive system
of treating was carried on by means of local associations,
that large sums of money were paid to voters, and that
a sum of nearly 5,000/. had been expended, which was
too large a sum for the legal expenses of an election ;
and that these facts were deserving the serious attention
of the House. At the previous election there had been
a much greater expenditure on both sides.--(" Hear,
hear," and laughter.) But did they withhold the writ
then ? And were they going to commit the monstrous
anomaly of keeping back the writ now, when they had
granted it before ?—(Laughter.) Did they never hear
of anybody having been bribed before? and would they,
on the Report of this Committee, disfranchise for a given
time from 1,400 to 1,500 voters ? • The Committee had
discharged its duty with zeal and ability, and there was
no evidence that any other Committee was required.
Were they going to assume the monstrous principle that
after an Election Committee had decided on a petition
and made their Report, if any vagabond of any borough
town chose to present a petition requiring another Com-
mittee, they were to comply with it. Of all the extra-
ordinary precedents that had ever been established in
that House this was the most extraordinary. Twenty
vacancies might occur and the House might be called
upon by twenty. vagabonds to suspend the writ.—(Hear,
hear.) He submitted that unless some substantial ground
were stated, they would be violating the Constitution and
law of this country by postponing the issuing of
.the
writ upon the mere petition of Mr. John Wreruzr,yflth-

out detaining the House further, he would now move that
the Speaker do issue a writ for the election of two
burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of
Southampton.
Mr. W. B. BARING seconded the motion.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said that in ing to move
the suspension of the writ for the borough of South-
ampton, in opposition to the Honourable Member for
Lymington, he was aware that he was taking a very ex •
traordinary course ; but he thought thatin the m mutes
of the evidence taken before the Southampton'Elect'on
Committee, there was sufficient reason why the House
should pause before they consented to the issue of the
new writ. It had been proved before the committee
that bribery and treating to a large extent had been prat-.
tised at the late election for the borough. It appeared
to him that after the s_pecial.Report to which the Com-
mittee had come, the House ought not to accede to the
issuing of a new writ, without some inquiry into the
evidence taken before the Committee. He would feel it
his duty to comment upon the evidence given before that
Committee by an Honourable Member of that House.
(Mr. Fleming). It was found from the bankers that
that Honourable Member had supplied a sum
of 5001. for defraying the expenses of the election.
The Hon. Member, when called before the Committee,
stated that there had been a great deficiency of money
to meet the expenses of the election, and that he had
undertaken to make a collection among his friends in the
neighbourhood of Southampton, and that he had received
subscriptions from them which he had put to the credit
of the Conservative party ; also, that he could not give
the names of those persons without a breach of confi-
dence, and, therefore, he put it to the feelings of the
Committee if he ought to mention them. The House
would bear in mind that the Hon. Member had in his
place in the House refused to answer the questions put
to him, and he was directed by the House to answer
them on the following day to the Committee. Subse-
quently the Hon. Member stated that the sum alluded to
was 5001., which, with the two other sums, increased the
amount to nearly 1,0001. It appeared that a sum
of 2001. had been paid to the agents, and
that likewise 801, had been paid to the Town
Clerk for the legal expenses of the hustings,
but it was evident that the sum of 1,000/. had not gone
in any legal way to pay the expenses of the election.
He thought that if a Bill were granted for indemnity to
witnesses coming before Committees upon that point, very
important evidence would be elicited. There was another
system of bribery that had been carried on at the elec-
tion, which was by the means of paying messengers,
colourmen, and others, the sum of 31. for their votes.
They had it in evidence that a Mr. Lysle had received
a sum of 600/. ; half of that was paid to the chairman,
and the other half to messengers, colourmen, and others.
Added to this the town of Southampton was divided into
five wards, in each of which were Conservative Associa-
tions, a member of which was named Cheeseman, and
that individual had received 400/. which had come from
the Committee Fund, to which the candidates had sub-
scribed largely, and they found that out of the 5,000/.
which had been raised, 2,000/. had been subscribed by
the:Conservative candidates. The Hon. Member, after
reading several portions of the evidence, stated that he
would now refer to that of Mr. Wrenn, and he felt bound
to admit that though the Hon. Member had had no
personal communication with Mr. Wrenn, he had had
constant information of what was taking place.
The Committee had no reason for doubting that Mr.
Wrenn was any other than a person employed by the
Conservative party. He had endeavoured to withhold
evidence. There had , been great difficulty in getting
him to answer questions ; he had continually appealed
to the Committee not to be compelled to answer ques-
tions, on the ground that he might criminate himself ;
and he had refused to answer many questions. Imme-
diately after the Report had been printed, a great deal
of angry feeling had been excited in Southampton. Mr.
Mackay, an agent of the Conservative party in that bo-
rough, had gone before the Mayor and made an affida-
vit that Wrenn's evidence, as far it related to him,
was untrue. Wrenn had gone before the Mayor to
make a counter-affidavit ; the Mayor, however, had re-
fused to swear him, alleging that' he had no right to do
so, and that he bad torn up . the affidavit of the other
party. Mr. Wrenn had then presented a petition to that
House, which had been printed, and was in the hands of
Members; and considering the allegations made in that
petition, and also the fact that the two Members for
Southampton had been unseated by the Committee on
the ground of bribery and treating, he thought he
was not asking too much, in asking that the issue
of the writ should be suspended until further in-
quiry should be made into what had taken place.
He did so on the ground that an extensive system of
treating was carried on at this moment by the Conserva-
tive Associations. No doubt money was subscribed and
given to those Associations for the purpose of treating
with beef, plum-pudding, and grog, the voters of South-
ampton. It could be proved that 200 electors on one
side had received bribes at the late election ; he thought,
therefore, they ought not to issue the writ at this time,
and allow those parties again to exercise the franchise.
This was not a case simply between the town of South-
ampton and their electors, it was not only whether
Southampton should be prevented for a short time from
sending Members to that House, but taking the Report
of the Committee in this case, in conjunction with the
other Reports, it would be seen that a gross system of
demoralization took place at the last election ; it was,
therefore, the duty of the House to take the matter into
consideration, to pass a law to prevent its recurrence at
future elections , and in those boroughs where it did
take place last time, to suspend the writ until the law
should be passed. He should move, therefore, that a
Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the extent
of bribery and treating at the last election for South.
ampton, and that the writ be not issued till some pre-
ventive Bill should be passed by that House.
Mr. WARD seconded the motion. When he coupled
the evidence taken before the Committee with other evi-
dence which had since come before them, and the pe-
titions which had been presented, he thought it was the
bounden duty of the House to prosecute the inquiry to
the fullest possible extent. The evidence which was given
before the Committee disclosed an admirable and well-or-
ganised system of bribery, and the principal witness who
gave that evidence now offered to complete that evi-
dence if the House gave him protection. Hon. Gentle-
man opposite attacked his character now, but as long as
he was true to their colours they gave him protection.—
(Hear, hear.) He now offered to produce the book,
which he did not do before, and which he (Mr. Ward)
had reason to believe was in existence. He also stated
the name of one of the returning officers who desired
him to bribe one of the electors. That was a grave, con-
stitutional charge, and were they to refuse evidence of
such a fact, because Hon.:Gentlemen opposite now chose
to calumniate the character of a person whom they em-
ployed for five years, who for 20 years was an elector of
Southampton, and for 14 years voted for the same side ?
He would remind the House that they should attach but
little importance to the squabbles of individuals in a
borough where parties were so divided as in South-
ampton, and that they could not put much trust in their
stories of mutual recrimination. He had, for instance,
himself, received a statement to the effect that Mr.
Dawkin, whom an Hon Gentleman opposite had de-
scribed as an honest and respectable tradesman, was a
man on whose word no reliance could be placed. But
these were not matters for the consideration of the
House ; they had to decide whether they would now,
without any further inquiry, issue a new writ for a
borough which would in that case be sure to be dis-
graced by scenes similar to those which had taken place
at the last election.
The SPEAKER, having put the question,
Mr. FLEMING' said he was unwilling to take any
part in this discussion, but it was impossible he should
hear the statement, just made without endeavouring to
disabuse the House of the erroneous impression which
those statements were calculated to produce—statements
which he must characterize as false, scandalous, and un-
founded.—(Cries of " Order, Order," from the Oppo-
sition benches.)
The SPEAKER said, that those were words which
were not to be permitted to be used in that House to any
of its Members, and that he must call on the Right Hon.
Member to withdraw them.

Mr. FLEMING said, that in deference to the opinion
of the Speaker, he would withdraw the words, though
it was very hard to do so, after what had fallen from tie
Hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. MACKINNON said, that the words used by the
Hon. Gentleman opposite were, that the Hon. Member
(Mr. Fleming) would have enough to do to defend his
own character.

Mr. WARD had merely said, when very severe cen-
sure had been cast upon the petitioner, that the Hon.
Gentleman (Mr. Fleming) would have enough to do to
defend his own conduct.

Mr. FLEMING went on to say, that he was living near
Southampton, and that he was anxious to support the
character of its inhabitants. Though forty-one witnesses
had been examined before the Committee, only five cases
of bribery had been found.

Air. MACAULAY would confine his observations to
a few words, because the whole matter lay within a very
small compass. The whole argument of the Hon. Gen-
tleman was confined to this point, that because they had
issued the writ for Ipswich on Thursday last,
they should issue the writ for Southampton to-day.
He regretted this because he thought it was inconsistent
with the course, a most praiseworthy one, he must admit,
which bad hitherto been pursued by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet. To do him justice, however, he must say that the
present was a stronger case than that of Ipswich. In the
present case they had had plainly and distinctly indi-
cated to them that the Committee could not obtain the
information they desired. The party referred to stated
that he was in possession of most important information,
but his evidence was to be set at nought. Notwithstand-
ing all that had been said he believed that that side of
the House was clear of all party spirit in the ma:ter, and
it was his firm belief that if the writ for Southampton
was granted, the worst consequences might be anticipated.
Sir R. PEEL thought when the subject was last be-
fore the House, and at the present time, that the issuing
of the writ involved a judicial consideration. Upon
judicial grounds he meant to vote when he came down to
the House, and upon those grounds he intended to vote
now. He agreed with what had been stated, that nothing
but a cordial co-operation of all sides of the House would
prevent the great curse that was undermining the purity
of the House of Commons. They were the popular branch
of the institutions of the country, their power was de-
rived from the people, and if it was shown that they
abused that power, the influence of that power would be
materially shaken. He should be prepared zealously to
co-operate, as far as consistently with his own sense of
justice he could do so, for the purpose of providing a
remedy for this great grievance ; but when he had to
deal with a judicial question he must apply judicial
principles. With respect to Ipswich, if he had to give his
vote again, he would give it in the same manner as he
had done. He had formed his judgment from the evi-
dence taken before that Committee ; but, in addition to
that, he thought that if Ipswich did not reform itself, it
would become the subject of severe condemnation. With
respect to Newcastle, and other places, he would reserve

to himself the right of forming his own opinian upon
each particular case. With regard to Southampton',
read over the evidence attentively, and he must bit)t,",'„
the expenditure at that election seemed to him to
ora,
lavish, and that the treating was too expensive.-(
wss
hear.) But he feared that the system of treating 0 0
not confined to Southampton, but that it existed:lllor'
the country to a great extent.—(Cries of leas'
hear.") He knew that it did not partake of the
.oro
character of bribery, but the practice was mostpe.rni;
It might be said, that as he voted for the Ipswich writ
ought also to vote for the SouthamPton one; but the 700
were distinct ; for, in the case of Southampton,
electors petitioned the Ilouse of Commons for stl.'lo
quiry ; there was also the petition of John Wrenn,
."0
appeared at the bar of the House ; and from Wha`os
(Sir R. Peel) then saw, he did not perceive any reftite,
why he should be thought unworthy of credit. The
gations he set forth made a great impression on his (.;,
R. Peel's) mind. What were they? (The Right 1101t70.,
ronet here read a great portion of the petition.)
alter the allegations he bad read, and acting on pur_etdd
judicial grounds, he was of opinion that the writ sin't it
be suspended.—(Loud cheers.) He should vote that le
be suspended for a certain time, but he confessed
1114
thought it would be desirable that the House sb°
have time to consider what course they ought to pups
et
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE thought the Right Hon. BO'be
exercised a sound discretion in adopting the coursert,
had done—(Hear, hear)—and also in attaching itiP°.r
auce to the petition of John Wrenn, who was ea117:,--
racious. John Wrenn by Hon. Gentlemen oPra,„-, s
(Laughter.) If he was rightly informed, John "
was not only the political agent of the Conservii of
party in Southampton, but was the intimate assoch:,te
00,
some of the most respectable persons there—(lo.
hear)—even of the Hon. Member for South Haut" tai,
self.—(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) He believe" ci.
person was the life and soul of the Conservative ee'.lo
viality of Southampton—(Laughter)—and was inviio
to meet the Hon. Member at dinner. He believed
tail
you was said to him, " Mr. Fleming is coming; inind,ait
you come also Wrenn."—(Great laughter.) Now, „"„op
was the cause of all the vituperation which was east lie
him ? It was because he would not agree to perjure 13.0 g
self before a Committee of that House. Mr. Fletcs
said that Mr. Abrahams denied making any sugges,-y
to Wrenn about bribing a voter ; but here (said ,s lat
Hon. Gentleman, holding in his hand a small booi,,,kg- 0
a blue cover) is the record of your misdeeds.--(1-1m-fof
and laughter.) This book contains the authoritter
Wrenn's giving 51. to a voter. That was a grave 019
tion, and ought to be inquired into.—(Cheers.),Ao
would, however, let Mr. Wrenn speak for himself_;o4
Would read to the House a letter which he had re7d
from Nle. Wrenn that morninw.—(The Hon. Gentler
here read the letter alluded to. in which the wh'i;s
stated that he had sent him (Mr. T. Duncombe)
memorandum book mentioned in the petition, as die
taming the signature of the returning officer, an. et
rising the offer of a bribe to an individual. The
then went on to state, that the ill opinion expresset:sgo
him by Mr. Fleming and others, could only have "TO
framed within a short period, for that no lone jo
than the period of the death of the la.fe Lord- Elgla'de
had been requested by one of the Aldermen of the t>
and also by the Sheriff, to attend a meeting to pro
40
the interest of .Mr. Mildmay as a Conserirative cattalo
for the borough, at which meeting Mr. 'Fleming,. y
present. He further stated, that the only reason
had been thus persecuted and branded as a IV
bond was, because he would not perjure hitaio;
before a Committee of the House of Cotera°jv
and that a person during the time the Cola - 1,1
tee had been cleared the first " time had come 110,e
him and offered him a sum of money if he would ini,ot
Mr. Martin secure. —lt was because he would
commit perjury, that this man had been persecuted 11,,,r
calumniated. He (Mr. T. Duncombe) knew the nayJ
of the individual who had made Wrenn the offer' or
also the amount of the sum offered. Wrenn's 913'
eii was, "No, I will not perjure myself. I will no
more than the Committee force me to tell, but what,
tell must be the truth."—(Cheers.) This in itself
serious charge, and required investigation. The Stanuii
Orders of the House declared that any person tamPeireoe
or attempting to tamper with any witness giving e%4'l oil
before any Committee was guilty of a high crime 4
misdemeanor. If the Committee were appointed,'
.7,0
charge also must be gone into. He believed that lvfie;
would be able to prove every allegation he had 1n.70,
and after the opinion expressed by the Right i;tos
Baronet, he trusted the Hon. Member for Lyininv
would see the propriety of withdrawing his raotion
(Hear. hear)—and he would recommend the 1.01:tp,,i
Aldermen and others of Southampton, who had st''.ll,:
that they would not believe Wrenn on his ostb, t°
pretty sure of their facts, before they put their srfi:
tures to a petition maligning the character of an i
of
dual quite as respectable as most of the Conservative'
Southampton.— (Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. HODGSON HINDE regretted that persolo-h.tit#
should have been mixed up with this debate. lie
sidered the evidence given by Wrenn before the C_7o
mittee as irreconcilable with the statements dolltaillg,llo,
his petition. That individual had already rendered"' b.
self amenable to the law, and the House ought teAl.
very certain that he could and would give them nroo
tional and valuable information, before they passed a
of Indemnity for him.
Mr. WYNN had great pleasure in stating his n'at
concurrence in all that had fallen from
Friend on this subject. The opinion of the Bight 1,1 to
Baronet agreed entirely with that which he (Mr.
fore OF
had come to after reading the evidence taken be
of
Committee. Whatever might be the character,
Wrenn, the House ought certainly not to shut the tip
against receiving his evidence ; what they would
with it was another question ; but it might be supPerile'
his Night it:
perhaps by documents tending to establish its truth.
thought it right, also, that the inquiry should be gv"„'ir
into as to the existence of similar practices on the otlier
side—(Cheers.)---for, from the general character of t
borough, he thought it exceedingly probable that lust
wouldAern out to have existed. They were not there
discuss how far Mr. Wrenn might be able to substril
date his allegations, but he thought they should 'A le-011
make inquiry into the matter. He would reconol6o
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Mackinnon) to withdraw he
motion for the present. But it appeared to him that (ip
writ should be suspended but for a short time—the Pe_iri
of postponement ought not, he thought, to exee''''
fortnight.
Sir R. PEEL.said that the Bill of the Noble
(Lord J. Russell) would be brought under the noticeiv,
the House on Friday next ; and they would prnbil,biiKi
after that Bill had been before them, be better entlle•
to come to a decision upon the issuing of the writ. a,
would recommend that it should now be suspended „
fortnight.
of
Mr. W. O. STANLEY approved of the suggestion
the. Right Hon. Baronet. He should, if that course eA
adopted, withdraw his amendment. tb°
Mr. MACKINNON said that he should yield to„1.I
suggestion of the Right Hon. Baronet. He would
draw his notice for the present ; but he should at
notice that he would again move:the issuing of the
on that day fortnight.
Aer
Mr. REDINGTON stated his conviction that, 1111-0 4
the circumstances of the case, the House was perfect. V,
justified in suspending the writ until further inquiry Pi; fr
been entered into.
ed in
Mr. GODSON observed that a passage contain
the book read by the Honourable Member for Finslo3l'
and communicated to him by Mr. Wrenn, was entirtoo
at variance with a statement made by the witness he'
the Select Committee.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that he saw nothing CO- ,
dictory in the two statements. a
Mr. MACKINNON then withdrew his motion,,,,s
gave notice that he should renew it on that day fortlukki
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY also gave notice that on,
motion for a new writ being made on that day fort
114 oill
he should move its suspension, until some inquiry,
been entered into relative to the alleged corrupt prac!'
at the late election.

BOROUGH OF NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYO''
Mr. ADDERLEY withdrew until to-morrowl,llol ,
notice of a new writ for the borough of Newcastle-1111
Lyme.
Mr. HUME also withdrew until to-morrow his n°ricoel
for a Select Committee to inquire into the extent bribery at the last election for the borough of Newcastle'
under-Lyme.
PUBLIC-HOUSES BILL.
On the motion of Captain ROUS, the House fore.
solved itself into a Committee of the whole House/
the further consideration of the Report on this Bill. .
Clauses up to 5, were agreed to without any discussto,
On clause 5 being put,
te.
Captain PECFIELL objected to the principle °fSf
venting refreshments from being served on bo
vessels during the hours of divine service. ta
Captain ROUS said that the clause applied 00'-'
vessels in port at the time.
After some discussion, the clause was agreed W
some verbal amendments.
Mr. B. WOOD tken proposed the follotving
And whereas, under and by virtue of thn•prota
of the above-mentioned Act, all persons duly
thereby are forbidden to open their houses except for et'
reception of travellers, or to permit or suffer any beer tO
other exliseable liquor to be conveyed fretcitho
out of their premises during the usual hours
morning and afternoon divine service in the chun3;re
chapel of the parish or place in which their hoar of,
of,
situate, on Sundays, Christmas-day, or Good
-ors",, he •
and doubts have arisen as to what she' ,
ocl
be
deemed to be the usual hours of divine service 5
it therefore declared and enacted, that from. of
after the passing of this Act, the usual hots''
divine service, on the respective days aforesaid, shad 119
the purposes of the said Act, be deemed and taken... the
from eleven o'clock in the forenoon to one o'clock l'.oll
afternoon, and from three o'clock in the afternoon ;ph
half-past four o'clock in the afternoon : provided ait'auee
that nothing herein contained shall extend, or beiuri4
or construed to extend, to alter or affect the hours,_"., ge"
which the houses of licensed victuallers within the
tbe
tropolitan Police District are directed to be closed FYthir.J.
provisions of a certain Act passed in the second anAuct for,
years of her present Majesty, intituled, "An ,jis•
further improving the police in and near the metreP •
Captain ROUS seconded the motion.
Mr. M. SUTTON opposed the motion. a ell.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE considered the clause %uses,
croachment on the rights of the owners of those to
and a source of great inconvenience with respect fie
the wants of the persons who frequented therfhtio.
trusted the House would successfully resist the mo
ot or
As for himself, he certainly should give it his utal
position.
pro'
Mr. HAWES warned the Hon. Members 10'4, for
posed and supported the clause, against pressing:ooP
if they did, the Bill would not, he could as'uro
pass in another place.
wit
Mr. HUME requested his Hon. Friend to
his amendment.
and
After a few words from Mr. B. WOOD
AGLIONBY, • hi"
Mr. MUNTZ declared that it was monstrous,