The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-03 00:00:00

POOR LAWS.

Lord FEVERSHAM presented a petition against the
abolition of Gilbert unions. _ _ _

The Glasgow and Redburn Bridge Road Bill was read
a second time, and ordered to be committed to-morrow.
BAPTIST AFFIRMATION BILL.

Lord DENMAN said he had intended to move the
second reading of the Bill he had introduced, enabling
persons who entertained the opinion that the practice of
making oath was unlawful, to make affirmation instead;
but since he had introduced it, he had found that strong
objections existed in various quarters to giving the pri-
vilege to any particular sect alone. The question had
been asked, why should it be granted to Baptists and not
to other sects who had the same objections. He there-
fore begged to state, that in a few days he intended to
bring in a more general measure on the subject.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.

• Lord BROUGHAM rose to move their Lordships to
send a message to the other House of Parliament, re-
questing • the communication of the Reports of the
three Committees appointed to try the merits
of three contested elections. He felt it more neces-
sary to call their Lordships' attention' to the
subject of those :Reports in consequence of the
notice which he gave last session, and which he believed
met with the concurrence of that House, that he should
move this session for the appointment of a Committee to
consider the Bribery-laws and practices which had lately
taken place, and to decide what measures should be
adopted to enforce those laws. He had been frequently
asked why, in redemption of that pledge, he
had not called their Lordships' attention to it ; his
answer was that he stated when he gave notice that
until progress had been made in the election petitions, it
appeared to him to be inexpedient to enter into any in-
quiry in that House. Great progress had been made
now in those inquiries, and, in some cases, the Com-
mittees had reported generally against the places where
the election was held. In the borough of Ipswich there
was a general report of bribery. In Sudbury
there was, 'not only a general report of bribery, but a
strong and unanimous recommendation that they should
proceed to disfranchise the borough on account of the
grossness of the bribery. He must call their Lordships'
attention to the great importance of such questions as
these. It was in contemplation to discuss the disfranchise-
ment of a borough, in consequence of the prevalence
of the practice of bribery. He must remind their Lord-
ships of a remarkable occurrence which took place in
that House in the session of 1834, when a Bill reached
them from the other House of Parliament, laying down a
general course of procedure in all such cases,and constitut-
ing a form according to which Parliament should proceed,
when bribery was charged, with a view to the disfran-
chisement of a borough. The course of Parliament had
generally been, that whilst their Lordships had little or
no legislative business to transact during the first part
of the session, towards the end of the session there
came from the other House an overwhelming mass
of measures of the greatest possible importance,
the discussion of which was of necessity crowded into a
space of not many days. When he saw, therefore, from
the Votes, that such measures as the disfranchisement of
places on account of bribery were about to be discussed,
and when he knew that they would come up late in the
session, on the eve of their being prorogued, he hoped he
had said enough to call their attention to this subject, one
of great general interest, and to prove that it would be
better for the country, and that their Lordships would
better discharge their legislative duties, if they consi-
dered this question. But to return to 1834. The Com-
mons sent up a Bill, which had been passed apparently
without any attention to the details or the inevitable
consequences of passing it, for it amounted to this much,
that if a charge of general bribery should be made before
that House, and a Committee should be appointed which
should examine and report to that House that they
were of opinion that the charge had been proved,
then, not by Bill, but by two votes, one of
one House and another of another the dis-
franchisement of a borough should at once be effected.
It was a Bill by which the party in power, though by
the smallest majority, could disfranchise any borough in
the kingdom. His Noble Friend, who . now was
Governor-General of India, concurred with him
at the time in thinking that such would be the
effect of the Bill as it came up from the Com-
mons, and the Noble Duke opposite (Wellington) did
him (Lord B.) the honour of asking him to embody in
fresh clauses, by way of amendment, some suggestions
of the highest importance. He (Lord B.) accordingly
applied himself to those alterations and framed the
clauses. He could claim no merit whatever for these
amendments, although they were of great value. When
they were framed they were referred to a Select Committee
up stairs, which sat day after day discussing these
clauses, and some material alterations were made in
them in the Committee before they were ultimately
agreed to ; and they were agreed to with a unanimity
singular on a subject like that, upon which such
difference of opinion was to be expected. They were
agreed to with a unanimity, singular in its degree ; for
he believed that every one of the clauses was adopted
by the Select Committee without a division, and every
one of the clauses was afterwards agreed to by the
House without a division. The Bill thus amended
was returned to the House of Commons. It was
indeed another Bill, different in principle, different in its
enactments from that which had been sent up from the
Commons ; but it was an amended Bill, and it was,
therefore, exposed to the objection which he had made
to the Bill as it originally came up to their Lordships.
The consideration of the Bill was, therefore, postponed
in the Commons, on the ground that it was a new mea-
sure. But no objection was at that time taken to the
plan suggested by his Noble Friend, framed by their
Lordships' Committee, and adopted by the House. No
objection was made to the plan in itself, but the con-
sideration of the measure was postponed on the
ground that it was altogether different from that which
the House of Commons bad originally pursued. He
(Lord Brougham) deeply regretted- that the postpone-
ment was continued up to the present time.—
(Hear, hear.) He would fain hope that some
such measure would now occupy the attention of the
ether Hoiis? of Parliament. in which it most properly
might originate. It was certainly a measure of great
novelty, but he was convinced that it was founded upon
the soundest principles, and that its adoption would
work great and important improvements. 'The principle
was that when a charge of corruption was brought
against a body, there should be appointed a joint
Committee, selected from both Houses of Parliament,
consisting of twelve Members, seven from the House of
Commons and five of their Lordships. This was not all.
This Jury was to sit and try the cases under the presidency
of a Judge—that Judge being one of the Judges of
England, and not a Member of either House of Parlia-
ment ; and to that remedy, in his (Lord Brougham's)
clear and firm opinion, Parliament in the end would
have to come, after two or three more expe-
riments on the part of the House of Commons,
to carry on those inquiries in their own body.
It was provided that they should be under the presi-
dency of a Judge, that Judge to decide all questions of
law, and dispose of all questions of evidence sub-
ject to no appeal, but to the Judges in West-
minster Hall, affirming or reversing the decision ;
that then a special verdict should be found by that
Court, constituted by a Judge and mixed Jury,
and that verdict setting forth all the facts
should be • returned or recorded to both Houses
of Parliament, and made conclusive both in that House
and the other, of all the facts of the case in
whatever proceedings either House might institute in
respect to the change under consideration. That Bill was
to be brought in—that Bill was to run the course of
all other Acts—to be read a third time, to be
committed, reported, and passed. All safeguards were
to exist with respect to that particular Bill, as to all
other Bills ; but the facts of the case were to be con-
cluded by the return of the Judge and the Parliamentary
Jury, and upon those facts the act of legislation was
to be made. After once more expressing his opinion
upon this most valuable measure, he had then to
proceed to state why, in another point of view, it
was necessary for their Lordships then to at-
tend to this matter. They had been called
upon themselves several times in the last three years to
take into further consideration that most important Bill
sent up from the other House of Parliament for regu-
lating the proceedings in Committees upon controverted
elections. That Bill more nearly affected the other
House than their Lordships, or the other estate of the
kingdom. The Crown and the Peers had a less
immediate, and less near, and less direct in-
terest in the matter than the House of Commons.
Much discussion bad taken place upon the passing of that
Act, and his Noble and Learned Friend, when heintrn-
duced the measure into their Lordships' House, with his
usual ability and distinctness, and with the force with which
he always stated his case, brought the whole matter be-
fore their Lordships and obtained their unanimous concur-
rence. Upon the grounds stated for the change—the
very great change which was then deemed desirable in
legislating in the other House of Parliament, he (Lprd
Brougham) urged the subject then upon their Lordships.
In 1839 or 1840 some alterations were made in the Bill,
which were thought to be a great improvement, and it
was natural that their Lordships who had passed the
Bill, should be anxious to see how it had worked, and to
ascertain whether the fault was in the Bill itself, or in
those who had had the working of it. In the last
session another measure was passed, from a conviction
that the existing law was not sufficient for the
suppression of bribery. That Bill contained four
several sections, three of which were so objectionable,
so contrary to the rights of the subject, and so at
variance with the sacred rules on which the admi-
nistration of justice was founded, that he had
found no difficulty in
The
on their Lord-
ships to reject them. The fourth stood on diffe-
rent grounds, appeared well contrived, and formed a
complete contrast to the merits, or rather the
demerits of the others. That measure was passed, and it
was also natural that they should be anxious to '
see how that bad worked, and how the
other House of Parliament had acted under it. •
p thought it would be in vain to deny, looking '
at the Votes and proceedings of the other House, that
both these measures had been unfortunate in their fate
in the other House of Parliament ; they had had no
chance of producing any considerable good, or that
amount of good that had been expected from them.
His Lordship them detailed the plan of the measure
of last session, and the way the House of Com- '
mons had acted under it, alluding to the strong
party feelings that were shown by the printed

lists of votes, in which certain Members were s
always found voting together ; it was from these
that the Committees were chosen, and the Chair-
man named by the Committee of Selection.
This Committee of Selection showed the different
Committees, and he found from the votes of each t
Committee that, every one consisted of three
Ministerial - and three Opposition Members, they
having been chosen in the same way as the Committes
themselves. The twelve Chairmen were selected, and
they were appointed on the same principle—six Mini-
sterial, and six. Opposition. So each Committee, consisting
of four of one party and three of the other, was con-
stituted a Court of Justice—a court of judication of the
highest sort, appointed to consider questions of the
greatest importance—of interests compared to which
999 cases out of every 1,000 which were disposed of by
Judges and Jury by the common law of the land sunk
into utter insignificance, whether they considered' the
gravity of the case or the vehement excitement: of the
parties concerned. A court of judicature ! Four
judges of one party, and three of the other, were so-
lemnly sworn,, well and truly, upon their solemn oaths,
to try the merits of the petition before them. He could
not help regarding this as a most insulting course, for was it
more or less than saying that they suspected men of
being influenced by pkrty motives. It must be suspicion,
and nothing but suspicion, which must account for a se-
lection such as this. If they believed those gentlemen capa-
ble of the offence—if they blasted their characters as
suspicious persons, they went a great way to-
wards verifying that suspicion, for when a man
was suspectd, it was very likely that he would
earn the wages for such suspicion. He thought
it would be much better that the Chairmen of these
Committees should be lawyers. Yet he could not find one
Chairman whose name was ever known in Westminster
Hall. It appeared from the different Reports of the
Committees—that there were ten cases in which
Members had been unseated by Committees. He
(Lord Brougham) would rather be heard by
one adversary than by three or four such.; As
matters now stood, if he had a political adversary
in the Chairman' he knew that he had three others, and
if the Chairman decided against him he would be op-
posed by the others, whereas if he sat alone he would
more fully and impartially consider the question.
He (Lord Brougham) merely threw this out as
a suggestion, and he would say that it was
an opinion entertained in Westminster Hall.
In how many of these cases had the decision been
according to, and in how many cases had it
been contrary to, the party politics of the Chairman,
and a majority of the Committee ? Ten being
the number of cases, in nine of which the decision had
been not contrary to, but according to the politics of
the party forming the majority of the Committee ! He
had no manner of doubt that in all these cases
the Committee decided conscientiously. He did not
for an instant suspect that the politics of the party
constituting the • majority, had any influence—even
the slightest—apon their decision. For' ought ;he
knew, there might have been a perfect unani-
mity on all these cases in the Committee.
but it had too often been said, and it could not
too often be repeated, that justice ought not only
to be pure but unsuspected. But each of those
courts of judicature were formed studiously
with a view to parties, and looking to the re-
sults iu nine out of ten cases, the decision had been
according to the politics of the majority of the
Committee in each instance. Would any man, look-
ing at these results, which the recorded votes
of the House of Commons proved would any
man say, that a judicature thus constituted, and
judges thus deciding, could create any thing but,
he would not say doubt, but at the least hesitation
as to the fairness of such tribunals? Another thing were
that those Committees, time out of mind, was
used to deliberate with closed doors: He did
not object to that, but the Committee went
a step further. They gave their decisions publicly, but
no man could tell whether those decisions were given
unanimously, or by the narrowest majority of four to three.
The Judges of this country did not deem it inconsistent
with their duty or below their dignity to let their coun-
trymen know how they gave judgment in any case
When they were agreed, one delivered the
judgment—when they differed, each delivered their
judgment. The Judges did not consider it inconsistent
with their duty or below their dignity to assign a reason
for their judgment. In proportion as the question was im-
portant, and in proportion as the matter was difficult, the
more they considered it to be their duty, and the best
foundation of their dignity, to give a reason for their
opinion, because on reason they desired the authority of
their judgment to rest. These Committees were not
impartially chosen, except a Committee could be called
impartial, constituted by three party men on one side and
three equally party men on the other, with a party
chairman over the other six. These judges, so ap-
pointed, so selected, sitting on a party qUestion, in every
which question that could by possibility come before
them they were of necessity parties interested—wrapped
in themselves—never gave their opinions in public, and
never gave one atom of reason for the delivery of the
judgment to which they had come. He had no manner
of doubt that this system could not possibly last. These
questions should be decided upon judicial authority by
persons unconnected with the party, not as it now ex-
isted, where the judge in the case was a party in the
cause, and from whom no appeal could be made. So
long as they allowed the judge to be a Member of the
other House of Parliament, so long as that continued,
they had of absolute necessity this anomaly, this monster
in judicial proceedings, a Court without appeal, in which
one way or the other, more or less, the parties in the
cause were those who had to decide the question.
He had no hesitation in saying that sooner or later this
would be the result of all experiments on the
question. To the question of whether the House
of Commons could part with its jurisdiction,
his answer was that it would have been consistent
had it been urged before the passing of the Grenville
Act of 1770, by which the House had parted with its
jurisdiction to a statutory tribunal, acting on statute
law, the only difference being that the members of the
Court must be Members of the House of Commons. All
these experiments and their failure, in the hands of
men of ability and integrity, it must be admitted was
a striking proof of the absolute necessity of a great
change in the system. He had deemed it his duty, at as
early a period as possible, to draw their Lordship's atten-
tion both to the working of the former acts, and the ne-
cessity of a change. There was an important oversight
in the Act of last session, which they had passed exactly
as it came from the House of Commons, with the excep-
tion of the three first clauses, which they had struck out
altogether. This Act made it imperative on the Com-
mittees to report not only whether the sitting Members
were duly elected or not, but also to report if the fact
of bribery had been proved, If there were any doubts
whether it vs as intended that they should give the detail
of all the special facts on which the charges were founded,
he was willing to give them the benefit of it ; but they
were certainly called on to report whether the sitting
Members or the candidates had known or con-
sented to the bribery charged against them.
There had been two or three cases at least in which bri-
bery has been proved against boroughs, and in two of
the cases the sitting Members were unseated on the
ground of bribery by their agents, but there was no
knowledge of, or consent to, that bribery brought home
to the sitting Member, and yet the extent of the statute I
was that that finding should be final. Nothing could
be more important than the constitution of those tribu-
nals. He would not now detain their Lordships, having
last session brought the question before them, and called
for a Committee for a more thorough investigation of
the statute. All they had suspected of them, and all that,
upon partial investigation , they had believed, was now
demonstrated by the late proceedings before these Com-
mittees to have existed, in a greater measure, and in a
worse shape, and in a more painful substance, than they
suspected at the close of the general elections ; and it
would become the bounden duty of their Lordships, as
guardians of the law—as guardians of the morals of the
country—as guardians of the purity of Parliment, aye,
and as protectors of the very existence of the mixed and
popular Constitution itself—it would become their abso-
lutely bounden duty further to prosecute this inquiry and
investigate the details of the corruption and bribery—
,the profligate bribery and corruption which had pre-
vailed. With this view on the one hand, and on the
'other with the intent of enabling the House to ascertain
the working and the, defects of the two or three Bills
which had already passed in relation to this subject,
he now moved that a message be sent to the House of
Commons to communicate the Reports of the Sudbury,
Ipswich, and Marlow Election Committees, and which
they have ordered to be specially reported.—(Cheers,)
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had made
inquiry on the subject of his Noble and Learned Friend's
motion, and, without being more explicit, he would ask
his Noble and Learned Friend whether he would perse-
vere in his motion?

Lord BROUGHAM said he perfectly well understood
what his Noble and Learned Friend alluded to; but in
1837 a message: was sent to the other House of Parlia-
ment for a report made upon the practice that prevailed
in respect to petitions and improper votes, with a view
of ascertaining whether the Reform Bill had been de-
feated by this practice.
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he had made
inquiries, but had received no answer at present to his
message.
The EARL of WICKLOW said he could not under-
stand how, when any Bill came to that House, it could
be set aside without that information which the House of
Commons was in possession of, and he hoped that when
any future Bill came before them for the purpose of
amending the law on this point the Noble and Learned
Lord would bring forward his motion, and that such
evidence would be communicated to them as would en-
able their Lordships to give due consideration to the
subject.
Lord CANTERBURY said that the Noble and
Learned Lord opposite referred to the Report of the
Committee in 1837, asked for by this House with regard
to the fictitious votes, but that Committee was appointed
by the other House, for the express purpose of providing in-
formation on the subject. Ili's Noble and Learned Friend
said that the House of Commons could not interfere at
all with the Election Committees by way of suggestion
or instruction, and in that he (Lord C.) agreed with him.
If the House of Commons proceeded to disfranchise, or
to act in any way with respect to a corrupt borough,
they could only do so by a legislative measure, and that
measure must necessarily come before their Lordship's
House ; and it was precisely the same with reference to
the report of fictitious votes. His Noble and Learned
Friend said, that he thought it would be a useful check
on the proceedings of these Committees, if their minutes
were always brought up and laid before the other House.
He (Lord Canterbury) did not deny that it might be so,
but to effect that there must be an alteration in the Act
of Parliament. The House of Commons had always
felt very jealous f, its own constitution and privileges,
and if his Noble and Learned Friend were to send a
message of the kind he proposed to the House of Com-
mons, that House would send an answer by a message of
its own, to the effect, probably, That in the limits of the