The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-24 00:00:00

BRIDPORT.

Sir J. WALSH gave notice of his intention to
move as an amendment to the motion of the Hon.
Member for Liskeard, in reference to the borough of
Bridport, that the words, "whether bribery has takes►
place in that town " be left out.
POOR-LAWS.

reElieofartdos
poor of
Yr. ESCOTT gave notice that, on the considera-
tion of the Poor-law Continuance Bill, he should move
they might deem necessary, in their own houses, any
orders of the Poor-law Commissioners notwithstanding.
ttth t
poor i3e
to lawfulg ant such for
VOTE BY. BALLOT.

Mr. WAIZD gave notice that on the 16th of June 1
he should move, that in all future elections of Mem-
bers of Parliament, the votes be taken by the way of
e 'notion.
the ballot.
Sir DENHAM NonREYs moirfed
otfhlaptslNevaicvhe. of
absence be given for one month to Mr. French, on
account of illness in
BOROUGH
family.—Agreed
Colonel RUSHBROOKE moved that the Speaker
o*Crown for
do issue
malting
histc
awl
(-ialielirailsi.lNto, r
itNto
for
rhceot
hnCed
seconded
r kt
boroughh
Nr. C. W. IVYNN said he did not intend to give
any opposition to the 'notion, but he wished to call
the attention of the Ilouse to the Report of the Com-
mittee, which staffed that extensive corruption
had prevailed in that borough. He wished to
have that part of the Report read. (It was
accordingly read by the Clerk
at the table.)
He wished to call the attention of the House to the
Report,roun d
s
bri-
bery in this instance, there was not sufficient to jus-
tbhee because
mighte it abpo pefabrredthteo l
presumptionli of m, that whatever
g
jus-
tify the adoption of any measure withoui; further in-
quiry into the matter. It seemed to him that
they overlooked the principal offenders, and wished
to direct their vengeance against the minor offenders.

*rw''‘97IVVIIIE z`grs

He was convinced that if they seemed by their pro-
ceedings to proclaim impunity to those who re4eived
bribes, as well as to the subordinate agents who dis-
tributed them, they would never be able to suppress
bribery.—(Hear.) Unfortunately there was not that
general feeling againtt the offence which he could
,de-
sire to see ; there was often - as great a feel-
ing in favour of the objects of the prosecution as
in favour of the suppression of bribery. In the
Cricklade case, an individual had continued to retain
a high and responsible office after he had been con-
vi
cted of bribery, and no one seemed to look upon him
as discredited by the offence. The Hon. Member
concluded, as we understood, by suggesting that
before the motion was agreed to, the Attorney-General
should be directed to prosecute all the parties who
had been convicted of giving and receiving bribes.
Sir G. GREY agreed with the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman who had just sat down, in the propriety of not
opposing the issuing of the writ; but he hoped that
some alteration in the la* with respect to Election
Committees would take place, as he was perfectly
convinced, as at present constituted, they were totally
incompetent fully to inquire into the merits or de-
merits of elections.

Mr. J. PARKER made a few observations that
were totally inaudible in the gallery.
Mr. C. W. WYNNE said that he considered, from
cases which had been decided, that bribery committed
upon the first writ was evidence to be given against
the parties upon the second writ, and that the two
writs did in fact constitute only one election.
Mr. ESCOTT wished to know, whether persons
who had been found guilty of taking bribes would be
able to vote at the election. If they were, the present
election might be carried by those who were convicted
of corrupt practices.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HUME said he had no doubt that the elec-
tion would be carried by the very parties who were
convicted of bribery.—(Laughter.) They expected
so, at least, and it was upon that account he thought
that the House were rather trifling with the subject.
He thought that a public prosecutor should be
appointed to follow up every instance of bribery tried
before a tribunal competent for that purpose, and that
any person who took a bribe should be disfranchised.
—(Hear, hear.) That was the way to put an end to
bribery ; but he never saw the leaders on each side
disposed to put an end to it—(Laughter)—and the
House itself seemed anxious to support the system.
in 1822 a Bill had been brought in, in which a test
similar to the one which had been proposed the other
day by the Honourable Member for Finsbury, had
been introduced, to be taken by Members before
they took their seats. Only tiventy-three Members
had voted for that Bill. The heads of both
parties had remained aloof. The leaders of
both parties, both Whigs and Tories, seemed
d?sirouS of making elections as expensive as possi-
ble ; and, in his opinion, nothing would be done
to put down bribery until they made all parties,
giving or receiving a bribe, incapable of voting
It was useless for Committees to make Reports, un-
less the House followed them up by some effectual
measures. He thought the writ ought not to issue
for fourteen days, in order to give time to the Noble
Lord to bring in his Bill for the suppression of bri-
berv. He should move as an amendment that the
issue of the writ be suspended for fourteen days.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY seconded the amendment.
He thought after the Report of the Committee it
would be absurd to suffer the writ to issue as a matter
of course. They ought to adopt measures to prevent
those who had been proved guilty of bribery from
voting at the next election.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought it would be far
better to adopt measures fbr the suppression of bri-
bery before issuing the writ than to delay them until
after the writ should have been issued. He could not
agree in the opinion expressed by the Hon. Member
for Montrose, that the leaders of both partie's were
averse to discountenancing bribery. In his
(Lord John Russell's). opinion, both par-
ties suffered much from the expensiveness of
elections consequent upon ,the practice of bribery.
The Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that they
should agree to a certain declaration to be taken by
the Members of the House ; but, for his part, he was
one of those who had always doubted the efficacy
of such a test. He confessed all that had lately
passed had only tended to confirm him in
the doubt. Different interpretations would
always be put upon such a declaration by,
different individuals. With regard to the motion
then before the House, it did not appear to him to be
advisable that they should issue the writ in the first
instance.

Sir R. PEEL should protest against the inference
drawn by the Hon. Gentleman—(Hear)—because
parties did not acquiese in his proposal they were not,
therefore, anxious for the suppression of bribery. That
was an unjust imputation, he should say, upon the
party to which he belonged, and he thought that, no
other party had suffered more from bribery
than that party with which he coincided in opinion.
He had always declared his readiness to lend himself
to the utmost ofhispower to discountenance a practie
which was undermining the influence of that House
with the country.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time
he should reserve to himself the, power of determining
whether any particular plan for the prevention of
the practice was consistent with Justice, and
with those principles upon which the law was
administered ; but reserving to himself that discre-
tion, he was ready to admit that the practice was mie
which naturally tended to diminish the authority
of that House. His Right Hon. Friend had sug-
gested that the Attorney-General ought to be di-
rected by the House to prosecute any parties against
whom there was a strong case of suspicion that
they were concerned in the offence of bribery.
He was inclined to concur in the suggestion.
He thought, too, that if that motion was made
the issuing of the writ ought in the mean-
time to be suspended. It appeared to him
that the best course would be, that a notice relative
to the inquiry into bribery should be given for an
early day, and that the writ for a new election
ought to be suspended until the motion came on.
He certainly admitted that the writ should not be sus-
pended for a longer period than the necessity of the
case required. They should recollect that the constitu •
ent body had claims as well as they had, and the writ
should only be suspended, until they should see what
further steps might be taken in the matter.
Mr. HU ME said he had no objection to adopt the
suggestion of the Right Honourable Gentleman.
He had not intended to charge any particular indivi-
dual with bribery and corruption. All he had said
was, that those who were anxious for its suppres-
sion should be ready to adopt some legislative mea-
' sure to secure their object.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, it appeared to be the
opinion of both sides of. the House that the
suspension of the writ would be a dangerous
precedent ; that being the case, he was not going
to press his particular views on the House. They
had already suspended the writ for Nottingham,
on the probability of an investigation ; but
he had previously declared that he would not be a
party to any investigation, unless the Com-
mittee was armed with certain powers ; he
would therefore suggest that means be offered for
passing the Bill of Indemnity to Witnesses as soon as
possible.—(From the continued conversation prevailing
in the House the observations of the Hon. Member
r were very imperfectly. heard.)
After a few words from Sir BROKE VERE,
1 Mr. WARD reminded the House that there was
another borough in the same predicament as Ipswich,
namely, the borough of Southamp' on. He thought
it would save the time of the House if they were both
taken-into consideration on the same day.
Mr. C. WYNN thought that no writs ought to be
suspended one hour beyond the period absoluteby neces7
sary. He thought the House assumed a most dangerous
power whenever they protracted the issue of the writ.
He could adduce many instances of the truth of his
position. In the case of Sheffield the inquiry lasted
the whole session. lle meant on ,Thursday next
to propose that the Attorney-General be directed to
to prosecute the parties concerned in bribery at the
election for Ipswich.
THE ECCLESIASTICAL LEASES BILL.

Mr. V. SMITH wished to ask, the Right Hon.
Baronet whether, at the next stage of this Bill, he
would consent to its re-committal, or merely bring up
the Report ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that he did not mean to
consent to the recommittal of the Bill.

The Lunatic Asylum Bill then went through Com-
rnittez,, and the Report was ordered to be brought up
to-morrow.

Si: R. PEEL moved that the House should resolve
itscl: into a Committee on the Customs' Act Bill.
BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL.

Mr. ROEBUCK wished, before that motion was
carried, to ask a question of the Right Hon. Baronet.
A Bill for the prevention of bribery had been brought
up from the other House of Parliament, which with a
few slight alterations would answer all the purposes he
had in view ; wlaat he wished to know was, whether
the Right Hon. Baronet would give him some time in
the course of the afternoon to move the second read-
ing of that Bill.
Sir lt. PEEL hoped that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath, would not be hard-hearted enough
to ask him to permit the second reading of that Bill,
now that they were about stepping into the tariff.
(Laughter.)
The lion. Member would probably
have an opportunity late in the evening, of moving
the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK wished to know whether the
Right Hon. Baronet would have any objection to take
the second reading of the Bill now, reserving any dis-
cussion for Committee?
Sir ROBERT PEEL would have no objec-
tion to the adoption of such a course, but in
' according to it, it must not be supposed that he agreed
to the principle of the Bill.
Mr. ROEBUCK trusted that the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet would not think him hard-hearted if he asked
permission to MOW it now.--(Grea daughter.)

~~= ~ ~ ,fix: