The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-10 00:00:00

oC'
,man •
L• Pe
n for .
P°4"

Dartfur,,jo
toei "

introduced by other parties and supported by the
.2Poyernment, it would pass into a law, and put an end to I
the 'wholesale 'bribery that had been committed. He
a. spoke it with shame and grief, but he believed that the
,practices that had occurred at the last election exceeded
anything that had been stated in the House, and he did
not wonder at it when it was considered that the two
great parties in the State were striving for a great prize
'-the Government of the country. That prize was
tron by the other side, but the practices by which
it was achieved were disgraceful in the extreme.
Why, what had passed in another place with regard to
s the Bill of his Noble Friend, was well calculated to lead
.1: to these consequences.—(Hear hear.) A Bill was
Sent (p to the House of Lords containing provisions,
• which would 'at least have given Election Committees
far more effectual 'powers than they at present
possessed, for the investigation and detection of these
practices. That Bill was sent down to them mutilated
and shorn of these prorisions—and when was it done ?
Why, on the very eve of the general election.—
(Cheers.) Those who so mutilated that Bill were deeply
responsible for the practices that had prevailed at that
election.—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should
feel obliged to vote against the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman. He thought it unnecessary as
the groundwork of that amendment of the law which
that House was bound to enact, which he did not believe
, the House would refuse to enact, and which he was con
&lent, before the end of this session, this House and the
other would have added to the statutes of the realm.—
(Hear, hear.) But he felt that this partial investigation
against half a dozen individuals selected from the great
herd of cases--(Hear, hear)—would be unjustly holding
up to obloquy those who had done that which was
r•eitber illegal nor against the privileges of the House,
and who therefore did not deserve to be held up to
obloquy in so marked and exclusive a manner. Still he
looked on the evil as one which, more than any other,
tended to sap the foundations of social order, and
thought it one for which it was the bounden
• duty of the Government to provide a remedy.
• One remedy had been suggested, for which he
e Should be reluctant to vote, as he believed it would pro-
e„. duce infinitely greater evils of another kind ; this was
es the vote by. Ballot. But he could only say that if any-
e thing could make him vote for it it would be the refusal
14 of her Majesty's Government to give its cordial support
s, to a measure corrective of these evils ; and if he should
sr, ever be led, which was not very likely, to vote for a mew
e: , sure the principles of which he did not approve, it would
• be this refusal of the powers necessary to provide
C.: a. remedy.
Sir R. PEEL said he was not aware that this was con-
sidered a question of that party nature—(Cheers)--that
L;', a person in his situation should be called on to indicate,
at the Very commencement of the debate, the course he
ti intended to ioursue. He thought that this was a
9,' question',Which might safely be left to each indi-
ci vidual Meu4ber of the House to form his own opinion
04,7 41 the course most advisable to be pursued by
isesle Mese.' in respect of the obligations of party.
byte did not expect that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
Would have concluded the debate, and he was perfectly
ready to state to the Housein the course of the debate
the opinion Which he, in his own individual capacity,
had formed on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble
Lord thought the Ballot so objectionable in principle
That it would only aggravate the evil, the refusal of her
-Atajesty's Government to bring forward any particular
11111 ought not to justify the Noble Lord in voting for that
Measure.—(Cheers.) He agreed with the Noble Lord
• that Vote by Ballot would tend to promote conceal-
zoent, and, in his belief, would aggravate the bribery
▪ which prevailed, and when that subject came under dis-
eussion he would vote on its abstract merits, and his
is conviction as to the probable results of that measure
would not depend on the course the Noble Lord might
:1- tursue---(Cheers)—but if he thought it bad in principle
slwould vote against, and the course which the Noble
Might deem advisable would not have the
izlySest effect whatever on the opinion he (Sir
• -'reol should form.—(Loud cheers.) If the. Noble
-`"°rdai'''.lShed to chan his opinion—(Hear, hear, hear)
"-; "3_lltlßlSUbject, he oug ge
ht to seek for some other justifi-
' a 1, tan to make him (Sir Robert Peel) and his
ettes responsible for his inconsistency.—(Laughter
Lodeers.) With regard to the Bill for the more effec-
Prevention of Cribery at elections, he could only
say that the Noble Lord received from him a cordial and
Lnhesitaring support when he brought forward that
measure last session.—(Cheers.) There might have
been some defects in the enactments of the Bill, but he
regretted deeply that, on the eve of a general election,
the Bill was not passed, rather than the country should
enter into the excitement and risk of that election
_ without, such a measure having been passed into a ,law.
4, He was no party to its not being passed, and the Noble
4.. Lord could confirm his statement that the Bill received
51,,, his cordial support.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the
motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for a Select
Committee to inquire into certain corrupt pro-
eeedings, his opinion was that the charges were
lV riot sufficiently definite to authorise and justify
the House in appointing that Committee.—(Hear, hear,
„R hear.) He thought that it would be entirely unsatis-
factory to leave such charges on such grounds on the
journals of the House.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to
the subject generally, he was bound to admit the fact
of those compromises having taken place.—(Hear, hear.)
He believed it was impossible to deny that those com-
promises had existed. The impression of Members on
both sides of the House with respect to election petitions
l; was, that they had contracted no other obligation than
e 4 to defend their individual rights, and that the obligation
vas not cast upon them of maintaining the rights of the
tt , public.--(Hear.) That, he believed, had been the uniform
• impression during the present state of the laws, and he
could not divest himself of the belief that compromises
with respect to election petitions had long existed, and
• that they had not been thought to involve the persons
rgaged in them in any degree of criminality.—(Hear,
teerj At the same time, he thought, that the charac-
vend such compromises must in a great measure de-
li a iyill'43/1 the facts connected with it.—(Hear, hear.)
c‘i.oher, who was not possessed of great pecuniary
hits mesas,°uud that the &fence. of his seat would involve
bear great expense, that there was no subscription to
be. that expense, arid that he had to make the choice
be. .
-to th ,m serious detriment to his future prospects, and
• e happiness of his family, saving what was the ex-
se of retaining Counsel and of maintaining witnesses,
could readily believe, that an individual with those
alternatives before him, would choose the alternative of
Ti(4Promise rather than of ruin ; and he could not be-
at in that in that case, there would be anything criminal
c„_.thc Proceeding. He could readily believe that many
tc"'Pronaises had taken place, which were altogether
stueaei fr° suspicion, and which subjected the indivi-
. who entered into them to no just charge of
climinality.—(Hear, hear.) On the other hand, no
A"(gebt compromises had taken place which were of a
fferent rent character. In his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, the
_ n• and Learned Gentleman ought distinctly to place
•Pon record the nature of the charge which be proposed,
4.,rid if, when placed upon record, it involved a breach of
Tie privileges of the House, in his opinion it was for the
aracter and honour of the House, and for the public
I.lerest that that charge should undergo investigation.—
, (Bear, hear.) He took that course when a charge was
eferred against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the
ie , eraber for Cork. In that case there was an allega-
v
of a pecuniary transaction, and he thought it of so
doubtful a nature that he consented to the institution of
it
Plquiry. He did not rest upon the fact, that election
I,etitions had been presented, but upon the broad allega-
tion of a breach of privilege. It was quite true that they
appointed another tribunal, for the purpose of de-
tTrraining individual rights, but he apprehended that
0,7 had not divested themselves of the power
I:, this Investigating breaches of privilege.—(Hear, hear.)
case there was a petition from the electors of
ifu,ttingham, and also from the electors of Reading, and
• toe Hon. Gentleman would reduce the charge which was
4:'t)Teferred by those petitions into a definite form ; and if.
l!on seeing that charge, the House of Commons should
so, ~7.0 t opinion there was primp facie a case of suspicion,
# 4inful as it would be to come to the conclusion, he did
• hot think it would be for the credit of the House to re-
le rise to enter into the inquiry.—(Cheers.) He entirely
.4served the question whether he would compel parties
tisk, t;t criminate themselves, whether he would deprive them
privilege with which every person was invested by
it „..e,law of England. But suppesing that the cases were
'agous when a charge of corruption was brought,
se-eas prepared on this occasion to take the course
teh he took with respect to Mr. O'Connell. He spoke
course, individually, for he thought the question was
fee °F a judicial nature rather than a party nature. But
Ny' was prepared now to take the course which he took
kith respect to Carlow, to vote for an inquiry by a Corn-
,- t,rlttee which had the:ordinary constitutional powers for
"rducting such an inquiry.
ot,.'°rd J. RUSSET,L said it appeared to him that the
t which they should all have in view was that
tierges of bribery should no longer be matter of com-
I"I
etltl e se• That they were so at present the Right Hon.
O °lan and his Noble Friend—that they were so,
he thought, would deny ; and it was upon that
kti4igr oUnd that in 1840 he proposed a measure for in-
Itiel,"cg an inquiry. He then said that the conse-
tolii,ees of the Grenville Act, and of other Acts which
taktiwea it, were, that the possession of a seat became a
lsrgQ of property, and that individuals in spending
4E, sums of money, either in defending or opposing a
%Id were influenced by personal consideration,
44rE net by public interest. It would be most
Al)sh'pnable to expect that an individual should
h 3,0/. or 4,000/. in ordr to establish a
3,"%' whooich a borough might be diesfanchised, or bri-
;,4 0;4 corruption exposed. A very remarkable case
curred in the last Parliament—the case of Nor-
'lrsq,_L very one who had talked with gentlemen from
",9 or who had read the Norwich newspapers, must
Vllst,''er that there hardly ever was so gross a case of
ki..°Niiisanel corruption as was stated with respect to
Ckt cg• In respect to Noraich, it was stated that
I,3.'iti-illubers of the electors had been bribed, some
• received 10/. and some 20/. for their votes ; but
tiais hat
e • ease came to be tried, it ended in a compro-
with respect to three other cases in the
iriou 'Llansent. In the present Parliament it was no-
4eelt a that a greater number of these cases had
t 4 talked of ; and if that were the case,
out
cuied d be well that there should be some
Y, and their remedy should be one by which they
dividial_i! future investigate those cases—whether the in-
1ttet...41 petitioning were a candidate at the election or
143,
ria l ,ioath and at the public expense, and thereby
and d• Islit find some means of protecting these boroughs,
J. 4.'ssc°untenancing bribery and corruption. He (Lord
ell) was in hopes that the Right Hon. Gentlanet
trod'ittieib_ave held out some prospect to the House of in-
ug a measure oe
sor,"e111 an said truly that he
this
gkaivned.himTh(eLoßrdighjt. Hon.
sell)
support when he brought forward his motion ;
10-4i.gobt. Hon. Gentleman did do so, and he was not
Iths, be more than he did ; but he (Lord J. Russell)
t pei nutted to say, that on this occasion he haa
(Lour
}i o elteet something more.—(Hear, hear.) When
ussell) introduced a naeasur" 1834, and

sent it up to the House of Lords—when be introduced a
measure in 1841, and sent it up to the House of Lords,
he could not expect that the majority of the House of
Lords would be influenced by the instructions in that
Bill so.sent up from that House; and perhaps the Right
Hon. Gentleman, whatever his own opinion might have
been, would not have had influence enough to Make bis
friends in the House of Lards concer with the views which
he expressed in that House. He did not, therefore, find
fault with the Right Hon. Gentleman that that measure
was defeated in the Lords ; but at present, if the Right
Hon. Gentleman were to bring in a Bill in the name of
the Government, it would of course be supported by his
colleagues in the House of Lords—(Hear, hear)—and
so supported in the name of the Government, he could
not doubt it would become law.—(Hear, hear.) It
appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) to be the best result
which they could draw from these disclosures. With
respect to the motion immediately before the House, the
Right Hon. Gentleman said that it was far too general
and indefinite for him to agree in it. His Noble Friend
made a similar objection, and he (Lord J. Russell)
agreed in it. He did not know if the House appointed
a Committee on the present occasion but there might
be great doubt as to what those charges might be. He
cdtild not, therefore, consent to the Committee on those
terms.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman said
that if there were specific charges made or stated in such
a manner as could be entered on the journals, and should
amount to a breach of privilege, he should be ready to
support the appointment of a Committee. He (Lord J.
Russell) agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if
such a statement could be made, it would be most de-
sirable that a Committee should be appointed. He
entirely agreed with the appointment of aCommittee in the
case of Carlow. He did not kno.v until he he heard them
stated what would have been the particular views adopted
by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Mont-
gomery. Agreeing, as he did, that - these compromises
were injurious to the character of the House, believing
that they tended to suppress evidence of bribery, he did
not see how the mere fact of entering into a bond could
make any particular compromise more criminal than
others. That, however, was a matter which would here-
after become the subject of debate, if the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman persevered in his course. The great
benefit, as it appeared to him, that ought to be derived
from the consideration of these transactions, was the in-
troduction of some measure to prevent such compromises
from taking place for the future. He hoped the Right
Hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring in such a
Bill. If the Right Hon. Baronet would not do so ; if he
would give him (Lord J. Russell) his (Sir R. Peel's) opi-
nion on the subject ; and if he (Sir R. Peel) would un-
dertake to give such a measure not only his own indivi-
dual support, but the support of the Government to
which he belonged, he (Lord John Russell) would un-
dertake the introduction of such a measure.—(Cheers.)
But, as he had said before, he would rather the Right
Hon. Baronet would take the subject into his own hands,
and would consult his colleagues on the subject. With
regard to the measure of 1834, which had been altered
in the House of Lords, he (Lord John Russell) should
have been inclined to have adopted that measure, altered
as it had been, if the time had. permitted. He trusted
that the fruit of this discussion would be that some mea-
sure would be introduced by which bribery and corrup-
tion might be lessened, and by which compromises of
this nature might for the future be prevented.
Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL complained of
the allusion made by the Right Hon. Baronet to the con-
duct of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork in rela-
tion to the Carlow case. Any one who had heard the
Right Hon. Baronet's speech would have imagined that
the Hon. and Learned Member had opposed the inquiry.
Now the fact was, that on that occasion there was no
division, and the discussion did not extend to any great
length. If he had not risen to explain this circumstance,
perhaps the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet would
be made the foundation for a calumnious attack on the
Hon. and Learned Member by some pot-house Conser-
vative orator. The objections to the motion of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath seemed to him (Mr.
Morgan John O'Connell) rather objections of form than
of substance.

Sir R. PEEL explained, that with reference to the
Carlow case, his argument was unaffected by the circum-
stance of the motion having been opposed or not by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Cork. There had been
no imputation whatever cast upon the Hon. and Learned
Member by what he had said. He had not stated that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had opposed inquiry ;
all he had said was, that an allegation had then been
made that a breach of privilege had been committed, and
that he (Sir R. Peel) had supported the motion for in-
quiry. He did Lot know whether, in a subject of such
importance, he should be excused from adverting to
it, but with respect to the Bill, he could assure the Noble
Lord that he had a sufficient justification for not bringing
in the Bill. The Noble Lord had more leisure than he
had, but he was ready to co-operate with him.
If the Noble Lord would bring in such a Bill
as he had adverted to, he was ready to lend
what assistance he could, but it must be considered that
he had a great mass of business on his hands, and that
the subject required a great deal of consideration. He
was ready, however, to undertake to give the; measure
due consideration. and zealously and cordially to co-ope-
rate with the Noble Lord.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME being of opinion that the Honourable and
Learned Member for Bath had done much honour to
himself and good to the country by bringing forward this
subject, felt sorry to see so many impediments thrown in
his way. After the manly manner in which the Hon.
and Learned Member had brought the subject under the
consideration of the House, he thought they ought to
have an inquiry into the mode in which Gentlemen
found their way into that House. The Noble Lord and
Right Hon. Baronet had admitted there existed bribery
and corruption, and yet they hesitated in bring-
ing in a Bill. He believed that the practice of Parliament
would not tolerate the course that had been referred to.
They had the authority of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath, and the authority of the Noble Lord. Why
not, then, allow his Hon. Friend to have a Committee,
that he might proceed to prove his case, and lay before
the whole country the state of bribery and corruption, in
order to pave the way for further reforms and amend-
ments in the constitution of the House with regard to
this matter, which had been a scandal on the House for
a long period ? He should support the motion of his
Hon. and Learned Friend.—(Divide, divide.)
Mr. LINDSAY rose, and was almost inaudible from
the general cries of " Divide." He trusted that the
House would fairly put its shoulder to the wheel, and en-
deavour to sift to the bottom these corrupt practices.
He believed that the character of the House would suffer
if they did not.
Mr. MUNTZ would vote for the motion of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath, for the same reason as
the Hon. Member for Sandwich. The character of the
House was at stake ; he well knew what was the state
of feeling out of doors ; the country looked upon them
with a great deal of suspicion ; it was believed that
bribery was committed, and that every means was taken
to conceal it.

Mr. PLUMPTRE agreed with Hon. Members in think-
ing that that was no party question. It appeared to him
that it was a question in which the character of the
House was involved ;' and he should, therefore, most de-
cidedly vote in &your of the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath.

Lord STANLEY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman
who had just sat down,and with other Hon. Gentlemen, as
to the impropriety of offering any resistance to the mo-
tion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, if he
held that it was to be, or that it was intended to be, an
inquiry into certain corrupt practices at elections affect-
ing the character of the House. But that was not the
object of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who pro-
posed to appoint a Committee for the purpose of in-
quiry into certain corrupt practices alleged to have taken
place before certain Election Committees, and which were
charged as a breach of the privileges of the House ; and
without stating who were the parties accused, or what
were the practices complained of. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman assumed that certain practices
not specified had taken place before certain Committees
not named, which amounted to a breach of the privi-
leges of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man's motion seemed to be misunderstood by many Hon.
Members. The proposed inquiry was not an inquiry
into the general prevalence of bribery at elections. No
such motion was before the House ; therefore, in oppos-
ing the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, no
objection would be evinced to an inquiry into a general
system of bribery. It was of the mode of proceeding
before certain Election Committees that the Hon. and
Learned Member complained, and of certain compro-
mises that had been entered into. Now, some of
these compromises might be perfectly fair, perfectly le-
gitimate, perfectly innocent. He would take, for in-
stance, the case of Lewes. There was nothing in that
case, as stated by the Hon. Member for that borough,
which would lead to a suspicion that there had been any
improper dealing on the one side or the other.—
(Hear, hear.) An Hon. Gentleman found that it was very
doubtful whether, after undergoing the great
pecuniary sacrifices of a petition, he could defend his re-
turn, and under those circumstances it was agreed that
the case should not be prosecuted. He understood the
case to be that the Hon. Gentleman, now the Member
for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy), together with the Noble Lord
who had been Member for Lewes (Lord Cantilupe)
were petitioners.=(Some observations m ere here made
across the table from the Opposition benches, but in so
low a tone as to be inaudible.) Now, there was the
inconvenience of discussing in that House an inquiry
into those cases in which parties were charged with a
breach of the privileges of the House, when not only the
House collectively, but even individual Members knew
little or nothing of the circumstances of those cases. As
far as the Lewes case was known to him he knew no-
thing questionable in the transaction, and in the
other cases mentioned there was not more doubt
or difficulty. But those questions of compromise
in the case of Election Committees, where parties with-
drew from the contest when success was doubtful, or
the expense excessive—these questions did not present
any new principle, neither were they unknown to the
House, nor ever considered as breaches of privilege of
the House, and deserving of its censure. In the case
stated by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman there was
this apparent novelty, that in consequence of the com-
promise entered into by the parties, the verdict of the
Committee was set aside, whereby the parties were esta-
blished in their seats in the House. There were va-
rious allegations made, that for the purpose of securing
the performance of those compromises, sums of money
were paid down, the effect of which was to se-
cure the agreement entered into, and which
should also secure that no contest should be en-
tered into by parties who professed the same prin-
ciples against the parties who took their seats.
He (Lord Stanley) thought those allegations
too broad and indistinct. There should be distinct
allegations laid down, and evidence adduced, upon which
the Committee would be able to make a clear and definite
decision. Under that order of reference, no Member
could know what he was about. The question, as he said
before, was not to prevent bribery and corruption, but

the question was to inquire into loose and vague allega-
tions in that House, upon a mere rumour of their having
taken place. On Friday they had no Parliamentary
grounds to proceed, and to-night two petitions were pre-
sented, but he thought those petitions were not specific
enough. If those petitions had been presented from
'Nottingham and Reading, and complained of specific
and definite abuses, and asked for a Committee to inquire
into their allegations, the House, he scarcely
thought, would refuse an inquiry. That was the
case with regard to Carlow. But he thought
the allegations at present were so vague that
the inquiry would be productive of no practical conclu-
sion: With regard to bribery and corruption, no per-
son deplored more strongly than he that those practices
prevailed in the large and small towns ; and no Member
was prepared to go further in applying an efficient re-
medy to those evils.—(Hear, hear.) But for that pur-
pose an Act of Parliament, and not a Committee of that
House, was necessary. Great caution was requisite in
investigating the bribery alleged to have been committed
at elections, that the prosecution of individual rights and
the vindication of the character of the House, should be
kept separate.—(Hear, hear.) The question of disfran-
chising a borough was one entirely distinct from the
proper subject of inquiry before the Committee, who
had to determine whether A or B was entitled to a
seat.—(Hear, hear.) If the public were to take the
conducting of those inquiries, the result would be, that
the disappointed candidates would take advantage of that
opportunity to avenge themselves on the borough ; and
though individual cases of disgrace might be detected, it
would not be sufficient to disfranchise the borough.
He did not, by any means, mean to say that where there
was a strong prima facie case of bribery, the investiga-
tion should not be instituted by the House of Commons;
but he would say that where there was a contest between
two individuals, the one in possession of the seat and the
other claiming it, the House should not take upon itself
to conduct that inquiry at the public expense.—(Hear,
hear.) He wished at the same time, that it should be un-
derstood, as had been said by his Hon. Friend behind
him, that an objection to this motion was not an objets.
tion to inquiry.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SHIEL (who rose amidst cries of " Divide,")
wished to say a few words.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed
the general feeling of the House that the inquiry, if it
could be conducted properly, ought to be gone into.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought it was a mistake to say that
his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath was
not specific in his allegations, and he thought the House
ought to take care lest any charge of indistinctness in
his speech, or indistinctness in his motion, should cause
them to lose sight of the object-which they ought to hold
in view. With respect to the right of his Hon. and
Learned Friend to bring forward this motion, it should
be recollected that his Hon. and Learned Friend had asked
the Speaker, who informed him that if he made allegations
of a breach of privilege, he could bring forward a motion
founded on his own allegations. Allegations were made
in the House of Commons, and a Mmber took upon
himself to state that he believed in these allegations.
He was permitted by the Speaker to do so, and by the
whole of the House. Some Hon. Gentlemen denied the
accusation ; others remained silent. Why they remained
silent it was not his province to inquire. There had been a
bona fide case made outfor going on with the inquiry; and
they were, therefore, afterall disputating about smatter of
form, about the phraseology of the motion of thellon.Mem
ber. They did not wish to injure individuals. They made
changes of things, of which many others had been no-
toriously guilty. What they wanted was to get facts
that would illustrate the nefarious system, in order that
some public act of legislation might be had upon it.
They wanted facts, they wanted something better than
charges. It had been said, " Hear my allegations."
Give him (Mr. Sheil) something better than allegations.
Let witnesses be examined and the evidence be taken
down, and let this testimony be such that there would be
no difficulty in another place. The Noble Lord, the
Member for Tiverton, lamented that a most important
clause in the Bill of the Noble Lord, the Member for
London, had been objected to by the House of Lords.
Let them have the power required by his Hon. Friend;
let them have such facts that would go before the House
of Lords and before the country as would set all doubt
at rest.—(Cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said, that if he had understood the
Right Hon. Baronet, he should not have troubled the
House with more than one or two words in answer. He had
been, by accident, absent from the House at the time,
and he had therefore lost part of what the Right Hon.
Baronet had said. He (Mr. R.) had stated, last Friday,
that certain remarks had come to his ears respecting cer-
tain specified individuals. Those persons be had named,
and the allegations he made. He had made these alle-
gations in such a manner as to meet the objection of
the Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire. The first
of die cases to which he had referred was die case of Not-
tingham, in which money was paid down to avoid investi-
gation. The charge he brought forward was a compromise,
for the purpose of screening bribery. Now, he wanted to
know whether the House would grant him the Committee
he asked ? The Noble Lord said lie must have some evi-
dence. Indeed ! Why, the evidence was given on the
trial. What could he do more than make the charge ?
—(Hear, hear.) He had made the charge, and named
the places. But it had been said that his charge and
motion were too narrow—that it ought to sweep at the
whole practice, and not select certain cases ; while, on
the other side, it was stated that he wanted a roving
commission. He could net please any one ; he was
like the man whipping another, let him hit where
he would, it did riot please.—(Hear,• and laughter.)
He wanted no roving Committee, for he had , namel
the places ; -he hoped he should have the unanimous
consent of the Right Hon. Baronet and the House to his
motion. It was well known to the House, when Com-
mittees of this sort were appointed, that a short Bill of
Indemnity was brought in, which he would introduce
to-morrow, and it might be passed through the House in
three days. There was the case of Reading, where a
bond was entered into for the same purpose ; there
was Penryn, in which the only purpose that had been
kept in view was, to. prevent an investigation. There
was the case of Harwich, in which the same charge was
made, and not denied ; and there was the 'case of
Lewes, in which he had put it to his Hon. Friend dis •
tinctly, not whether lie was about to acsept the Chiltern
Hundreds, but whether the investigation was not with-
drawn, on the distinct understanding that there was to be
no inquiry? That was his charge—that was his indictment;
but he thought there was nothing in his manner that
could be considered offensive. He had made it with per-
fect boldness, and perhaps it was an extraordinary
charge—but the facts were extraordinary ; still
he was extremely desirous to give no man
offence. It was the system which he desired to brand as
infamous. To Meet the objection of the Hon. Baronet
he cited the case of the Shepherds; who were charged
with bribery in 1700. It appeared on the Journals of
the House that Samuel Shepherd, a Member of the
House, was charged with bribery in several corporations,
to procure Members to be elected ; and Mr. Shepherd,
being heard in his place in the House, and insisting on
his innocence, it was resolved that the matters charged
should be heard at the bar. He asked no more than
this, and what would appear ? The Hon. Gentleman
must be perfectly aware of the difference between an
oral and a written charge. That oral charge he made,
and he simply required from the House a Com-
mittee of Inquiry. That was within the re-
gular proceedings of the House, and all he
wished to avoid was the charge of 'having rushed
into a course not consistent with the rules of the House.
He was prepared to adopt any mode of proceeding that
would grant him what he wanted. He would ask the
Right Hon. Baronet, if he moved a resolution affirming
that certain corrupt practices had prevailed at Reading,
Nottingham, Lewes, Falmouth. and Harwich, whether
that would be sufficient for entering into the charges
in all those cases in which there had been corrupt com-
promises for the purpose of preventing investigation into
the bribery practised at the elections. He did not wish
to being invidious charges against any 'individuals ;
he wanted only to brand the system as infamous.
But without that power the Committee could do nothing.
They would say " You give us an instrument, and give
us no power of using it." He was not going to ask a
Committee to disown shame when the whole world was
looking anxiously at the proceedings. If the House de-
sired to probe to the bottom this festering wound, and
would put the instrument into his hands, he would plunge
to the place of its nastiness.—(Hear, hear.) He would
now distinctly state to the House the exact terms of the
motion which he was about to make, and then he hoped
to nave the unanimous concurrence of the House.

Sir T. 1). ACLANI) said he thought the case of
Lewes should be exempted from the investigation, as he
conceived that that case rested upon totally different
grounds from the others In that case it did
not appear that either of the parties had intended not to
abide by the judgement of the Committee.
The original motion was then withdrawn.
After a desultory conversation between Sir G. Grey,
Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Roebuck, as to the form of
the motion.

The SPEAKER ultimately put the question as thus
amended : " That a certain Member having informed
the House, that he was informed, and believes, that in
the cases of the petitions against the returns from the
Boroughs of Reading, Nottingham, Harwich, Lewes,
and Falmouth certain compromises were entered into fur
the purpose of avoiding the investigation into gross bri-
bery, alleged to have been practised at the elections of
the aforesaid towns, a Select Committee be appointed
to inquire whether those compromises have been entered
into, and whether this alleged bribery has taken place in
the aforesaid towns."

Mr. NEELD said, that as he was a member of the Lewes
Committee, he thought that the investigation with re-
gard to that borough, ought to be left out.—(oh, oh.) He
hoped Hon. Members would hear his reasons.—(oh.)
Upon the Lewes petition, there was no evidence brought
before the Committee that bribery and corruption had
been practised.—(Hear, hear.) The petition was, as
far as it came before the Committee, one of scrutiny ;
and Mr. Harford, after the investigation of several votes,
was placed in a minority, and withdrew, upon which
Mr. Fitzroy took his seat, upon the Report of the Com-
mittee. There were no allegations of bribery, and
therefore it appeared that there was no case for including
Lewes.

Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he was sure those Mem-
bers who were present during the discussion of the mo-
tion, would agree with him that it would be improper
to exclude Lewes. (Hear, hear.) It had been
stated by one of the Members for Lewes (Mr.
Elphinstone) that his belief was that a compro-
mise had taken place with regard to that borough, and that
the borough would have been disfranchised if the proceed-
ings had not been stayed, in consequence of the general,
flagrant, and gross bribery which had taken place.—
(Hear, bear.) The House having agreed to the prin-
ciple of the motion, he thought that, of all other cases,
Lewes was the one that ought not to be excluded.—
(Cheers.) He was glad the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath was altered, because he could
now• vote for it, whereas he could not do so as it stood
before, notwithstanding the misrepresentation that be
might be subject to in consequence.