The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-28 00:00:00

, MAI 28, 1849.

ever anything happened to seamen they would not come
home, preferring rather to desert than to come home and
find themselves in difficulties. A short time ago we had
322 ships employed in the whale fisheries, and the Ame-
ricans had only 60 ; the Americans now had 634 ships
and 17,000 men ; whilst we had only 3,000 men. The
length of time usually employed in voyages to the South
Seas was three years or three years and a half ; would
not this part of the tariff, then, be most unjust to those
who had gone out under certain.expectations within the
last three years ? He thought no one would doubt but
that the retrospective effect of this proposition would be
most unjust towards those' who were engaged in the
whale fishery.
Mr. GLADSTONE said • although he trusted the
Committee would refuse their assent to the motion of his
lion. Friend, still he had as much respect fur the .prin-
siple of commercial policy laid down by the Hon. Gen-
tleman as he had himself. This was a motion for time,
which he did not think her Majesty's Government would
be justified in agreeing to. Taking a series of years, the
British merchant would find as much remuneration
under the tariff as he had hitherto. The trade was
starving itself by the operation of exclusive low duties.',
The high price of sperm oil had led to the adoption
substitutes for it, and to that he attributed the depression
of the trade. It was right that the Committee should
take notice of the state of the trade up to 1841. He
trusted the. measures of the Government would have the
effect of reviving the trade. In 1831 the number of
ships engaged in the South Sea trade was 111, and the
price of sperm oil was 671. per tun. In 1835 there: were
94 ships, the price being 711. a ton. In 1837 there were
71 ships, the price 831. In 1839 there were 63 ships, the
price 951. a tun. In 1840 there were only 44 ships, though
the price had risen to 1441. ; in 1841 the number of
ships had diminished to 32 inwards, and the price to 901.
a ton. He asked whether this state of things did not
call for something to be done ?—(Hear, hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER said he presumed that the ships for
the South Sea trade, which had sailed in 1840, would not
arrive till 1843 ; those which sailed in 1841 would not
arrive till 1844 ; and those which sailed in 1842 would
not arrive till 1845. All these ships had already sailed.
—(Eiear, hear.) He was sorry to say that there was a
continued decrease in the attention paid to the encourage-
iri!nt of their. seamen. He thought it was but just and
fair that the motion of the Hon. Gentleman should be
attended to. He considered that the trade should be en-
couraged, because it would be a means of providing
sailors for the navy when necessity required it. France
and America were now employing great numbers of
vessels in this fishery. He therefore thought that en-
couragement should be given to the English fishermen.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN was.
,understood to support the
motion.

• -Mr. HAWES agreed- with lilt the general views laid
down by the Right Hon. Gentleman, but he did not-
think those general views could bo rightly called into
aid on the present occasion. The only question was,
whether there were any special grounds for the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for the city of London.
The American ship-owner was at present able to com-
pete successfully, almost fatally, with the British ship.
owner in the fishing trade. He thought with regard to
this trade, the protection, if removed, should be re-
moved gradually.
Sir R. PEEL said, he wished to say a few words in
reference to what had fallen from the Gallant CoMmo-
dore, with respect to the decline of the commercial
marine .of this country. If he referred to the paper
which had been printed on the commercial marine of
their country, he would see that there was no ground
for apprehension. That paper gave a satisfactory ac,
count of the British marine, as compared with the foreign.
It was a statement of the shipping employed in the
trade of the United Kingdom, exhibiting the num-
ber of vessels which had cleared outward and
inward in 1841 and 1842, together with the number of
the crews. The number of British ships entered in-
wards in 1840 was 17,800, and in 1841, 18,525 ; the
tonnage in 1840 was 3,197,000 tons ; and in 1841,
3,361,000 tons ; the number of seamen in 184 t) was
172,000, and in 1841, 178,000. Now the number of
foreign vessels entered inwards in 1840 was 10,198 ; and
in 1841 only 9,527 ; the tonnage; which in 1840 was
1,460,000 tons, in 1841 fell to 1,292,000 tons ;' and the
number of seamen fell from 81,000 to 73,000. He
thought this statement was sufficient to prove that no
fears need be entertained of the commercial marine of
this country. Mr. Huskisson reduced the duty on
spermaceti oil, and the result of that was that in the
three following years the rice was 54/., 551., and 701.,
a tun..; so that the reduction in duty did not produce a
reduction in price. When -the duty was highest, the
price of the oil was not higher than 55/. For the last
four years the price had been upwards of 100/. a tun,
and yet the number of ships had decreased, and the rea-
son was that they gave a premium on the
introduction of vegetable oils.—(Hear, hear, hear.)
He was much afraid that no interference on their part
would have the effect of encouraging the trade to the '
degree that it was injured by the prevalence of discourag-
ing causes, if the vested interests were to be allowed the
required time. With respect to every other interest he
was afraid that they must all be necessarily exposed to
unexpected competition, and the only question was,
whether they would be justified in making this an ex-
ception to the general rule. Other interests were equally
entitled to an extension of time. These various conside-
rations ought to be maturely weighed, and on the whole
he was of opinion that it would be better that the reduc-
tion should take place at once, and he trusted that the ,
House would assent to the immediate reduction of the
duty.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not differ from the Right
Hon. Gentleman as to the principle ; they were agreed
that a high protective duty was bad. It appeared that,
er a high protective duty consumption had dimi-
nished, and he thought that a considerable reduction
ought to take place in the duty on the foreign article.
The Right Hon. Gentleman had said that the British
whale fishery had nothing to fear from the competition
of the Americans ; he did not altogether agree with the
Right Honourable Gentleman in that opinion,
bur he was of opinion that it was for the in-
terest of the country that the Americans should
come here and sell them oil whenever it should rise to
a high price in this country. The question was, when
ought, this reduction to take place.' It should be recol-
lected that three years were commonly employed in these
voyages. and that great expenses were incurred in fitting
out these ships. A gentleman, with whom he had con-
versed on the subject, had informed him that the ex-
penses of provisioning a ship which had been recently
sent out, had been very great • That ship went out in
1841 and would not return till 1844. He, therefore, did
not see why the duty was not to come into operation at
that time. He agreed generally in the argument of the
Hon. Gentleman, but he thought he carried it to excess.
Dr. BOWRING said that the French fisheries had
been alluded to ; but the fact was, that the inordinate
protection given• by the French Government to their
fisheries had altogether failed in its object, and the Ame-
ricans were able to beat them out of their own markets.
Sir 11. DOUGLAS thought the duty proposed.by the
tariff on dried and fresh fish would, not be a sufficient protec-
tion to the fisherman.

Mr. CHAS. BULLER entirely dissented from the idea of
bolstering up the fishery trade by protecting duties.
Captain FITZROY wished to know whether they were
going at once to set aside the whole fisheries, and thereby de-
stroy the best nursery this country ever had for its seamen ?
Steam, he believed, would never be anything more than an
auxiliary to our naval force, however actively steam vessels
might assist other vessels. Having been long familiar with
the interests of seamen, he could not but look upon this mea-
sure with the greatest pain. Only two months since, a ship.
owner of Newcastle had an offer to charter ships to the Havanna
at 16s. per tun. It was impossible, however, that it could be
done at present under 20s. He longed to see the navigat;on
laws of this country altered so as to meet the circumstances of
the times, and when proper alterations had been made, he had
no doubt the British shipowner would be able to compete with
the shipowners of any other part of the world.—( Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Sir C. NAPIER and Mr. Div Err,

Sir R. PEEL said he hoped the House would bear in mind
the statement of the Hon. and Gallant Officer behind him, that
the American trade was increasing ; that British seamen were
entering into American vessels; and that those who were en-
gaged in the spermaceti trade were about to abandon it.—
( Hear, hear.) It should also be remembered that in the year
1841,100/. a tun had been charged for spermaceti oil, and that
at the same time that the consumer was subject to a rise of
60 or 73 per cent., the merchant was being ruined.—( Hear.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared,—
Ayes .
Noes ..
Majority in favoir of the Government
proposition 67
Schedule 6 was then agreed to.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that with regard to some of the
articles in schedule 7, which imposed duties upon dye stuff.,
drugi, and ,resins, the duties were continued at a high rate,
because negotiations were going on at present on the subject of
reducing them, and therefore those duties were to'be considered
as merely temporarily imposed. The Right lion. Gentlemen
particularly mentioned isinglass, as one of the articles in
question.
1)r. BOWRING suggested all gums should be reduced to
one category, and admitted at Is. duty.
Mr. GLADSTONE said there was a difference of opinion on
that point, but that the subject was under the consideration of
the Government

108

Schedule 7 was then proposed, and the Chairman then pro-
posed to read the artieles,senatint.
The schedule was agreed to without amendments.
Schedule 8, consisting of skins and furs, was next proposed,
and the articles were read seriatim, and was agreed to.
Schedule 9, consisting of hides, was also agreed to without
change.
On schedole 10, consisting if timber and wood, not being
deals, battens, loads, staves, -handspikes, bars, lathwood,
or other timber or wood, sawed, split, or otherwise dressed,
except hewed, and not being timber or wood otherwise charged
with duty, being proposed,
Mr. HAWES said he thought the proposed mode of taking
the measurement would be of the greatest inconvenience to the
trade, and he should be glad to learn from the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite, to whom be gave every credit for the at-
tention and time which he must have expended in framing this
tariff, what it was that induced him to charge the
duty on the load instead of on thesolid foot, which would be
much more convenient, and lesi expensive to the trade.
Mr. A. CHAPMAN said, although Hon. Gentlemen
thought that the proposition of the Government with respect
to timber was a great boon to the shipowners, yet the ship-
' owners themselves repudiated that boon. They denied this,
for they knew that it would be the means of transferring the
trade from British North America to the Baltic. He knew
that any motion that he could make on the subject would be of
no effect, considering the feeling of the country ; but he
would venture to suggest to the Government that the time for
the imposition of the second duty might be expunged from the
tariff. He intreated the Right Hon. Gentleman to pause upon
the question. This he thought would be satisfactory to the
shipowners of the country.
Mr. GLADSTONE wished to say, before they went fur,
ther, a few words in answer to the Hon. Member for Lambeth.
The Hon. Gentleman said they ought to stand on strong
ground for the abandonment of the present system of taking
the duty. In the year 1826, a Committee on the subject
made a report, and they came to a resolution that the present
mode of taking the duty was susceptible of improvement. Now
he thought that the Hon. Gentleman had exaggerated the di'-
ficulty to be anticipated. He (Mr. Gladstone) did not say
there would be no diMitulties, bat he thought the Hots. Gentle-
MOW eldiented thNe dituNltics. The Lion:Gelnlctuntock

the case of cut woods ; but the Hon. Gentleman must remem-
ber that they were imported in equal dimensions, and therefore
no difficulty would attend the proposed system. The opinions
of men who had passed their lives in this trade, whom the Go-
vernment had consulted, were favout able to the proposition.
They had obtained the opinion of the Customs, and they be-
lieved that this system was one which could, without injury to
any one, be carried into effect. The Board of Customs had
consulted those upon whom they were in the habit of relying,
and they also were of the same opinion ; and this had encou-
raged the Government to anticipate no opposition from the
Committee. He was convinced, upon the whole, that they
were changing a bad system of measurement for a good one,
and he could assure the Committee that they had arrived at
this conclusion upon the most mature consideration-
Sir WALTER JAMES could assure the Government that,
in the opinion of most practical men, the proposition of her
Majesty s Government would prove a most injurious one to the
interests concerned. He thought this was a subject which
merited the re-consideration of the Government, for it was a
subject of the deepest interest to the country. With respect to
the borough which he represented he thought the plan of her
Majesty's Government would be almost impracticable, if not
wholly so. This, he understood, was also the opinion of 3lr.
Deacon Hume.
Mr. BARING approved of the cubic measurement of tim-
ber, but yet thought that it was attended with some incon-
venience.

Mr. MITCHELL hoped the Government would not preys
the question that night, as there was so little time for discuss-
ing it; for the effect of the proposed duty would be to throw
the whole of the monopoly in the trade in deals into the hands
of Norway and Sweden.
Sir R. PEEL said that the only question was as to the
mode of measurement. Government had no objection what-
ever t facilitating as much as possible the commercial transac-
tions of this country, and at the same time preventing fraud.
Their communications with the Custom-house officers, had not
l
led them to apprehend any difficulty on this point. he Hon.
Gentleman who spoke last, said that they were going to give
increased facilities to Norway and Sweden. Why, the more
effectually they could do that, the better for all parties.
ilr. HUME said that builders refrained from giving em-
ployment at present, until the low rate of duties should come
into operation in October, when they would purchase timber
at a much cheaper rate than now. He would suggest, there-
fore, that the low rate of duties should commence immediately.
Mr. H. HINDE said that his constituents would prefer, that
the propsed duty should not commence till next year.
Lord SANDON observed that the timber trade only wished
for one change, and that was the reduction of the duty to 30s.
Mr. Alderman HUMPHERY wished to know if 2i and
3i deals would be subject to the same admeasurentent as other
timber ?

Sir H. DOUGLAS gave notice, that when the subject
came again under discussion, he would move that the duty
should remain at 30s. as a protection.
Sir ROBERT PEEL would also give notice that he meant
to adhere to his proposition, that the duty be 30s. for the first
year, and 255. for the second. To any proposal to make the
duty of 30s. permanent, he would give his most strenuous
'opposition.
Sir W. JAMES said, it was most desirable to have the
question settled, and he thought the best settlement of it would
be to fix the duty at 30s.
After a few words from Mr. HAW ES, _ _ .

Mr. C. BULLER said that it was now ten o'clock, the time
fixed for his motion, and he presumed the present discussion
would be adjourned to allow of hisproceeding with his statement.
After a few words from Lord SANDON,

Sir R. PEEL said that the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buller),
was determined not to lose much time. He hoped, however,
when they next discussed the subject of timber, that a vote
would be taken upon it.—( Cheers. ) He was himself in favour
of the present proposition, but he did not wish to prevent Hein.
Members who were acquainted with the subject, from making
their observations upon it.—(Cheers.)
In reply to an Hort. AlEsteEK,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that he would on a future oocasion
state how it was proposed to apply those duties to the Isle of Man.
The Chairman then reported p rogress and obtained leave
to sit again on Monday.
PAROCHIAL CONSTABLES BILL.

In answer to a question from Mr. PAKINGTON.
Kir J. GRAHAM said he did not think there was any pro-
bability of the Bill being brought forward this evening.
BRIDPORT ELECTION.

Mr. C. BULLER said that he did not intend to occupy
mush of the time of the House on the present occasion. It was
with great reluctance he brought ffirward any matter involving
considerations of a personal nature, because the present motion
would give rise to a great deal of personal controversy. He
should confess that feelings of a personal nature induced him to
bring the motion forward—his regard for the purity of
election would not induce him to do so were it not
for the unfair and hard position in which an individual,
for whom he had the greatest regard, was placed.—(Hear. )
The conduct of that individual had been made the subject of
comment by a Right :Hon. Gentleman, one of her Majesty's
Minister, on a public occasion in Dorchester. He saw
nothing from the Right Hon. Baronet but perfect good humour,
yet he thought it was not fair that a person who had been a
zealous advocate for Parliamentary Reform should be unfairly
held up as a person who had violated the law of Parliamentary
purity. But as a friend of Mr. Warburton he confessed it was
not in consequence of anything which had been said out of the
House, that he brought forward his motion, but in conse-
quence of the proceedings which had occurred in the House.
When his lion. Friend the Member for Bath carried his mo-
tion for an inquiry into certain corrupt practices alleged to have
taken place with regard to five or six boroughs, an Honour-
able Member asked whether Bridport was to be included. He
felt that the person alluded to in that question was Mr. War-
burton. He therefore challenged inquiry, and he hoped the
House would see that it was bound in consistency to extend the
inquiry to Bridport. He had on a late occasion endeavoured
to satisfy the House of the propriety of that inquiry, and that
the Committee appointed to investigate the eases of Notting-
ham, Reading, Falmouth, Harwich, and Lewes, should also
be directed to extend their inquiry to Bridport. The
House would recollect, that on the motion of the
Honourable and Learned Member for Bath, a Com-
mittee was • anointed on vague and uncertain, but in
his opinion, sufficient and satisfactory rumours of certain com-
promises alleged to have taken place with respect to those
boroughs; but the case was much stronger with regard to Brid-
port, for here an individual, who was once a Member of the
House, and who would not be deemed the less worthy of credit
for what he might state because he was no longer so, made
positive allegations of a compromise having taken place in which I
he was himself concerned, and he called upon the House to in-
quire into the case. He asserts that corrupt practices pre-
vailed in the borough—that one of the Hon. Members came
into the borough in 1839 and made a declaration of his deter-
mination to carry the borough by systematic bribery.—
(Laughter.) Perhaps he (Mr. Buller) was going too far
in saying that.—( Cries of " Go on, go on.") The petition
stated that from certain correspondence the petitioner believed
that persons in Mr. Mitchell's interest carried on the election
by the force of money, and he prayed for inquiry upon the sub-
ject. He went on to assert that the election was carried by ;
bribery, and that it had come within his own knowledge that
nine votes were offered to be given to the petitioner and Mr.
Mitchell by an agent, and that the same agent was ordered, in
nine other cases, to give money for votes in favour of Mr. Mit-
chell. He states that 3,2001. had been expended by Mr. Mit-
chell, which he believed to be a moderate calculation of the
sum expended. That he believed a one-third larger amount
was expended, and that Mr. Cochrane expended sums unknown
to the petitioner, to discover the amount of which was one of the
objects of the petitioner. He ( Mr. B.) believed that was a stronger
case for inquiry than the one made by the Hon. Member for
Bath. In the case of Bridport, the Hon. Member had ac-
cepted the Chiltern Hundreds, so that there were stronger
circumstances in the case to invite the attention of the Home.
But not only had parties made compromises regarding the
election, but also compromises of judicial proceedings had taken
place. He understood that in the month of February last,
no fewer than 51 actions for bribery were brought by the agent
of Mr. Mitchell, to whose betrayal the whole of those
proceedings were owing. Mr. Blight, the agent, brought
those fifty-one actions, the penalties on which amounted
to 25,5001 But there was further evidence of bribery in this
case, for the Western Times had a paragraph accusing the
parties of bribery, for which Mr. Blight brought an action of
libel, and the defendant justified the accusation of bribery, and
gave the names of 74 persons who were bribed for Mr. Mit-
chell. Thus, in the present instance, there was not only a
trifling with the dignity of the House in order to conceal the
proceedings at Bridport, but there had been also a
compromise of judicial proceedings, lest those practices of
bribery should be dragged before the tribunals of the House.
The difference between this case and the others was simply
this, that in the present case they had better evidence, they
had not to trust to hearsay, they had the petition before them
stating the facts, and they had amle means of proving the tran-
sactions stated in that petition. in the other cases, the House
had been called upon to interfere to prevent a compromise : in
the present case a compromise had taken place and been carried
into effect. The compromise had been completed, the inquiry
had been suppressed, and the seat had been transferred to the
Gentleman sitting opposite.— (Heat , hear.) The first objec-
tion made to the present motion was that it would give too
much trouble to the Committee that was appointed to inquire
into the subject. He was happy to say he had spoken of this
matter to his.friend the Member for Bath, and he had no ob-
jection to the present case being considered by that Committee.
—(Hear, hear.) Another objection he had heard stated was,
that this case differed from the others, because it had not occurred
in the present Session. The compromise had taken place, and
it was immaterial whether it was effected in the last or
the present session ; it was a compromise growing out of the
same class of elections, and occurred in the same month of
June. He could not conceive any ground upon which any dis-
tinction should be made between the present and the other five
cases. Any person who wished le, expose bribery could not
raise any argument against the inquiry in the present ease.
There were some observations, it was but fair to the sitting
Members to make—his motion implied no inquiry into their
personal conduct, but he should be acting unfairly if he did
not avow, that such a
.charge,was made against their personal
conduct as they were ready to meet, and it was a charge that
would be most unfavourable to them if they did not succeed
in rebutting it. The charge against the Hon, Gentleman
to his left was, that he had come in for Bridport
as a second candidate in the same political interest as. Mr.
Warburton ; that Mr. Warburton's election had been always
carried by so large a majority that he had never found it ne-
cessary to resort to bribery.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and
" Hear, hear.") It was delightful to hear that cheer, because
he was sure it never emanated from a Member who had ever
been guilty of paying head money, or spending a farthing in
treating. With respect to Mr. Warburton, he had never been
compelled to pay money to individuals to induce them to vote
for him, but the Hon. Gentleman below him was accused of
having recourse to that—( Hear, hear)—and the discovery of
that was owing to his quarrelling with his agents.—(Cries
of " Hear, hear.") The statement made against the
other Honourable Member was one less difficult to
allege than to prove in precise terms. The statement was, that
there was an understanding between him and Mr. Warburton
on taking his seat, which was rot fulfilled on his part. He was
now stating merely what was in the petition. ( The Hon. and
Learned Member then read several parts of the petition, and
also extracts from letters written by Mr. Cochrane.) He
made these statements and read these extracts without any bad
feeling against the Hon. Member. He only wished to put
him in possession of the charges against him.—( Hear, hear. )
In conclusion, be would say that it seemed to him a most im-
portant additional ground for the interference of the House,
that in these compromises the character of its Members was
involved, and charges against their personal character inciden-
tally rose up. He begged, in conclusion, to move—" That
an inquiry be made into certain corrupt compromises alleged to
have been entered into for the purpose of avoiding investiga-
tion into gross bribery which had been alleged to have been
practised at the election for the bnrough of Bridport in June
last ; and, also, whether such bribery has taken place in the
aforesaid town."
Mr. COCHRANE rase with more than ordinary anxiety,
because, he was about to occupy the House upon a subject of
no public importance, but one that was personal to himself ; he
trusted, therefore, that the House would listen to him with in-
dulgence, while he endeavoured to answer the charge that had
been made against him. The Hon. Member for Liskeard had
fairly stated that there was no direct charge made against him
(Mr. Cochrane), but the inference was that he had entered into
&compromise or arrangement with Mr. Warburton, by which
he (Mr. Cochrane) had obtained his seat. Now, he would state
really what did take place. The inference to be drawn from
the first paragraph in the petition was, that be had gone to
Mr. Warburton; that, he had given him this information on
the 2ith of August, tWo days prior to the first date tneutioned

by Mr. Warburton in his petition. On the 24th et Atyu-gfnosutr,
W
the day the petition was presented, Mr. arburton sent his
agent, to his (Mr.C.'s) agent, asking f„r a delay of inee n
hours, in order that negotiations might Sakeplace. (Mr. C.)
objected to it, but ultimately consented ; another men ay-four
hours was then requested, and it was then said that if Mr.
Mitchell did not accept the Chiltern Hundreds Mr. Wail enton
would. What had happened? Mr., WarburS.on requests 'd an
interview with him that evening. Mr. Warburton then st ated
that he would not take the Chiltern Hundreds,, and that be
had not at first known that ail allegations had been made af-
fecting his character. But, said he, " I have a character to
support. ( Cries of Oh, oh.") I cam tat shrink
from the investigation." To that he (Mr. Cochraaw ) replied
that he had never sought to delay the presentation of the peti-
tion. A long conversation then ensued, whieh lasted aebout two
hours, at the end of which Mr. Warburton again said, that he
should not accept the Chiltern Hundreds. There was ti ten an
explicit understanding between his (Mr. Cochrane's) ages t and
the agent of Mr. Warburton, that the petition againet Mr,
Mitchell shoul.i be proceeded with, so that the second seat might
ultimately be obained for Mr. Warburton. Mr. War:'surton
afterwards accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and engaged him
(Mr. Cochrane) to prosecute the petition against Mr. Mitt thell.
He :aid, " our object is to get Mitchell out of the way; fo r the
future we shall our seats one and one."—(Loud and continued
cheers on the Ministerial benches.) He ( Mr. Cochrs te )
afterwards went down to Bridport, after Mr. Warburton
had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. He was then returne, I
by the constituency. He had stated, certainly, in Bridpunt
he (lid not wish to
itre retract
at
iaittlaessuenrtgi
that Mr. Warburton's conduct had been most honourable;
eonn;roußsutofatmtrh.elsvaarnotr_
time he should say
leurton to publish the letters of his (Mr. Cochrane's) agent,
while he had suppressed a letter of his own which had contri-
buted much to induce him to make the statement in Mr.
Warburton's favour. On the 4th of September his agent
received a letter from Mr. 'Warburton to this effect :—" The
more points you can throw in my scale by stating that through-
out the whole negotiations I have been actuated by honourable
feelings, and by a desire to save my friends in the borough•
from disgrace, the greater will be my influence in leading my
party to attend to reason," (as we understood.—Loud cries
of " Hear," and laughter on the Ministerial benches.)
On his (Mr. Cochrane's) arrival in the borough,
,he found
himself threatened with opposition. He had found an opposi-
tion threatened to him by those verygentlemen, whose neu-
trality had been insured to him before he lett London. An
arrangement was afterwards entered into to avoid the opposition
which bad been threatened in the borough to his return. The
second article of that arrangement was, that the petition
against Mr. Mitchell's return, was to, be presented on such do-
cumentary evidence only as would not implicate any other
person; and if such evidence proved insufficient, that peti-
tion should be abandoned. That last arrangement, it should
be remembered, superseded the other which had been
entered into in London. It was most unjust of the
Hon. Member for Liskeard, if he were aware of that
fact, not to have mentioned it in his statement. He
(Mr. Cochrane) carried out, to the best of his power, the
arrangement into which he had entered. lie had done so
at great personal expense ; although he remembered, at one
time, that Mr. Warburton had sod that the question of ex-
pense should be an open one. He did not know what the
Hon. Gentleman had called " an open question ;" but the re-
sult was that he (Mr. Cochrane) had to pay the entire expense.
—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," and laughter.) In the mean
time, Mr. Warburton engaged him to delay his deciston with
respect to the presentation of the petition. His colleague had
riot vacated his seat in February, as had been expected. It
was the opinion of his Counsel, that they could net success-
fully prosecute that petition, without the evidence of Mr. War-
burton's agent; and they did not receive that evidence, until
it was too late to make use of- at. In the mean time,
actions had been commenced against his (Mr. Coch-
rane's) friends in the borough, who were to be
tried at the next Somerset Assizes. He then found, while he
was anxious to carry out his arrangement with Mr. Warburton,
he could not carry on the petition against Mr. Mitchell with-
outimplicating other parties, contrary to the agreement entered
into at Bridport. Mr. Warburton himself did not wish those
parties to be implicated. If Mr. Warburton's own evidence
were given before a Committee he could not again have gone
down to the borough ; because it appeared from his own ad-
missions in the petition that he had bribed nine or ten parties.
Mr. C. BULLER—He never said so.
Mr. COCHRANE—At all events,.if that evidence had been
gone into Mr. Warburton could net again have gone near Bnd-
port. He would say that openly. Under the circumstances in
which he was placed, he found it advisable to write to Mr.
Warburton, stating that as there was no probability of inducing
Mr. Mitchell to yield, and as his (Mr. Cochrane's) friends
were threatened with heavy penalties, he found it necessary to
withdraw the petition, anti thus rescue his friends from danger
and the borough from disgrace. That letter was dated the
20th of March. He had stated the case as fully as he could,
without occupying the time of the -House .with needless details.
Let him be allowed to remark that he had read no letter which
was private or confidential, while everything in the petition re-
lated to transactions of a private and c nfidential nature.—
( Hear, hear.) He would now state a fact which would probably
astonish the House. It had come to his knowledge that Mr.
Warburton had been endeavouring to undermine him in the
borough ; and had stated that he himself had never wished
the petition against Mr. Mitchell to go on, lest it might lead to
a disfranchisement of the borough. In September his agent
much to his astonishment, had received a very singular
request from the agent of Mr. Warburton, that he would write
a letter, stating that he had been no party to the petition
against Mr. Mitchell. The only object of that request must
have been that he might be enabled to exculpate himself ai
his (Mr. Cochrane's) expense from any blame from the electors
of the borough. Mr. Warburton afterwards wrote a letter to
his friends in Bridport, which was extensively circulated among
the electors, which was to the following effect :—" He under-
stood that the news of his retirement,, and the unopposed re-
turn of Mr. Cochrane, had occasioned great excitement among
the Liberal party. This was gratifying to him so far, as it
afforded evidence of the attachment to, the cause in which
they had been associated for so many years.—( Hear, hear. )
Many of his friends, he was told, were implicated in corrupt
proceedings in the borough ; and he had not only to defend his
own case, but the case of others. For the sake of his friends,
and for the reputation of a constituency which be had so long
represented,he had been induced to offer his seat as a propitiation
to those who had the character of the constituency at their mercy.
The borough of Bridport would stand among those which were.
handed down as the most notorious-in the annals of borough-
mungering.—( Hear, hear.) Such a case might be shown as
might lead to the suspension of the writ, and all this he had en-
deavoured to prevent by the course he had pursued. Let not
his excellent friends in the borough be among those who had
scorned his advice ; he adjured them not to be parties to any
attempt to return a Liberal Member in the present vacancy,
but yield to the pressure of adverse circumstances, and live in
expectation of a more propitious perioii."—( Hear, hear, and
great laughter, with which the Hon. Gentleman was frequently
interrupted during the leading of the letter.) Now, could
it be believed (continued the Hon. Member) that the gentleman
who had written that letter would have put forth the present
petition ?—( Hear.) In what he had stated he believed he
" nothing extenuated," in a single circumstance, nor had he
" set down aught in malice" towards Mr. Warburton ; he
was confident, moreover, that if every fact should be fully
investigated, it would rather strengthen than weaken the
case detailed. He was led on, day by day, in a course
which his better reason condemned, and in that way he had
given his sanction to a statement opposed to all argument
and to all truth. He did not wish in any way to make any
unkind remarks respecting Mr. Warburton ; he had felt al-
most pain in stating all that he had done, because, when he
did reflect on the conduct he had pursued towards him (Mr.
Cochrane), the mildest term lie could use with re-
gard to it was, that it was ungenerous. In making
a statement referring to an individual just entering
political life, every fact ought to have been fully substantiated.
But he could not so lightly pass over his eandilet towards the
borough itself, and even (he was sorry to say it) with respect
to the truth of the petition. He found in the first page of the
petition, that hesaid in 1826, when he became first connected
with the borough, he found it an established custom to wive
head money to the electors ; that a twelvemonth after his re-
turn he paid to his agent 2,001)1. which he had no doubt was
paid to liquidate that demand. He found that in the debate of
the 1I th of February, 1831, when Lord Ebrington presented
a petition from a gentleman of Bridport, which stated that
the electors were accustomed to receive Jul. per vote,
to this Mr. Warburton replied, that the gentleman whose
name was attached to the petition, was a very respectable
character, but that he (Mr. IVarburton) had a petition from
a numerous body of the constituency, praying for Parliamen-
tary liefortn—( Laughter)—and that none of those persons
were concerned in the matter ; that this was the second peti•
tion he had had the honour of presenting from the same par.
ties in favour of the purity of election.—( Laughter.) He
could say that at present nothing of the kind was known—
( Great laughter)—not even in the shape of drinking ; that it
was the custom for the successful candidate, some days after his
election, to give one dinner ; and, he believed, if nothing worse
existed in other parts of the country than existed in
13ridport, there would be no great need of Reform - (Laughter.) •
Well (continued the Hon. ltlember), he could not conceive
how any gentlemen who conld have stated this, in the House
of Commons, could have ventured to present such a petition to
the House. And with regard to his conduct towards the
borough, he felt deeply for the position in which lie had placed
it. By his own statement, he had been returned for the
borough three or four times free of expense, and what was his
conduct with regard to the constituency Why, he was the
very person to turn common informer against them—( Hear,
hear)—he was the very man to come forward and make his
own deeds the grounds on which theyswere to be subjected to
disgrace and punishment.—( Hear, Lear.) Really lie could not
conceive what change could have come o'er the spirit of his
stream; but a abort time since he had seemed a second
Curtius, prepared to leap into the gulf to save them, and now
be seemed to think that the best course was to throw his ft lends
into it, to fill it up. He (Mr. Cochrane) did feel that a great
slur was cast on the constituency ; at any; time it threw a
great odium on an electoral body, when a charge was made
against any particular borough, and the case was still worse
when the charge was made by a gentleman who had been for
sixteen years connected with the borough.—(Hear, hear.) If
false, the charge was monstrous ' • if it were true, he knew no
other epithet that could be applied to the conduct of Mr. War-
burton.—(Hear, hear.) He could say that if an enemy had
done this, they could pardon it, but when a companion and a
friend did it, it was inexcusable. lie must now make one ob-
servation on the general question ; perhaps the House might
add Bridport to the other boroughs, and he admitted that in all
those cases in which it had been proved that bribery had existed
and compromises had taken place, it was a question that called
for the consideration of the House. But who was to blame'
Was it those who took 'advantage of the imperfection of their
own law, or those who would not provide a remedy for that im-
perfection ? Would the House stop at Bridport, or would they
go back to Tiverton and Stroud.—( Loud cheers.) The lion.
Member for Bath (who was not present) had talked
of a Bill of Indemnity ; be should rather call it a Bill
tor the extension of perjury, for they would find no lack ef wit-
nesses while they were supported at the public expense, and
that the extent of the evidence was on:y limited by their own
generosity and credulity. He felt that if the poser of the
House was unlimited, then these was the more necessity that
the House should limit its exercise. They spoke of privileges,
but they ought so to act as to preserve their great support,
which was public opinion. They might be establishing a pre-
cedent which would be perhaps of little use to men of limited
capacity and influence, but which, in the hands of a corrupt
majority, might be niade subservient to the basest party purr
poses. Of all tyrannies, that which should be the most carefully
guarded against, was the tyranny of a majority, and of all
privileges, that which ought to be the most guarded was the
privilege of a minority. He felt, its conclusion, that the pri-
vileges of that Howe ought to be to it what personal honour
was to individuals; it ought to animate all their actions, and
influence all their dealings. but it should not be too loosely
hazarded, nor too slightly asserted. (The Hon. Gentleman
sat down amid considerable cheering. )
Mr. MITCHELL said, if the Honourable Member who
had just sat down felt some hesitation in addressing the
House, it was still more the . case with himself.
Nor was it a light matter for him to be brought into collision
ftoornmhitmei
enteredoi nr
that
somehati s points
political with a gentleman like Mr.Warburtori. lie was not there to
speak of Mr. Warburton's public character. Although he dif-
icoaafni politics, still he appreciated
believedtuzittartchTnrg.
life.
e independent a
%h,reaerdbu
un frontri
Member, and that he had maintained his course as such. Cer-
tainly in any observations he should make as to his private con-
duct, he should speak with great reluctance, and the greater,
because he was extremely sorry that the oharaeter of a public man
so respected as that geritlornan ;bouldiri any way be dimaged•
.B.trere iigticiug,t4,44ool.. coptaine4 ja the pOtion

must refer to a statement which had been widely circulated in
the clubs of London, that he had acted with exceeding ingrati-
tude towards Mr. Warburton, because he owed his seat for the
borough to Mr. Warburton's influence. Mr. Warburton him-
self had been too prudent to put any such statement in the
petition, because he well knew that he (Mr. Mitchell) went
'down to the borough without any communication with him,
and that he was not indebted in any way to his influence for
his election.—( Hear.) The first statement of the petition was
to the effect that Mr. Warburton saw Mr. Mitchell, and told
him that his estimated majority was only four, and advised
him to weigh well the discretion of continuing a candidate
under such circumstances. Now, that statement was totally
incorrect. Mr. Warburton bad never told him one single word
about an estimated majority of four; on the contrary, his reason-
ing was, that he (Mr. Mitchell) had a connexion with gentle-
men in the borough, that if he quarrelled with his agent, and
did not go down as a candidate, his friends in the borough
would consider him to have been ill-treated by the agent, and
that, therefore. ar.y other candidate going down on the Liberal
interest would stand a poor chance of being elected. Hepledged
himself that his statement of the interview was
the correct one. He now came to the statement, that he had
resolved to carry his election by force of money. He wished
to state in the most distinct terms, as a Member of that House,
and a gentleman and man of honour, that, when he went
down in 1841, he had not the least intention, so help him God,
to give any bribe to any invididual iu Bridport. To corrobo-
rate that, ho would mention that, before he went down, he
arranged with his agent that the expenses should not exceed a
certain sum, and that that sum was less than Mr. Warburton
himself had ever spent, according to his own allegation, at any
election for the borough. Now, the next thing he would no-
tice, was the reference to Mr. Hutchinson. In his opinion.
Mr. Hutchinson's name had been most unhandsomely brought
into this petition. From reading the petition, every one
would conclude that he was some paid agent, like Mr.
Coppock, who went down with him to assist in procuring his
return.—(Cheers from the Tory benches.) This was not
correct. Mr. Hutchinson was a gentleman of very high stand-
ing as a merchant of London, a gentleman of the most unim-
peachable honour and integrity. He fully admitted that Mr.
Hutchinson was his personal and particular friend, but he went
down because he had from his earliest years been in close and
direct communication with the manufacturers of the borough ;-
and because this gave him considerable influence amongst
them.—( Hear, hear.) When he heard the statement in the
petition the other night, he hail stated distinctly that Mr.
Hutchinson was not his agent. With reference to the other
sums which were alleged to have been expended, he again
pledged his honour as a gentleman that of those sums he had
never paid one farthing ; that he had never promised to pay
them ; that he had never received an account of them ; and
that no relationsof his had paid or promised them on his behalf.
He would next refer to the general allegations of bribery prac-
tised after he had gone down to the borough. He would not
go into those allegations further than to observe that they were
not true ; and that if they were, they must have come to Mr.
Warburton's ears through the interchange of strictly confiden-
tial communications, and that Mr. Warburton, in snaking thens
known to the world, had been guilty of a gross breach of con-
fidence.—(Hear.) He would not accuse Mr. Warburton him-
self of bribery ; but he must say, that if he had intended to
commit bribery a more convenient course than that of leaving
his agent to do what he pleased could hardly be conceived.—
( Hear.) Mr. Warburton stated that at the last election he
'pent '2,1001., whilst at every previous election he had spent
about 1,700/. Thedifference he stated to have arisen from sundry
bre..kfasts on the morning of the election. He (Mr. M. ) had
been informed that similar breakfasts had been given at pre-
vious elections; but whether that were true or not, he had no
hesitation in saying that they could not have cost more than
50/. altogether, and it remained to be explained how the re-
maining 350/. had been expended.—(Hear, hear.) It was
alleged that Mr. Warburton's agent had lent his (Mr. Mit-
chell's) agent 150/. He supposed that that arose from the
close intimacy which subsisted between the two agents ; be
that as it might, he had since been told by some of his
friends that that sum was entirely unnecessary. He now
came to what he coneeived to be the most important
point of all—namely, whether or not he had sacri-
ficed Mr. Warburton at the last election.---( Hear. )
'With regared to the question of the non-payment of the
agent :—although he had refused to pay the agents' accounts—
and he did not know that any person was obliged to pay every
sum demanded of him—yet there were other gentlemen totally
unconnected with 'him, who had guaranteed the payment of
that account, so that there was no excuse for the rupture.
He denied that Mr. Warburton had ever expressed his sur-
prise at the nonpayment of the accounts. No such communi-
cation had ever taken place. He would now come to what had
taken place in the month of August. A day or two before
the meeting of Parliament, Mr. Warburton's agent had come
to him (Mr. Mitchell) and said that a disclosure of secrets had
taken place, and that he (Mr. Mitchell) must resign his seat
at once ; and on the next day a long conversation had taken
place on the subject, in the course of which he (Mr. Mitchell)
had distinctlyadmitted that if it should become necessary for one
of them to resign his seat, it was his (Mr. Mitchell's) duty
to do so, but as no election petition could come on for trial
before the month of February or March, he had said he saw no
grounds for coming to a hasty decision on the subject, and had
asked for that time to collect materials for his defence. Shortly
afterwards he had received another communication, stating that
if he did not give up his scat it was Mr. Warburton's determi-
nat ion to resign ; for that Mr. Warburton had determined that
not even a petition for bribery should be presented against him.
His (Mr. Mitchell's) reply was, " Good God I am I to be sa-
crificed to Mr. Warburton's purism.—( Cheers and laughter. )
Why a petition might be presented against Sir Robert Peel for
bribery."—( Renewed laughter.) He had said that because he
knew pretty well how he could defend himself.—(Laughter.)
That was a matter pretty well understood—( Laughter)—and he
considered it a folly for either of them to resign his seat six or
eight months before any necessity could arise for their so doing.
The agent said, " Mr. \Varburton has made up his mind that
he will not have a petition presented against him accusing him
of bribery, and if you do not resign your seat, he with' He
(Mr. Mitchell) had again urged the extreme folly of this
course of proceeding, and had refused to resign. Mr. War-
burton, at the same time, had sent down to Bridport to endea-
vour to get up a requisition, calling upon him ( Mr. Mitchell)
to resign his seat, and the first gentleman who had been
waited on, and who had throughout these transactions proved
himse'f the firmest and most judicious friend Mr. War-
burton laud got, stated that he could see no necessity for
either of them resigning, and would not sign the requisition.
At the end of fourteen days Mr. Warburton had resigned,
and then his next proceeding was to endeavour to get his Ron.
Colleague (Mr. Cochrane) to turn him (Mr. Mitchell) out,
and at his (Mr. Cochrane's) expense, as the cheapest mode
of regaining the seat.—(Cheers and laughter.) Mr. Warbur-
ton knew that the Liberal party in Bridport was the strongest
—that in general it could rosins two Members—yet be
offered to divide the borough of Bridport for the
future with a gentleman of different politics to
himself; he offered to sacrifice his party, to sacrifice the
borough of Bridport, so that he night but be permitted to keep
his seat.—( Cheers.) Not only had Mr. Warburton carried on
the petition, but he had identified himself with the actions for
bribery brought against his (Mr. Mitchell's) supporters, so that
Air. Hutchinson and several other gentlemen were to be
ruined, in order to enable Mr. Warburton to walk into his
( Mr. Mitchell's) seat for the borough. From the statements
in Mr. Warburton's petition, it would appear that he (Mr.
Mitchell) on January 24, had been the first to refuse to sub-
mit the matter in dispute to arbitrators. Would the House
believe that, when that arbitration had been first proposed be
certain of their mutual friends, that Mr. Warburton had been
the first to refuse to submit to it ? A fortnight
after that first proposition, finding things were likely to take
an unpleasant course, Mr. Warburton had expressed his
willingness to submit to an arbitration, but he (Mr. Mitchell)
knowing he had a good defence to the petition, had refused.
He now came to consider that part of the petition in which
Mr. Warburton called upon the House to refer it to a ;;elect
Committee, and he could not but consider it as rather remark-
able that the Hon. and Learned Member for bath should be
absent en this occasion.—( Cheers and laughter. )
An Hon. MEMBER said "he has been here, but has been
obliged to leave the House from indisposition."
dr. MITCHELL could not see how as far as he
was concerned, this petition could be properly referred to that
Committee. He had been no party to any compromise.
He had made no admissions of guilt—(Cheers)—he had stood
his ground manfully.—( Loud cheers.) True, his Hon. Col-
league hail withdrawn his pet ition,but how could it be expected
that he would prosecute, at his own expense, a petition from
which he was to derive eo benefit? True, he himself had
withdrawn a petition against his Hon. Colleague, which had
been entrusted to his care, and his reason for doing so was
that he bad been assured by his counsel that the petition was
mere waste paper. —( Cheers. ) It alleged that bribery had
been committed at the election in June. Now as his Hon.
Colleague had been elected under a new writ in the month of
September, his counsel had told him that bribery committed at
a previous election could not vitiate the return.—( Cheers. )
if, because these petitions had been withdrawn, that was
to be considered as a case of compromise, he should like to
know where they were to stop. He could to-morrow come
down with a list of at least thirty boroughs, in which petitions
had been withdrawn, and which must therefore be referred to
the Committee. It was true fifty-one actions had been brought
to recover penalties to the amount of 25,0001., but that was
only a part of Mr. Warburton's system to• get the seat at a
cheap rate, by frightening him (Mr. Mitchell) into resigning.
He (Mr. Mitchell) was not, however, to be frightened.—
(Cheers.) The House knew that there was a great difference
between bringing an action and carrying it out. Those actions,
however, had all been given up, but they had not been
given up at the same time that the petitions had been given up.
lie had gone through all the points, and there was only one
more pint to which he wished to draw the particular attention
of the House, and that was the letter of Mr. Warburtot:, to
which his Hon. Colleague had referred. This letter was ad-
dressed to friends with whom he had been long in the habit
of acting, and in the petition those individuals were denounced.
He (Sir. Mitchell) could only say that if- they were, upon elle-
ea'ions of bribery from a party who was a disappointed can-
didate, to al point a Committee of Inquiry, that the House
would have nothing else to do but to appoint Committees from
one year's end to the other.—( Cheers.) He bad been par-
ticularly anxious to draw the attention of the House to the
Vu_rt where Mr. Warburton made a demand upon him (Mr.
—it,-"ell). Had that demand been made in proper time it
would have been different, but it was perfectly absurd the
manner in which it had been brought forward.
Sir THOMAS WILDE said that after having heard the
speech of the two Hon, Members,
he certainly should not have
thought it necessary to have addressed the House on the sub-
ject of this petition, but that the two Hon. Members them-
selves had made such statements to the House that he could
not for a moment suppose that whatever hesitation there might
be to the prayer of the petition being granted, they bad confirmed
all the material allegations of the petition as far as those alle-
gations related to this borough. The parties had admitted
these allegations themselves, or he should not have thought it
necessary to trouble the House with any remarks, as Mr.
Wa, burten was a friend of his.—( Cheers from the Ministerial
benches.) He felt no necessity for disavowing Mr. Warburton
—( Hear, hear.) He felt no discredit in claiming that gentle:
man's friendship, nor was he aware that he was less entitled to
be heard because he rose for the purpose of setting that gentle-
man fairly before the House.—( Cheers an-I
counter-cheers.)na
This petition came before the House in a judicial form, and
the House was hound to exercise its judgment ttpon it, and refer
it to a Committee to inquire. If any individual should.
have been in the House at the time, and stopped for a
moment to consider the House as a judicial tribunal
and called upon to exercise most important functions, how would
they be struck to observe the very loud and continued cheers
With w hich every statement reflecting upon that party appeal-
ing to the House of Justice was met on the other side of the
House?_( Cheers. ) He appealed to the House whether one
single remark which reflectee upon Mr. Warburton had not
been received with gladness by every Hon. Gentleman on the
opposite side of the House ?—( Cheers.) Mr. Warburton stood
in a peculiar contrast with the Hon. Member abuse rema: ks
upon Sir. Warburton had been so much cheered. That cone
trast might be presented with two aspects. First, Sir. War-
burton was net there to be heard in his own behalf.—( Cheers
and laughter.) The other two gentlemen had been heard in
their own defence, and most fully heard. In the next place,
Mr. Warburton was heard, praying for inquiry, pledging him-
self to pi ove the allegations betore a Committee. The other
gentlemen were there making contradictions and opposing
the inquiry. Mr. Warburton said, why make charges
against me—my character ia involved—bring me to trial—
let me hear the charges Loud cries of " No, No.") He
a.iid Mr. Warburton was there because charges were made
against him.--(Loud cries of "No, no.") He trusted he
might be heard.—( Hear. hear.) An Honourable Gentleman
who said No, might rise in his place and say No in due order,
and prate that it was no. He trusted they Would be so god

as to hear him in confirmation of his views, that Mr. War- t
burton ought, seeing that these charges had been made against
him, and seeing that these imputations had been cast upon him,
to be granted an inquiry. He was certain that Mr. Warburton
would not have been there except for that reason. Mr. War-
burton resigned his seat. He said he would resign his seat,
and he would sacrifice his interest to his friends. He gave up
his seat, but he would not give up his character. —(Laughter and
cheers.) When a gentleman came forward and prayed for an
inquiry, and stated his object in asking that inquiry—be-
cause charges were made against him,:he asked was it justi,:e to
refuse it ? Was it inconsistent that a man should sacrifice his
interest in order to save those from whom he had received
kindness, and that when it became a matter of personal dis-
grace he called for an inquiry, by which, if he was guilty,
his character would be condemned, and if his motives were
otherwise than ,those which had been alleged, it could be
proved ? He said, "Do not take my character away without
evidence."--(Cheers.) The two lion. Members concerned
were then in that House, but the principal party concerned
could not speak in his own behalf. The petition stated, a pledge
had been given to present a petition against one of th.e sating
Members. That pledge was withdrawn, and both Hon. Mem-
bers admitted that such was the fact. Another engagement
was that no opposition should be offered to Mr. Cochrane, and
Mr. Warburton wrote that letter which had excited so much
merriment in the House, supporting Mr. Cochrane. That let-
ter was a bona fide letter, written for the purpose of preventing
opposition to the Hon. Gentleman. What was alleged as the
motives of Mr. Warburton ? It was alleged that the letter was
written for the purpose of getting the borough disfranchised.
Upon that Mr. Warburton resigned his seat, and he agreed
that, as far as he was concerned, there should be no opposition
to the Hon. Member. He then wrote a letter, which ap-
peared to him (Sir T. Wilde), to be perfectly unexceptionable
for the purposes for which it was intended; in it he urged every
motive which he thought would be likely to operate in
such a manner as to prevent them from taking any part
against the Hon. Mea ber. Mr. Warburton interfered no
further than to prevent opposition. And that letter which the
Hon. Member desired to ascribe to another cause, was written
to his agent, expressing a high sense of the honourable conduct
pursued by Mr. Warburton. Mr. Cochrane, who stood in
opposition to the Hon. Member, was attending the proceed-
ings of the election ; the Hon. Member requested the agent of
Mr. Warburton, Mr. Warburton not being there, to introduce
them to the Committee of Mr. 'Cochrane, to state that their
words might be relied on. Mr. Nicholets, who was
not Mr. Warburton's agent, introduced them to the
Committee, not with Mr. Warburton's knowledge.
or with the slightest authority trem Mr. Warburton so to do.
With him the Hon. Member entered into an engagement,
which he said was the second engagement, and superseded
that made with Mr. Warburton, and of this second engage-
ment Mr. 11 arburton knew not one word. If Mr. Warburton
and the Hon. Member were at issue on that point, there were
written documents which might be relied on to which he could
refer. Did that arrangement, however, as it stood, supersede
the previous arrangement? The letter which was written after
the recognised previous arrangement would show—( The Hon.
and Learned Member then read a -letter, dated the 27th of
September, which spoke in high terms of Mr. Warburton's
conduct, and concluded with, " All I beg of you, for Mr.
Warburton's sake is, not hastily to decide on steps as to
H.'s action.") This letter was written on the 27th of Sep-
tember, ten days from the time of making the arrangement.
A most extraordinary use had been made of that letter ; the
passage, " All I beg of you, for Mr. Warburton's sake, is not
hastily to decide on steps as to H.'s action," was read
as though Mr. Warburton's agent wished to press the
action. The fact was, that the arrangement made with
the Hon. Member opposite, was that no proceedings
should be taken against Mr. Hutchinson ; it appeared that it
was afterwards agreed that proceedings should be adopted against
him, because they would act as a lever against the Hon. Mem-
ber behind him. The letter was written to induce not to
bring an action, and it had been read as if it were intended to
stimulate to an action.—(Hear.) A criminal information,
charging the Hon. Member personally with bribery, was after-
wards moved against the Hon. Gentleman behind him, and
that was now pending, if indeed it had not been compromised.
—( Hear, hear.) Two indictments, charging him with bri-
bery, had been raised against him.—(Hear, hear.) Six actions
also had been brought against him for bribery; they stood
for trial first for the Somerset, and then for the
Dorset Assizes, but nothing had been heard of them '
since.---( Hear. ) There were 55 charges against him for per-
sonal bribery, and there was an action against him for 5,5001.
51r. Aberdeen, the attorney, defended that action, in which it
was pleaded that the Hon. Member's agent had bribed 74 per-
sons, and the names of those persons were given ; and that
plea was put on therecord by Mr. Aberdeen. Then there were
actions against four other persons for bribery ? What had be-
come of them ? The petition had buried them all. No doubt ,
being suggested that they had evidence enough to maintain the
petition, the opposition prevailed. Application was made for
evidence. Mr. Warburton gave the answer which had been
read. It was stated that unless the Hon. Member behind him
furnished the evidence of bribery, the petition would be with-
drawn. On the 19th of February a letter was written which
was dated Carlton Club, requiring the evidence to he given by
the 21st ; it was furnished by that day, and, notwithstanding
that, the petition was withdrawn. Now, how stood Mr. War-
burton's charge against the Hon. Member opposite? His
charge against the other Honourable Member was that
when he came to the borough, he was appointed
upon an understanding that the seat of Mr. 'Warburton
was at all events to be secured ; and that his friends practised
bribery to such an extent, and so mixed themselves up with
the friends of Mr. Warburton, that, though the latter gentle-
man defied arty one to prove that he had personally or
intentionally been guilty of bribery, yet it was impossible
that he could retain his seat. He then said, " I shall
therefore resign, unless you do." Was he not right in
saying that if bribery could be proved, he would not
join with the Honourable Member, whom he had a right to
complain of ? The Hon. Member refused to resign, and kept
his seat, and his excuse was, " I think I could have maintained
my seat, and I have maintained it." That was the excuse, but
how did he maintain it ? By a compromise, upon which the
petition which had been presented was withdrawn. He there-
fore thought Mr. Warburton had fair grounds for the state-
ment he made. He presented himself to the House protesting
that his return was effected by no personal bribery, directly or
indirectly, and he prayed the House would inquire into the facts.
There was no doubt that, in 1836, he paid what was called
head-money.—(Ministerial cheers.) He was not going to de-
fend, or say one word in extenuation of that.—(Cheers ) He
only hoped that no Member on the other side was guilty of the
same.--(Laughter.) He did not turn his head, lest he should
look at any particular Member.—( Great laughter and
cheering.) 'they had heard admissions made in that House, of
head-money being paid by Hon. Members. Whatever obloquy
attached 'to Mr. Warburton for sueh a proceeding, in 1836,
there it must rest, and he would not extenuate or defend it.
(Cheers. ) But an impression was made on the House unfa-
vourable to Mr. Warburton, and which he, as a friend of his,
should regret to see remain, and which, he believed was not
well founded. It was supposed he made a speech in the House, in
1830, which was inconsistent with the allegations in the petition.
The petition stated that certain electors determined to put an
end to the payment of head-money after the introduction of
the Reform Bill, and required a pledge from him (the peti-
tioner) to abstain from paying the head-money of any future
or previous election. But that was not at all inconsistent with
the speech of Mr. Warburton in 1830. He might be.willing to
surrender his seat for the purpose of not exposing certain
electors, as long as he was not subject to a charge of personal
corruption, but when the accusation was made he prayed the
House for inquiry. If there was any warrant for the charges
made, how unwise for Mr. Warburton to press for inquiry.
And if the other Hon. Gentlemen were fair and pure, it was
sarprising they should resist inquiry—( Laughter) that he
who was condemned should pray for investigation, and those
who were acquitted should evade it.—(Laughter.) How could
it be said that there were no grounds for inquiry, when crimi-
nal proceedings were taken against both Members, one of
whom obtained his seat by an agreement not to present one
petition, and not to prosecute another ? The means by which
the Hon. Member near him obtained his seat, afforded abun-
dant grounds to justify inquiry in his case also.—( Hear hear. )
They had, therefore, here not surmise or retort, they had one
seat resigned.--( Hear, hear.) They had both Hon. Members
trying to throw obloquy on Mr. Warburton. Now, if the
charge was just against Mr. Warburton, did it not; he would
ask, furnish a strong ground for the ouse to act, and upon
what ground, therefore, could it be said that inquiry ought
to be refused on the present occasion ? There was one ground,
and one ground only, on which inquiry could be refused—if it
was admitted that bribery was so extensive and general, that
it could not be remedied by any measure with respect to par-
ticular boroughs, but that some general measure must be
brought forward for the purpose, that would be one ground,
hut when they had before them a case of admitted guilt, to re-
fuse inquiry would be acting in a most unjust and injudicious
manner. It had been said that Mr. Warburton had broken
faith ; he had dune no such thing, it was the party's own agent
that bad done so. In conclusion, he would only
say, that he left the matter entirely with the House,
believing firmly that it would assent to the Committee.
Mr. MITCHELL, in explanation, said he had neither ad-
mitted nor denied bribery.
Sir J. WALSH, after the allusions that had been made to
him by his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for
Liskeard, could not give a silent vote on the present question.
He was not desirous of shielding bribery ; but his objection to
the proposed inquiry was, thatit would necessarily be a partial
one. It might form a bad precedent hereafter ; a powerful
and corrupt Minister might avail himself of the example fim
the purpose of disfranchising obnoxious boroughs, and thus
destroying the rights of constituencies.
Mr. H UME hoped the motion for a Committee would be
agreed to. No one could say, after the disclosures of that
evening, that its labours would not be necessary.

Mr. ESCOTT said that it appeared to him the case of the
borough of Bridport was very different from the case of the
other boroughs upon whose proceedings the Committee were to
decide. In the one case, the motion was made by the Hon.
Member for Bath, a man whose own character was untouched;
while, in the other case, they were requested to institute an
inquiry by one who, according to his own admission, had been
guilty of corrupt practices. He did not think that the latter
motion should be agreed to.
Sir R. PEEL said that he should confess it appeared to him,
so far as compromises were concerned, he saw as good cause
for inquiry into the case of Bridport as into any other.---(Hear.)
He did net think that the fact of the party soliciting the inquiry
having himself participated in the transactions complained of
was a sufficient ground for refusing it. He confessed that in
his opinion a general inquiry into bribery at the elections re-
ferred to should not be entered into, but that the case of bribery
should be investigated only for the purpose of obtaining evi-
dence as to the alleged corrupt compromises. The labours of the
Committee could not otherwise be brought to a close before the
termination of the session. He thought, too, that they ought
not to proceed with a view to criminate individuals. He did
not think that such a course would be consistent with jus-
tice, because it was a matter of notoriety that for more
than twenty years compromises of this kind had taken place.
It would be absurd to deny the fact, that individuals were only
concerned in defending individual rights, and the onus did not
lie en them of exposing the transactions connected with the dif-
ferent boroughs. To select five or six cases, and to hold them
up to particular exposure and vengeance, would be, he con -
sidered, inconsistent with justice, when every body who had sat
in Parliament for the last 30 year's, knew that this construction
had been put on the position of Members of Parliament. It
had never been implied as a charge against them that, having
individual rights to maintain, they maintained them at the' lea t
cost He
et
possibility thought t
se,n
u ratty
d trouble.againstth
the future ofy oughtthese compromises,totake effectual
and
effectual mode would be to institute a
he c
searching(nsi Bredl the most
inquiry into bribery in either of the following casos
namely, where corruption existed in a borough, and individuals'
were not inclined to petition for the purpose of p
• •, o
where compromises were made before an Eleetioenx-COmai
mtniltteer
The he
Noblehad actedLe
in order to prevent exposure. The Noble Lord opposite had
undertaken to bring in a Bill on this subject,
and
operation
lie
wisely in not bringing it forward too hastily.
rd
knew that he ( Sir R. Peel) had offered him all themcao
-
necessary to effect his object, as soon as the principles and de-
tails of the measure should have been sufficiently
; but be tufelt inclined to vote for this preliminary inquiry
re-
served to himself the power of considering whether or not the
Committee moved for by. the Hon. and Learned Member for
Bath, should perform its original intention of inquiring
into those cases where bribery had decided the fate of the elec-
tion. If it was merely a preliminary inquiry as to whether
bribery had existed in the past election, he was satisfied that
the very first case would last the whole of the session. He
recommended that the Hon. Gentleman should take the sense
of the House on the preliminary, question, and then leave it to
be considered what course should afterwards be pursued.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he perhaps differed in opinion from
a large majority of the House, as he thought there was less
reason to refer this case to a Committee than the others.—
( Hear, hear.) The point that most affected the character of
the House was, whether there had been a compromise for the
purpose of avoiding an investigation into bribery. If that
were established, then there would be stronger ground for
further legislation than they yet had. From the petition of
Mr. Warburton, and the full statements of the two Hon.
Members, they had all the facts relating to the comprOmise
before the House. This was the reason he thought there was
the less necessity for referring this case to a Committee than
the others. He did not wish to enter into all the details of
the case, and the disputes that had taken place between the
three gentlemen. Though they gave rather a discreditable
exposure—(Hear, hear)—yet he thought they were not of
such public interest as to require special investigation. If
they were to have an investigation into the bribery in Brid-
port, the motion ought to have been a different
one ; it ought to have been for an inquiry at the I
bar of the House, or before a Special Committee,
that had the case of no other borough to try. He thought
there was less ground for inquiry in this case than in many
others, but as there was a full statement in the petition of a
case of a compromise, he felt disposed to accede to the motion
of the Hon. Member. Now he wished to observe, with re-
spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for Bath, that the re
had been words added to that motion, which he for one did not
expect to see ; and he would state in what course he thought
the Committee could inquire into bribery and corruption in
respect to these several places. He thought they would ascer-
tain first, if they could, where a compromise had been entered
into, and in the next place whether it might not have been
made from motives totally unconnected with bribery and cor-
ruption. It might prove that Members had resigned their seats,
because they did not like to face a long inquiry, or because they
found themselves in a bad state of health. They would not as-
certain anything decidedly by ascertaining that certain persons
had surrendered their seats by compromise.—( Hear,
hear.) He thought it would be utterly impossible for
the Select Committee to state to what extent bribery
had been committed, so as to enable the Honse to suspend the
writ or to disfranchise the borough ; and, in the second place,
he thought that was not the mode in which such a Committee
should be appointed. There were two modes in which the in-
quisition might be carried on. They might have an inquiry
before an Election Committee in which the facts being stated
on oath were reported by that Committee; or there might be a
special inquiry, as in the case of Grantham, with respect to a
particular borough, with a view to ascertain the 'state of that
borough, unconnected with any mere personal considerations.
The motion for a Select Committee with regard to compro-
mises, did not appear to him to be calculated to answer either
of these ends. He thought the inquiry should be directed to
the question whether the compromises were connected with
bribery and corruption. -Though he did not object to the pro-
posal to send the case to a Select Committee, he must say that.
he was exceedingly sorry that it had been thought necessary to
enter into details of these transactions.
Sir R. INGLIS said he felt compelled to differ from his
Right Hon. Friend on the motion before the House. So far
as the constitution of that House was concerned the law had
vested in a special tribunal the decision of all questions respect-
ing it; so far as public morals were concerned, the law had
vested in another tribunal the question of punishing persons
accused of bribery. They were now endeavouring to
transfer the latter jurisdiction to a tribunal which
they had already declared to be overworked.—( Hear. )
The Hon. Member for Bath had not even got his machinery
prepared for the experiment. The Bill had only been read a
second time, and there could be no hope that it would become
law before the end of June. He mentioned that, lest the
House, in a fit of virtuous indignation, should mislead itself and
the public.— (Cheers.) It appeared to him that it was phy-
sically impossible for the Committee to do all that was expected
of it. He would, before he sat down, merely allude to what
had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester,
The cheers at the statements of the two Hon. Members for
Bridport had not been confined to his (Sir R. Inglis's) side of
the House, for he heard cheers quite as hearty proceeding from
Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House.—(Opposition
cheers. )
Viscount PALMERSTON would submit to the House
whether they were not running away with rather an exagge •
rated view of these questions of compromise.— ( Cheers. )
Gentlemen seemed to think that there was a great deal in these
compromises, which were as culpable as if the object of them
had been to withdraw from the cognizance of Election Com-
mittees facts relating to bribery at elections. Those gentle-
men seemed to labour under a misconception of the existing
law relating to the trial of election petitions. The law con-
sidered those matters as entirely and solely questions of private
right. It did not let in the interest of the public at all ae a
third party concerned.--(Cheers.) He thought that was a
, fault in the law, and ought to be corrected—(Cheers)—but
they had no right to complain of individuals taking advantage
of the law as it was.—( Hear, hear.) The law invited com-
promise; it expressly gave the petitioner power of withdrawing
his petition at any time, and the 85th section enacted
that if the Committee should be of opinion that the sitting
Member's defence of his seat was frivolous and vexatious, they
should report the same to the, House, and the sitting Member
should be punished by being forced to pay the petitioner's ci-
penses. So that the sitting Member was told by the law to
consider well before he undertook to defend his seat. Sup-
pose that a petition, being presented against a Member, his
counsel, having duly considered the case, should tell him that by
the flagrant misconduct of his agent bribery could be clearly
proved against him—could that Member be expected to defend
his seat at the risk of having his defence declared frivolous?
And yet, if he resigned his scat he was subjecting himself to
the imputation of having a charge of corrupt compromise
brought against him, and of having a Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the transaction.—(Loud cheers. )
Just let the House consider the position in which
such an individual was placed by ;the law.—(Cheers.) Ile
thought Hon. Members were going too fast in attributing to
these compromises that degree of criminality which they
seemed disposed to attach to them.—(Cheers.) He thought
it desirable that the law should be altered—(Cheers)—he
thought that the public ought to be admitted as a third party.
—(Cheers.) He denied that the seat was really private pro-
perty, in which light the existing law considered it. He con—
sidered that it was a public trust, and that all proceedings re •
lating to it ought to be conducted mainly with a view
to the public interest.—( Cheers.) The seat was not a
private right—(Cheers)—it was a public trust.—(Cheers.)
He thought the main object to which they should direct their
attention was the system, and not the individual. They should
make such a change in the law as would prevent these com-
promises being made in future. For these purposes he would
faithfully and cordially give his vote ; but he thought, for all
the reasons which had been alluded to in what had passed, that
the Committee, which had been agreed to by the House, could
not. arrive at any conclusion which would materially assist them
in that which was the object of their !aboitrs. 'lake the case
of bribery. If the existence of bribery were a thing surmised,
but not proved, they would then have to go into the cases of
bribery ; but no man would question the great extent to which
bribery had prevailed, and they all knew that the system of
bribery had been more extensive than could be inquired into.
He doubted, then, the propriety of going into the inquiry to the
full extent.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and hear.) He would
tell them why. if the practice had been as extensive
as he was afraid it was, he thought that the public morality
would be best consulted by passing some law to prevent its re-
currence in future; because he held that if they proved to the
country that criminal practices had prevailed, it would tend
rather to diminish the magnitude of the offence than to in-
crease it in the eyes of the public.—( Hear, hear.) '1 here
became a kind of sympathy with it, and the abhorrence at it
died away. The most useful object to which the labours of the
Committee could he directed, would be to consider the mode in
which these practices could be prevented. That would cer-
tainly be a more useful occupation for the Committee than in-
quiring into a few out of many cases, and holding up to odium
a few individuals in which many more ought to share ; and snore,
after the House had determined in the case of Ipswich that no
inquiry should take place, he could hardly understand on what
principle the House should act in a contrary manner on the
present occasion.—( Hear, hear.)
Lord STANLEY concurred with the Noble Lord opposite,
that the House appeared to take up, with an extraordinary de-
gree of energy, the investigation into matters of conipromi•a.,
which must be known to embers who had sat in that House
as long as he (Lord Stanley) had, to take:place at every generel
election. The Noble Lord stated quite truly, that an Election
Committee was a trial for a private tight, and in it the
public had no right of interference,—( Hear, hear.)
Agreeing with the Noble Lord thus far, he differed with him
in the view which he took of the duty which ought to devolve
on the Committee about to be constituted. He differed also
with the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who con-
sidered that there were only two courses for the House to pur-
sue, that of examination before a Cd'rnmittee of the House, or
before the criminal tribunals of the country. If that were so,
if those were the only courses open to the Hou,e, he thought
there was a great gap about to be supplied.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought there was little difference between the Noble Lord
opposite and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) as to the
course which ought to be taken. They both considered that
the point to be aimed at was the investigation of bribery, not
for the purpose of individual punishment, but for the purpose
of aiding in future legislation, effectually to apply limits to
bribery for the future. He wanted to know, then, what better
course they could have for their future legislation than the eli-
citing by evidence of the system of bribery in all its modifica-
tions, the different manners in which it might be carried on.
He thought there was a great objection to keeping a kind of
Parliamentary lion's mouth open, for the purpose of receiving
accusations coming from any party. He did not understand the
Right Hon. Gentleman nor the Noble Lord, in assenting to
the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, and
pledging themselves to no distinct opinion, as to whether it was
right that this case should be referred to that Committee ; but
simply to pledge themselves, that on the petition of the Hon.
Gentleman lately Member for Bridport, and upon the state-
ments of the two Hon. Members for Bridport, in their places in
that House, that it was desirable that that House should enter
on the inquiry, not for the purpose of visiting Mr. Warburton,
not for the purpose of visiting the other Hon. Gentlemen, with
any penal consequences, but for the purpose of laying before
the House that which had occurred at Bridport, that which
might take place to-morrow, that which would take place
year after year, until the House of Commons took such steps
as would put a stop to such practices. On the one hand he
was not prepared to give at that moment a distinct declaration
upon this point, he thought it was a case to be referred to the
Committee ; and on the other hand with respect to the motion
of the Noble Lord, to refer this to the Committee appointed by
the Hon. Member for Bath, this was a case that it was impos-
sible for the House to decide ; but he was prepared to affirm
that this was a case which ought not to pass unnoticed by the
House. An inquiry ought to take place into the case of Brid-
port, and he was therefore prepared to give his vote for the
first motion that was made by the Hon. Member for Liskeard.
Mr. BANKES had never understood that there was any
other motion for an inquiry before the House, but that of the
Hon. Member for Path. He did not think this was a case to
be submitted to the Committee appointed
justice by the
agree
Hon.
to this
111 Mem-
ber for Bath. The House could not with
petition, and refuse to grant it in any other case, and that, in
his opinion, was a sufficient ground for rejecting the motion.
Mr. C. BULLER replied.
Sir R. PEEL said he had some doubts as to the Committee
which should conduct the inquiry. The Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath had a Bill under the consideration of the
House to give indemnity to finesses who were to be examined
before the Committee, and it would be necessary. if the inquiry
asked for by the Hon. Gentleman was to be referred to a sepa-
rate Committee, to have a similar Bill passed in that case also,
and he thought the passing of many such Bills was open to
strong objection.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it would be
worth while to consider whether or no these compromises did
not partake of a general nature, and whether this inquiry
ought to be referred to the general Committee or no.
Mr. C. BULLER made some observations which were ie.
audible in the gallery, ix consequence of the loud cries of " Di-
vide, divide."
Sir C. BURRELL said he did not think that the Members
for Bridport were placed in the same situation as the
others respecting whom inquiry was to be made, and he
should therefore vote against the motion.
Strangets were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Buller's motion
Against it
Majority in favour of Mr. Buller's motion —ll9
Mr. C. BULLER then said, that he should move the
adjournment of the debate, upon the second motion of which
he had given notice, for referring the inquiry to the Select
Committee appointed to inquire into the alleged compromises
on the subject of the electors at Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes,
and other places.