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

sent it up to the House of Lords—when he introduced a
measure in 1311, and t‘ •
he could not expect that the majority of the lions,. 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 his
friends in the House of Lords concur 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
could 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 know 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 eourse 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 ba 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 E. 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 fur in-
quiry. He did not 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 hit'n.
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, feltsorry 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 thewheel, 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

PLUMPTRE agreed with Hon. Members in think-
ing that that waa 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 forour 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 bemisunderstood 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 beaches, 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