The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-21 00:00:00

alienate the respect, and to outrage the moral feelings
of the people whom they represetiteds--(Hear, hear,)
They were called the " bribery Parliament ;" and they
deserved the name. Now, he wished to profess, hi the
first instance, that he did not mean to treat that
question in any way as a party question. He looked
upon it as a question in which all sides of the House had
the same interest, and in bringing it under the consider-
ation of the House, he trusted he was actuated by better
motives and hopes than if he had brought it forward
merely to serve the purposes of a party.
He admitted at once that corrupt influence
had been most unscrupulously appealed to
at the late and at other elections, by Liberals as well as
by Conservatives. He regretted to find that- lie was
forced to that admission ; and he wished his own party
had always steered clear of corrupt practices at elections
since the year 1833. But` that had not been the
case. Both parties had acted upon the same system.
That system was a bad one ; it was one which no honest
man would attempt to justify upon sober reflection, al-
though he might have been tainted with it himself. It
was a system which no well-wisher of his country would
defend. He saw with great satisfaction that there
were at present a disposition manifested on both sides
of the House to look seriously to the dangers which
such a system must entail upon the conntry. He had
heard bribery denounced by the leaders on both sides in
terms which would seal its fate in six months if those terms
had been sincerely employed. He had a right to
question the sincerity of parties, until he . saw
them follow up that expression of their opinions
by practical remedial measures ; and he did con-
sider that the best test of sincerity would be to
renounce that power in which the abuse originated.
He thought he could show that if the power was re-
nounced of unduly influencing electors, the existing evil
would be soon eradicated. He did not approve of
the policy of having recourse merely to measures
of severity, which could never be impartially applied.
He thought the present time was particularly favourable
to the discussion. The balance of power in the Reuse
was not so nicely distributed that it could be materially
affected by any slight change in the machinery of repre-
sentation which would give an advantage to either side. He
was bound. too, to say that the Right Hon. Baronet, the
leader of the party opposite had shown a proper sense
of respect for his own station, and a sincere desire fairly
to discharge the duties imposed on him. He alluded
more particularly to the course pursued by the Right
Honourable Baronet, with respect to the Notting-
ham, the Southampton, and the Belfast elections.
Some of the expressions used by the Right Honourable
Baronet on that occasion ne might he permitted to recall
to the recollection of the House. The Right Honour-
able Baronet said, considering the extent to which
bribery had been stated to prevail, he did think
and now stated hi's deliberate opinion that it would not
be for the honour or dignity of the House to interpose
any technical objections to prevent the inquiries.
He said, also, that whoever might be the par-
ties compromised, or whatever might be the interest
they might exert, he would not lend the countenance
of the Government to any suppression of the fullest in-
quiry into those cases. The Noble Lord, the Member
for Sunderland, who was one of the greatest opponents
of the Ballot, had formerly used as one of his arguments
against it, the improvement that had taken place
in the disposition of the Landed Proprietors through-
out England, and that they might safely be en-
trusted with their influence over the constituencies. A
singular change must • have come over him during
the last election, for, in a speech he de-
livered on that occasion, he found the most
sweeping charges brought against •the landlords.
He found in that speech the most severe censures against
the landed proprietors of the county of Northumberland,
and he never heard the most strenuous advocate for the
Ballot expose with so cutting a censure the mal-prac-
tices and illegitimate influence of the landlords as that
of the Noble Lord. The Hon. Member then referred
and quoted at great length from the speech of Lord
' Howick, delivered after the last election of Northumber-
land, in which he complained of the conduct of the
' Duke of Northumberland, Lord Tankerville, and Lord
Ossulston, in influencing the tenantry in giving their
He (Mr. Ward) claimed the vote of the Noble Lord to-
night on the strength of that speech. If he was desirous
to see such practices put an end to, he would vote for
his motion practices which were quite as • objec-
tionable, and quite as prevalent, as that of bribing,
and for which he believed no remedy by penal' enact-
ment would be an effectual stop. He was glad to see
the Noble Lord in the House.—(Lord Howick had just
come in.) He would hand him the speech he had de-
livered in Northumberland, and with that in his hand
he did not know how he (Lord Howick) could refuse
him his support. He now came to the Bribery Bill of
the Noble Lord, the Member for London. The
Noble Lord admitted, as he (Mr. Ward) did, the extent
of the evil, and the necessity of a remedy, and
it only remained for the advocates of the Ballot
to show the superiority of that remedy to the one
the Noble Lord recommended. He (Mr. Ward) had no
great faith in the penal enactments against bribery. They
had for one hundred years back such remedies. They
were tried in every shape, but it was impossible by reme-
dies of such a nature t o touch an evil of such a protean cha-
racter. Now there was no want of stringency in the existing
law, as he said before. But the law had existed upwards
of one hundred years, for he found during the life
of 1)e Foe the same complaint, being 135 years ago.
He said, " We have lately had three Acts of Parliament
to prevent bribery and corruption at elections, We have
the hest laws, but they are badly executed." In another
. passage, written in 1780, immediately after an election
had taken place, he said that some people had voted for
money, fame for influence. and others from intimidation,
• and he believed it was not impossible to debauch this na-
by variocs kinds of intoxication. With these examples
before him (Mr. Ward) he had little hope, he confessed,
by any legislative enactment that the Noble Lord could
introduce, of getting rid of these practices which were
privately connived at, but publicly condemned. Now he
would ask any man in that House whether he thought that
system would last ; could it last at all events without
producing those effects, the Right Hon. Baronet himself
had pointed out in the speech which he (Mr. Ward) had
quoted. There were millions o eyes upon
this system, millions who were excluded from
it, because they told them that a property qualification
was the only criterion of fitness to exercise
the franchise. When they turned their attention to
those who possessed it—when they looked to the 101.
householder, and the 501. tenant-at-will, as a criterion
and example of that integrity, of that disinterestedness,
and patriotism, which a:property qualification was sup-
posed to secure, would they not say that the whole
tenantry of England were sunk in a state of almost
serfish submission to their landlords. Such was the
wholesale, open-faced, unblushing profligacy that pre-
vailed at the last election, that out of the returns for
England, Ireland, and Scotland, no less than
fifty-five were impeached by petition, - there
fifty-five petitions, affecting no less than seventy-eight
seats. Every Gentleman in that House knew f erfectly
well that a great many cases of wholesale corruption
escaped notice altogether' as there were not sufficiently
clear parties in the different places to petition
fur an inquiry. As he said there were fifty-five
petitions against seventy-seats, they must not forget
that in many of the Committees there were special Res.
ports. Now what did those special Reports say ? The
Southampton Committee, said James Bruce, Esq., com-
monly called Lord Bruce, and C. Martin; Esq., were by
their agents guilty of bribery at the election for the
borough of Southampton. From the evidence it appeared
thit gross treating and bribery had existed ; that the
sum expended was 5,000 L, far exceeding the legal
charges, and deserved the consideration of that House.
He found that in the case of Ipswich that Rigby
Wason, Esq., and George Rennie, • Esq., were by
their agents guilty of bribery at the last election for the
borough of Ipswich, the Committee also resolved unani-
mously that they should recommend to the House to
suspend the issuing of a new writ until the evidence
should have been taken into consideration by the House.
[LEFT SPEAKING.]