The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-27 00:00:00

IPSWICH ELECTION.

Mr. C. W. WYNN then moved that the Attorney-
General be directed to prosecute such persons as should
appear to him to be guilty of bribery, in respect of the
last election for the borough of Ipswich, and
for the town of Southampton. The Honourable
Member said, what he proposed was not in the
slightest degree connected with any Committee, nor
had he any wish to give one party au advantage above
the other. Both sides being parties, all parties in the
country were equally concerned. It was equally their
interest as well as their duty, to use every means in their
power to enforce the laws already enacted ; or, if
those were found deficient, to make such regulations
as would prevent bribery at elections. He had-made it
his business to look over the evidence taken before the
Ipswich Committee, and he was of opinion that
it afforded no grounds to take steps to destroy,
or suspend, or alter the elective franchise in that borough.
There was not sufficient to justify the House in bring-
ing in a Bill to take away the rights of those who
were not mingled with the bribery that took place,
though he was ready to support extreme measures, if it
was proved that the practice of bribery was so extensive
as to deprive the honest voters of all efficient power.
ORMSBY ENCLOSURE BILL CONFERENCE.
A Message from the House of Lords informed the
House that their Lordships had agreed to a Conference
on the amendments made by the House of Commons
on the Ormsby Inclosure Bill.
Sir G. CLERK, Mr. HUME, and other Members, were
appointed to manage the Conference, and withdrew fir
that purpose.
On the return of the Members of the Conference, Mr.
HUME informed the House that the Managers of the
Conference, on the part of the House of Commons, had
stated their reasons to the Managers of the House of
Lords for differing with their Lordships, and had left
the Bill and amendments with them.
IPSWICH ELECTION.

The debate ou the Ipswich case was then resumed, and
Mr. WYNN said that he had already stated to the
House the reasons which had induced him to
come to the conclusion, that in instances where
the existence of extensive bribery had been
proved they ought not •to allow it to be passed
over in silence. Ought those persons, either the bribers
or the bribed, to be suffered to go to another election?
Ought such disclosures to be attended with no conse-
Ouences to those who had been guilty of bribery ?
n reading the evidence in the Ipswich case, it must be
clear to every one that an extensive system of bri-
bery- had been carried on at the last. election.
There might, perhaps, in the event of a prosecution
being instituted, be some difficulty in bringing home the
offence to particular individuals, but no one could rise
from a perusal of that evidence without being convinced
that an extensive system of bribery had been carried on
both by one side and the other. The Commit-
tee had, by its very constitution, been precluded
from going into the evidence of the bribery, as
it affected the unsuccessful candidates. They must,
therefore, further inquire and further inves-
tigate : he was finite aware of the difficulties that must
attend a further investigation. The parties must consider
-what would be the probable result ; if they established it
on both sides, they might establish it to such an extent
that each party would equally suffer by it. The
punishment ought not to fall entirely on the
constituents, but on those who wsre guilty of the crime
of bribery. During the last 150 years the House had
passed repeated acts against bribery ; and, she act of
1829, Penalties were inflicted on the voters who tniSk bribes.
The House of Lords were now, for the first time, ready
to co-operate with them ; and he did think they
ought not to allow to pass unnoticed the pro-
ceedings which had been lately disclosed before the
Election Committees. He did not wish to point out any
particular course to the Attorney-General, but, it ap-
peared to him, that the house should not refrain
• altogether from interfering in the subject. With
rispect to' Ipswich, he did not think that the evi-
dence was of a nature. to connect the alleged bribery
with the late sitting Members ; and formatsufficient rea-
son why ulterior proceedings ought not to, be taken in this
case. The Right Hon. Gentleman went through diffe-
rent portions of the evidence, and said that as there was not
sufficient in it to induce the House to adopt ulterior
measures, he thought either that a supplemental inquiry
ought to be instituted, or that the Attorney-General, who
in this case outtlit to be lookel upon as the servant of the
House, should be directed to prosecute such persons as
appeared to be concerned In the bribery practised at the
late election for the borough of Ipswich. The motion
having been put, _ _

Sir-THOSIAS WILDE said that he found great
difficulty in addressing the House in opposition
to the proposition of so distinguished a person
as the Right Honourable Gentleman, but so
strongly did he feel the difficulties in the way of the
motion he had proposed, that, notwithstanding the hesi-
tation he had expressed, he should beg leave to obtrude
upon the House. The House stood before the coun-
try in a peculiar position, and it would be expedient
for i
the House not to forget the circumstances
in which t'was placed in adopting any course which
was proposed to it. He was not aware.that directions
were ever given to an Attorney-General in the
general terms now proposed ; and the Right Hon.
Gentleman himself, whose experience was so extensive,
allowed that the present form varied from that
generally adopted. He had heard it said in
the House, and he agreed in opinion, . that it
ought only to b., on very strong occasions, that
the House directed a prosecution, and, generally
speaking, it operated to the prejudice of the
defendant. But so far from that being the case
in the present instance, he believed, on the con-
trary, that if the prosecution were ordered by
the House, it would rather be advantageous
Some experience occurred, even before these decisions
took place, during the present session. The House, in a
former session, had dire-ted a prosecution in the case
of Hertford and St. Alban's. Whoever read the
evidence in those cases—the speeches of Coun-
sel, and the summing up of the Learned Judge—
would be satisfied that some peculiar circumstances, not
arising out of the evidence, must have led to the conclu-
sion in those cases. There was no doubt that, 'at the
present moment, there was a strong impression regarding
bribery, and that any prosecution unattended by some
general measure directed to the suppression of the evil
would be considered as a prosecution. not for the pur-
poses of justice, but to boast of the existing system. In
saying that, he could assure the House that no one felt
more decidedly than he did, that nothing but the desire
to maintain the honour of the House, had induced the
Right Honourable Gentleman to adopt the course he-
had done ; but while he made that statement he felt

. _
bound to ask whether any • Was t",'
any good from the adoption of the proposition .
bribery so limited, and supported by individuals Or
influence, that the conviction of one or two would do
lion
lion. Member could as
thing else but xeite sympathy for them on the sup%Lr,
that the prosecution had taken place, not for th_r_, ?
poses of justice, but to make show of hostility
First of all he was convinced that there
great difficulty in the propoition novvi:‘,o ma"'
1s
The Committee had pres.nted no im.."'hfch
with their names associated with certain evidence 1 0.
•
would enable the House to appreciate the certain:Qlg
conviction. What means had the Attorney-Get:t.l,,,
of calling them before him and examining them ;, Po:
agents could he employ ; or what means had head
I going into those quarters far information which 111 0
enable him to prosecute the inquiry with success
lie was Attorney-General, he had cause to make jug"ir the
of a 'similar ntittire, and when he came to silt ugh
evideece, he was satisfied there was not cri? the
to sustain the prosecution. He was convinced that'
Attorney-General would not have •tlie means of 0:10
inn the investigation which the Right Hen. Grutlemly
sired ; his proposition was too general to nn Li be
ergot,: ~ wit°
al effect. But even if the investigation cow'. _,
,ssfully, he would submit to the House,
made suet,. nth
be proper to direct such an inquiry thug it woula.
general measure been brut
moment, when rife
forward for the
thought that nothing multi more part ose of suppri sssing
tend to di Trivo,
the
.charactyr of that ,House Than the cent
at the Pre'
ligation of one particular rr:Se •hot
time.—(Hear, hear.) Any one who ,'"'d beenbeen
House during the present session, must .I'"ve , 0 iivoos
struck with the exhibition of certain feeling.
lintoPPO'3
which, if quoted, would by no means tem „rope'
the sincerity of that House if it adopted t. 10
sition before it.—(Hear, hear, hear.) What net
say,
pened ? Every Committee which had shor•ri
earnestness in
*prosecuting its inquiry had
charged with indulging in a vindictive krttp,o
and had been held np as objects rather of censure
_vto
of approbation.—(Hear, hear.) Every witness
.10
had avoided arswering questions which had rh,,,
put to him had been the object of syrnPa„,lo.i
Everything which had opposed an obstacle to an
had been hailed with cheers, and when an indi
he
had rendered himself obnoxious to censure t,
greatest anxiety was shown to save him from punish. ,c_ll,,
and a few hours imprisonment was considered matte :li,
He therefore trusted that the House would forbear he
rectiug any prosecution in a general form, "
also trusted the House would not direct any , rod,
sedition against individuals, until it had ad
some measure for setting itself right in the P this
mind, for showing its sincerity, by putting a stop t 1 the
monstrous evil. The remedy would be found, not in `O,
punishment of a few obscure individuals who had t:bo
mitted bribery, but in the disgwee of those Vor
furnished them with the means. (Cheers.) '0
reasons,pthreosseecutions.e e deemedconsidered
p
reseitt to order
as an at_,ll,beffila
moment for this country. He could not tut refine jai
the expression of a celebrated constitutional: writer,
the sign of the approaching ruin of this coi4itry root
be when the constituencies should be found to be mare co 'll-011
than the representatives; and Although he was desirous to
up to censure those who furnishd the means of bribery 'l4
,^ .
he could not but recollect that sod., had been the desire
nifested on the part of a large portion of the constituency .0
ceive bribes, that he could not come to any other confiesr,)
than that the constituency itself was most corrupt.—("
For these reasons he could not consent to the maim], ° ,
to.
considered that neither the public interest nor the cause 0"
Lice would be advanced by its adoption.--(Cheers..)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL wad not resist,.
poi
motion on the grounds propounded by his Pon. and Le rot
Friend. He could net agree with him in. thinkitn:FLO:
because brit ery had been extensively carried .on at the it
election, therefore the House ought to take no 'l's
down until some Legislative measure should have 'beer..Prif
for that purpose. He thought it would be eroeNolibt.
judged in the House to hold out the idea that persoolL' the
be permitted to bribe with impunity, by saying !ies'
House would not direct any prosecutions to be unitl' 'h
He admitted, however, that extensive bribery ha'44jte'
-‘
carried on at the last election, but he did not ~,010
with his Hon. and Learned Friend in opinion tht js
feeling of a majority of the Members of that House 'St"
favour of screer.ing those who had been guilty of corrupt nisi;
tices. They might be satisfied that there was no POI Ile"
was not deeply interested in putting down such a systeoof the'
could not, therefore, agree that the majority of Members „ice,
House were not anxious to take steps to put down to the Pre`seitli
The question was, what was the best course to atlopt ? „oil/
regard to the motion of his Right Hon. Friend Ise ccr if
felt very serious objections to it, and he doubted orucnal,6
would produce the effect he anticipated. The usual the
was this: if a case were made out by a Committee 700
/louse, and it were proved before that Committee that indis t to
had been guilty of bribery, the House, if satisfied o'ocic
charge, directed the Attorney-General to institute a Po'
tion against those individuals. His Right nl'
on. Friend p' 't
posed that the Attorney-General should read over the evh.i4i.•
before the Ipswich Committee, and if satisfied with it, to tP6e,
tute a prosecution, But he did not know how the Attorney'
neral could make such an investigation into this erid,era' Got
he might read it, and form his judgment on it, but he cow
send for witnesses, or take any steps fur proving the trustwer,t6
ness of the evidence. The consequence would be either dieco.
must neglect the order of the House, or institute a prof: ia
tion en evidence unworthy of credit ; and he considered 1 ps
injudicious course for the House to institute a prosectiUncoi
evidence that left a chance of the escape of the parties- veer
objections to the motion were—that it was contrary P' to
dent, and that the AttOrney-Generd would have no mean oey
discharge the duty which would be imposed uPot).'itl;
could not, therefore, accede to the motion of his lug..
piaetice
Friend, although he as strongly disapproved Of
A his tihriee;ds arouo°
bribery, and, although he, and he would .041-_-;,.,,ce for its sup'
himL,orwdo
jul.ditbue rsesazdyixto
thtlaietirhebest sot"
pression.
said
had fallen from the Hon. and Learnai! uch in what
appeared to him that if the House complied with ,the motion
the Right Hon.- Centleman opposite, they should .either e;
it to the Attorney-General CO out those cases irt
might think it advisable to prosecute parties, or they she° •,4et.
rect the Solicitor to the Treasury to make further ill(1°1
Now if they directed the Attorney-General to institute reft
ceedings against parties iu consequence of the evidence
before Election Committees, those prosecutions might be f'ore
dlodi ileei..torY2l en e t
Nhich
successful, as it was admitted that the evidence so givenablecil,rl;
the Committees could not in many cases be relied on. for
House might thus find its credit diminished by having et: vs
menced proceedings against parties which would have led tore
result. In the next place, it appeared to him that if they ore
to direct the Solicitor to the Treasury to determine wind pe.
the parties who should be prosecuted, such a course ow u
tog
liable to the objection that the party in'titu
the prosecutions might be suspected of partiality'arts.
asmuch as he was himself the partisan of a particular P„ ct)
Even without saying (and he did not feel inclined to '''aListi
that there would be any partiality in the exercise of that I,!";,fis
if it should be found that a prosecution was directed aga" • or
Liberal attorney or tradesman, and that a Tory attortielfhe.
tradesman had been left out, it was obvious that, though ti.
thing might be done by chance, there would be charges of Palo
ality, and that was sufficient ground that this power should no
be given. He did nut agree that that House should sttry
admit that there was any favour existing in it towards briree)
and corruption—that its Members were unfit persons to (Pet
a prosecution in any case where they had hitherto directed
prosecutions. If there were certain persons who st'Pc„scor
guilty of bribery, he was quite willing, as formerly, to v° be
their prosecution. There was much danger in letting At
er
seen that they were not willing to prosecute in such el'ota
There had been occasions in which that House had shown setsd
favour to parties examined before Election Committees. 00
would state one which struck him with surprise. flee
)Lord J. Russell) was in the House when thellin. and LOT.," 0.
Member for Woodstock (Mr. Thesiger) gave notice of 5„.70.3
tion respecting the case of a particular individual, a vil'-fed
have os
before an Election Committee, who was supposed to ha
fused to answer several questions put to him. The Chairl:3,es,',
of the Committee stated to the House that the Corme"'till
thought it desirable to have the witness retained in custoq u„
the following Monday (itbeing then Friday). Ile (Lord J. 001;14
sell) bad concluded that the House would agree, as was o'
in the opinion of the Committee thus expressed by their Cbs'l,,
man. The lion. and Learned Gentleman gave notice oi"1 to
occasion that he would move at the next sitting of the Ire j,
for the liberation of the witness. It occurred to him (Lord of
Russell) at the moment, to ask whether, by the neat sitting ,
the House the lien. and Learned Gentleman meant the 'Ohs '
day following, and he would have done so, but that he tlnoiliSej
he would be considered as suspecting the Hon. and Learo4
Gentleman of unfairness. However at a late hour of
night he (Lord John Russell) left the House, and he sail;
quently found that at one o'clock in the morning a motion, rot
agreed to that the House should adjourn to Saturday install,
Monday. The witness was accordingly ordered on Sator'',4'
to be liberated. Nothing he thought could be °"l,-0
grossly partial than such conduct.—( Hear. )If
(Lord J. tiussell) had been the Chairman of the Committer.
fie should have felt that the House was not prepared to supilloo
the Committee a7ainst any witness who had refused to g'
evidence against 17ribery. He thought his lion. and Lear'!°,o:,
Friend was justified in saying that there had been a disposil;;,,
in certain cases to screen witnesses who refused to give
dente.—(Cheers and counter-cheers.) He participated
the opinions of his Hen. and Learned Friend with regard tot„
bc
motion before the Hon e, and he agreed with him, and t`i-or
Solicitor-General likewise, in the hope that there was on be
sides a desire to put an end to bribery.—( Cheers.)
the•
Mr. TIIESIGER said he W4S astonished at the course -iv
differentist o l Lord
subjectilad pursued—(Cheery)—on uheede—r
s)(
jetritso)n—t
go ni
niga
theoti osnl uponntes at
tit notta.i ce;
debate
:maaLtdoeo
most irregular
advert
Oppositiontlnv h
itthe
echcleioeuertr
sosek— circumstancese
cfchcre.
iaesnsil;7o
no
ohn e
former Lo rd teheobuag: 0
only to the. House—(
f
thought satisfact •
witness who had been illegsllv detained in to
duct with regard to, the motion he made for the release 0,1•6
p
Lord not being in
No
oeOnnx:hpoi
The 1•
his place, and not having heard the expll.
tion which he gave, it was necessary, rather for the satisfact:j,
of the Noble Lord, and not for the House itself, to expiai°
course he pursued on that occasion. The Noble Lord was
taken in supposing that the Committee directed that (13",
witness was to be detained in prison until Monday. 14.
Committee
custody'ony directed that the witness should be eputle,,Tbe
to the of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and that it show",,
reported to the house that the witness had been guilty of oi
pressing certain &moments. he having been served by a iettrrt,-,.
to produce them; and not bringing them before the Committ,!y;
the matter was adjourned on the question respecting the leel
of the warrant, and he entertained a strong opini,:n on the sullee;
He therefore thought it his duty to come down to the 11°`;;
prepared with a notice for the release of the witness.—(ll:2.ol.
He asked whether the usual adjournment of the House 'rot
Friday till Monday was to be moved. and his Right Hon. FriSh
the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him it was; upon vr"
he (Mr. Thessiger) said, that it was his intention to prncie
that the House should meet on Saturday. He intended t°o
so when the House was full, but his Right Hon. Friend tO,
hire not to move the adjournment at that time, as it would `he
terfere with a question he was anxious to bring before kv„i
(hi ite4:oguuas
Loud
OnTpopthioaestei
twi
otaons etchrheeer:yersaiF
omofbf Member
s'enidnethf
intention
toahfne tdmh e°h ti 14,1";
Friend the Member for Cirencester, told Many Members °n tbfit
hNot
ttillull:beirr:.osiztididioearhtydah.
having
jontoolingtutih,
lebreasni-etnaNmeandsntnoenbohtngglifitiesihuiutiilloinli
Itfardytattdeteieirrwiortpettinoalootulrnenhsil
sdduoeetdreuohre.aeh.otioivra_p,mte;dbtioewm:,esoafeeosntlrhsdlagieilyn:
therefore,
eentr b
rhfdeban. ;roia_tjenu
sno;idcuiti
:rout,
c.
eiretsasiueLjterg:ti:,
this opportunity
events, have
nimwioaeotrvdtdi
oi moving
hght t'uvb semet toaht
taken
hi:a, but would, at all veofat pianatis
makingtended thins charge
hich he had to gite of his conduct, and which he misfit
received from Hon. Members on that side of the Hence`e.
( Hear, hear.) He had not intended to, make any' observatl;,
on the motion before the House, but having been called I,l','t
by the Noble Lord, he must confess that • it
struck bins
would be very inconvenient Indeed for the House to direct r

11.
tior
/nog
'erg
s})e

'llO7
for a
adj,
he

50......
*djo
the I
Cori

c,
Aatl
• after
Sider

Npr
Ivith

Case.
the
Leen
Prop,
to ate
'to in,
linen

riot on

case, ),
URI an

:t,
att.
,c 64
tbi

gorli
ce
:out*
sUr

the-
JM
ice.
fit

• eaeedings in the form suggested by his Right Hon. Friend.
R had a very great objection to the House directing prosecu-
lions at all, believing that it was not strictly a Constitutional
.Motle of Proceeding, and that it sent parties to their trial with a
'err considerable weight of prejudice against them. At least,
14' lbsonght there should be the clearest possible evidence that
'the
.parties, if sent to take their trial, would be convicted by
Iti•e Jury.
• Lord J. A USSELL said his complaint was, not that the
14°,1- gentleman did not tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer,
er any oilier individual, that it was his intention to oppose the
• he
Suu did not rnment of the House, but what he complained of was, that
publicly announce it to the House. If he bad done
„,s2"—Cif he had stated that it was his intention to oppose the
the to Monda he, for one, should have stayed till
'ae Motion had been made, in order to have supported the mo-
ll"of her Majesty's Ministers.
Ore- NAPIER said that he supported the adjournment to
and moved, that the individual should be released,
the had heard the opinion of the Attorney-General, con-
ern eitfc it most to imprison an Englishman improperly.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL differed from his Learned
Friend the Member for Wo .dstock in his motion for the ad-
..itairnment to Saturday He also differed with the Gallant ()di-
me'', because he did not. think it right, without due notice, and
ae deliberation, that a vote of the House should be set at nought.
tipied trusted that the Noble Lord and the House would feel sa-
With the explanation which his Hon. and Learned Friend
had OW
for the third time given. He (the Attorney-General)
a7at'tel that his Hon. and Learned Friend had had no inten-
moo in the slightest degree to abstain from giving notice, and
,11.4,t be had, as far es he had the power of so doing, given notice
ais intention. He entirely concurred in all that had fallen
--es°e'n the I.earned Solicitor-General, and also much_ that had
iuen . from his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite, as to the
?Propriety of the present motioncould not concur
with
him in the view which he had taken of the St. Alban's
Liteease- From his Learned Friend's remarks it would appear that
prosecution at Hertford had failed because the Jury
.had
)rotpeurrimmaitiii.vdefu.l ofHteheir duty, and had been influenced by lin-
tot_o
isratapteattleistiametly (the Attorney-General) thought it right
i
and explicitly that he did not think it right
naeineed any person serving on that Jury that he was in-
hY anything but a desire tdischarge his duty honestly
:nt• constitutionally. Believing, sohe did, that there were
for t:nat prosecution, he could not forget that one of
sel,,-,..aess'is was proved to have been confined in a lunatic
forwi.thin the previous twelvemonth, and that another was
tice-eu t° admit that he was commonly called by a name indica-
" 'oils utter want of veracity.—( Hear.) Those circum-
eer7eta had been dwelt on by the Learned Counsel for the de-
h, 4 in his able and animated address to the Jury, in which,
swever, that Learned Gentleman had indulged in certain re-
'''ariss of Which he (the Attorney-General) could not approre,
Zill!'d be (the Attorney-General) thought that no one had any
a to express surprise at their verdict.—(Cheers,) That
Jt`se Was no more the place for commenting on the verdict of
nrY, than fur calling in question the direction of aJudge.—
iiieend cheers.) With respect to the immediate question before
fiuse, although he ould at al times willingl
" the orders of the House, wet he thou all times willingly
orders of the House, yet lie thought that b the rey
-
:lnt motion too great a degree of responsibilit!y wouldp be
I,"°ked upon the Attorney-General. It would 'oe devolving,
tit.on the A ttorney- General that discretion antrieekstrient which
in " 1-1 e alone ought to exercise. It wrsuld be placing him
the situation of the House of Commoets, to call upon him to
(Leckie who should and who should not:0,
hear )
his e would never shrink fr.
prosecuted.—(Hear,
dm the honest discharge of
duty both to the House ano. to the public justice. of see
eof'sntrY, but he must protest a' senst being placed in a situation
whincitauch power and respon Ability, power to the exercise of
a it would be so easy t attribute corrupt motives. treat
tZe?,l H
,lase a
_ .yenience arose in the case of Swan, who was named by
t"e cue,
• for prosectstiose When the Report was made on
• it was doubtful whether there was sufficientmaterial
in it for
•btained clasessPbms:fec,
,ion, and it was upon information
doubted that Swan was tried.—(Hear.) He
had teli,tbe "ireseriety of this course, and if the House
ahould sit g at the time the prosecution was going on,
.he
to is ,neetr-ainly have come down and made a communication
jalblic " -11. case. It was extremely undesirable to cast upon a
Hu u
es; •4P.cer associated with the Government, the selection of
es -dals for prosecution, with respect to matters with which
ZLI feeling was so much mixed up. If his Right Hon.
d would bring a case before the House in which htibery
siLtalid be clearly proved, he thought the House, notwithstand-
n the observations of the Hon. Member for Worcester, would
7 .stal,tute a Prasecution. But it being a case without evidence,
kith a
the sanction of constitutional practice, and where the
~,,i7iltste Must give to a piablic officer the discretion and judgment
cn uu.glit to belong to the House alone, he trusted his Right
night
would not persist in his motis,n, but withdraw it,
thanresent it another time, when he should have selected
47.4., cases only in which there was not merely a tolerable,
Al_ee,r_t!ti prospect of bringing the charge home to the parties.
me got UNCOMBE said that it seemed to be admitted by
ei.„t• and Learned Gentleman that there was not a suffi-
terlY clear case made out imainst any individual with regard
Thswiebe Now he (Mr, Buncombe) should say that even
hough a clear case could 'be made out, he would not be pre-
oedu to support the 'motion, for he entirely agreed with the
~hi.andtearned -Gentleman the Member for Worcester in
lie Z.lngt.,hat the' House did not stand sufficiently high in pub-
Puldieittim- —was not in sufficiently good odour with the
br'sof o tniable them to institute a prosecution upon a charge
had ~,lery With any prospect of success. Let them look to what
the A g place on a former occasion. During the last session
.ttorney-General was directed, on the motion of the Right
te.
."" Gentleman, to prosecute Dr. Webster for having at-
Pted ros to
uted briwasbe
acquitted a certain elonector
that occasion, to the satis at St. Alban's. The partfac-
y
tec
,'" of the public. That was the result of the Right Honourable
entleman's motion, showing that this sort of proceeding, when
Instituted by that House, was perfectly useless. It was not by
"eh proceedings that they could obtain for that House the
respect of the public. He believed there was no remedy for
the evil but a remodelling of the whole frame-work of that
liouse, anti a considerable extension of the class of electors ley
',whom that' House was returned. If the motion was pressed to
at division, he should vote against the Right lion. Gentleman,
• not only upon the ground that he had not made out a sufficient
case, 'Jut because he thought the proceedings would be impel:-
tial 'and unjust.
'Mr. DARRY said that his Right Hon. Friend had not ad-
rinitted, as the Hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose, that there
had not been a strong case made out before the Election
Committees of bribery to a great extent, although in many
individual cases the charge could not perhaps be
maintained.
Vith respect to a case for prosecution, although if any person
iv/tikes' through the evidence given before the Committee, they
Would lind it most conclusive, yet it would be difficult for the
""'ney• General to found a prosecution upon it.
„Mr. SAIYTHE said that the Hon. Member for Finsbury
'entered'° . Duncombe) had talked of a corrupt compromise being into in the cases of Canterbury and St. Alban's. As for
I,"altalsself ( Mr. Smythe), he could state that he was cognizant in no
100,,Ibi° way of a compromise taking place, and he never was
Lion isurprised than when, on the morning on which the peti-
-141 itainat his return was to be proceeded with, he learned
eutber ocution of that petition was abandoned. The Hon.
'eoPt Pinsbury had no more right to accuse him of cor-
tee,V,,,ettees, than he (Mr. S.) had to charge that Pson.
—nar' with corrupt practices in the borough of Finsbury.
tlhaots the said, that in Canterbury end St.
'act iney settled their accounts as well as they could; the
whites however, that at deal of bribery took place
that hewas not known at all.—( Hear, hear. ) 13 e was sorry
title". could not support the motion of the Ris'at Hon. vans
so so jthe public were thoroughly aware ti at there never
last The
uch corruption and bribery at arty election as at the
4resoslne Attorney General said he was knxious to find out
ties
for bribery. Now, what was the great impediment
ties insent te the investigation of b ribery ? 'The refusal of par-
siteionl— criminate themselves. Was it not possible for the
trho ,LeY-General to bring in a Bill tf.)
,ledemnify all witnesses
.give evidence of bribery ?—(Hear, hear.) Tbe
wrlsiehlltthuent were quite strong
.ee,dugh to carry any measure
f0r%%14 Y might propose ; and 4.ne public would not give them
theisive desiring to supprce4 bribery, unless they took some
nerateP• Many persons of high rank were guilty of
*hrd' a"d it was imrsissible but that many of those who
ell t" hint were. Involved in it. Let them get a Bill
~utitrv"„"ll, used' cats the proof of bribery, anti then the
'eted f.'", Lu D'.,tieve them to be seriously disposed in finding a
a'(l"Lit ; hut until that was done it would be hard to
ue.t;ublic that that by which it was believed an ohver-
Was trio tuajority was returned to that House—.( Oh, o )--
tr,l'at is The object of their care. He had heard it calculated
~.‘"%fises I;'"'t a million and a half.—(oh, oh !) Give him a
the to inquire into it, and he would prove it. Such
Thee 'e
(extent -of bribery, that the House was now called
.a
her
r instead of a House of Commons. But
.if
°ere lin, en's svere'thrown in their way in the discovery of bri-
:'eiltsl° Public' would not credit their prefeeeions, and it was
lateeslPuscd that those who were not tinged with bribery
`'f it, e v.Pk'ssere ready enough to avail themselves of the Tess
halle He believed the Attorney-General would act inapar-
who"' • but there was no use in prosecuting the poor wretches
theNtet.,eived . bribes, 'while the greater miscreants who gave
r'entaintel unpunished.—(llear, hear.)
t!ie H. PEEL said it was a dangerous doctrine to hold that
s
tiese- 'woe received bribes ought not to be punished. He
IR,-Rat that some two or three public prosecutions would have
The effect on the constituencies in general.—( Hear, hear. )
tr question was not without its difficulties on each side ; the
Nee
stroll ot of the illegality of the prosecutions. weighedi
Issy LI with him, and he should decidedly object to the 'tree-
arouro,PPing up defective evidence by other testiMony. lit
• rase be unfortunate if the result of the inquiry shouli
etant „
eress.-- see weakness of the law, and of the power of the
94te in Punish cases of this kind. On the whole, he thought
result of the arguments was in favour of abstaining from
WithP:°_,seetition.
.11e believed, the House could not be charged
iitesire to shield bribery. But he should be exceedingly
thaw, an impression went forth among. the constituent body,
,iiesi
„1 ss 'souse was unwilling to prosecnte in clear cases of bribery.
ire t -;e4ht it would be very unfortunate if the House abstained,
ia
theleroseeusinga clear case of bribery, because the party was.
tO He thought it a dangerous doctrine to say that parties
t, w life were exempted, because the bribes w.ere given by par-
ila. in high 'life In the case of the Ipswich
.e ection, thief
:latittlitidi-n which unseated the Members was unanimous, and .
.tnt -therefore be said that the Committee were 71.
%1 .bY party. He thought in all instances the Commit-
lirss7 'bair
n astrong desire to investigate charges of bribery.
Jew words from Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, which
iatudible in the gallery,
11°ust' HUME said there was not a single individual in that
t e
Br denied denied that bribery had existed at the last election.
bee: rely believed that a sufficient number of Members had
I,lok,,leturrid b bribery to turn the resent majority.
Par
'iae4ss",t motionought to be made to dissolvethe present
.atee, "k's and to give the electors an opportunity of
. making
-"ill "Linke of representatives, Parliament first having passed a
hltiV‘beh would make bribery impossible.
kno,v"COTT, alter some remarks on the speech of Mr.
why
were indistinctly heard, said he 'wished to
Pro:a,,WnY the Hon Member for Montgomery (Mr. Wynn).
-ill; the present motion, had not done so with a view to
uiltee"g
ss those 'individuals, who might have
.been proved
6,;" giving or receiving bribes at the last elections for those
'ad
Port • ,hi'" s6ughs of Ipswich and Southampton. If the motion
'Ppe,e it, 'o
framed ' 't would have received his (Mr. Fscott's)
f tamed as it was' general a manner, he must
in so
slr
be ERNAL was afraid that a great many of the mem-
ths-rn°' the constitutent body of this country were not alive to
Need oral obligation which the franchise imposed. Until they
tindle in the minds and consciences of the constituent
bodies
all their ." feeling of the secredness of the trust reposed in them,
efforts would be unavailing to check the evil. It was
ailson_te make propositions regarding bribery, if they did not
thq t,'fle Proper means of suppressine it. Every person knew
cie, voter expected something. sa efloc`;a7ol served yen, and you must serve me." Was it bays
ys to the Mi:mb.er—
Pree,n they were to remedy the evil ? The dangerw
key% leg•
and they should meet it, and not suffer the. evil to
e,h., seeh strength as would prevent them from applying any
II WAKLEYsatd, he did not think it fair the Hon.
or7.°Lr oppos of its (Mr. Escott) to attack the motives of his
rrieed the Member for Montrose, and attributing to him
Itirse_ to bring the 'House into disrepute. The labours of his
the eoth,nFriend were entirely unnecessary for that purpose, for
ijogueould now disabuse the public mind of the belief that
kihs se was foully and corruptly constituted.—(Cheers.)
st",,, recent proceedings 'before the Election Committees
gr,,a4tted the public in entertaining these opinions. He heard a
was
4,)deal had teen said reg,rding bribery, but nothing
tes„ ne to suppress it. Was not the foundation of the bri-
4.4..iitzt.,eorruption that had taken place to be traced to the
kr-484 Wai It began wills money. The representative of a 2.41 to have so niuCh money, and the money

was still greater for the representation of a county. The voter
was to have 10/. a year; and as long ss that system was con-
tinued, bribery and intimidation would take place. It was a
mockery to pretend to dislike these, while the law from which
they spring was maintained. Unless they gave the people the
Suffrage, and the Vote by Ballot, the evil would still con-
tinue, and all their efforts would be regarded as a delusion by
the pcople.—( Hear.)
Mr. ESCOTT explained.
Sir R. INGLIS said, that any person who had listened to
the Hon. Member for Finsbury, would imagine they were dis-
cussing the Reform Bill—that measure which was to rain upon
them so many blessings, and was to turn England into an
Utopia. He had been induced to rise in erinsequence of the
speech of his Friend, the Hon. Member for Weymouth. In
much of that speech he concurred ; lie had given them mate-
' rials fur thinking, but not for acting, and he had said
little that had connexion with the motion before the
House. He concurred with him that bribery was a sin,
but it must be first decided what bribery was. His defini-
tion of bribery was, that it was something that induced him to
vote against his conscience, whether he was a representative or
an elector. He was most anxious to see men give their votes
with a due regard to tioil and man, but the question was, bow
was so desirable an object to be effected. On the whole, he
did not see any reason for concurring in the motion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Montgomery.
Mr. WYNN would not press the motion against what
appeared to him to be the general opinion of the House.
In his opinion it would be anomalous to pass a law now
against bribery if they did not show a disposition to enforce
the existing law upon the subject : and the only way to en-
force any law was to proceed against the inlividuals who vio-
lated it. He should be most happy to join in any measure
that would tend to check this pracsice. In bribery a man
might receive as much money for voting according to his con-
science as for voting against it. He doubted whether he should
proceed with his motion with respect to the other cases.
Motion withdrawn.
NEW WRIT FOR IPSWICH.

' Colonel RUSHBROOKE moved that a new writ be issued
for the borough of Ipswich. -
Mr. HUME had hoped that the Hon. and Gallant Member,
after the proofs which had been given of bribery, would have
waled till they had a chance of obtaining a better state of
the law. The Committee on the Ipswich petition stated in
their Report that the sitting Atembers were not duly electi•d;
that they had, by their agents, been guilty of bribery ; and that
the writ for the borough of Ipswich ought to be suspended until
the evidence had received the consideration of the House.
The three last elections had clearly proved the corrupt state of
the borough. In fourteen days or three weeks they would
have the Report of the Committee moved for by the Hon. and
Learned .51etriber for Rath ;' he thought they should, at least,
not issue the writ until that Report had been made. The Hon.
Member concluded by moving that the debate be adjourned to
that day month.

Sir R. PEEL said be did not see sufficient ground for
refusing to issal the writ. It would be a very bad ,--ccedent
he thought, to refuse to issue any writ because
Ho'nourable
Member had given n..tice of a Bill
.
In the case of Ipswich he cert-• ..In respect to bribery:
stances which would justitc .-.nty saw 09 peculiar circum-
Lord JOHN TttT, a gm/Pen-mutt.
...,6ELL had thy great doubt whether in
this case it 7.And be tight to suspend the writ. Upon the
same g"...nd whith existed in this case it would be right to
511"'...nd tiat itlit in every case of a similar kind.
CA3ULLER said he could not understand the conduct
of the Right Hon. Baronet in reference to the issuing of
this writ. The borough had been convicted of gross bribery,
and the House ought at once to declare that it would not
issue the writ until a searching inquiry had taken place into
all the eircemstrnces connected with the election.

1 Mr, WAKLEY said he believed there was sufficient evi-
dence before the House to justify them in suspending the writ
permamently ; and he could not understand therefore, what
objection the Right Hon. Baronet could have to suspend it for a
single month.—( Hear, hear.) He sincerely hoped that the
Right Hon. Baronet would see the propriety of suspending the
writ for the time proposed by the motion 1,1 his Hon. Friend.
It was absolutely necessary that some effectu:l remedy should
be adopted for the gross corruption which was practised at
elections, and was destroying the character of their legislation.
Sir R. INGLIS thought that Hon. Members opposite were
then endeavouring to do that by a side wind which they did not
dare to do directly. Three weeks had been allowed to elapse
since the Report of the Committee was made, and no one had
thought of moving for the disfranchisement of the borough.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the observation of the Right Hon.
Baronet with respect to time, appeared to him to deserve very
little weight. 'fhe subject then under the consideration
of the House, and they had to consider in what way they should
shape their measures. They were fully justified, therefore, in
considering what had taken place, notwithstanding the time
which had elapsed since the Report of the Committee was made.
All that he asked was that the house should take into considera-
tion the evidence given before the Committee, so as to frame a
legislative measure fer the prevention of bribery in future. He
believed that the wisest course to pursue would be
to do what the Committee desired, namely, to con-
sider the question thoroughly, and suspend their judgment
till they had framed some legislative measure on the subject,
and then, and not till then, to issue the writ.
Mr. HRISTIE would most cordially support the amend-
ment of the Hon. Member for Montrose.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the question was on what ground the House should interfere
to prevent a place, having the privilege of sending a represen-
tative to Parliament, from continuing to exercise that privilege.
He certainly could not agree with the Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath on this subject, who thought that because
there were suspicions of corrupt;on generally entertained with
respect to various boroughs, therefore they should withhold
the right of representation in one particular instance.
He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought that it would
be establishing a dangerous precedent, if they adopted the
course recommended by the Mon. ,Member for Montrose; and
he should, therefore, vote against it.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that there was a clearer ground
for continuing the suspension of the writ in the present in-
stance. Ipswich was now convicted of extensive bribery (that
was the word), and not for the first time; cases of bribery La.(
been proved against the constituency of that borough within
his own recollection. He would to-morrow, if no other Ilen.
Member would do so, move for a Committee to,inquire whether
the corruption had been so general in this borough as had been
alleged.

After a few words from Mr. DARBY,
Mr. AGLIONBY said that his reason for voting for the
suspension of the writ was his detestation of bribery, and his
determination to put it down if possible. The present was the
first opportunity he had, except on the occasion of the motion
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, of expressing his
opinions on the subject. He thought the expressions
of the only Member of the Committee present, bore
him out in his opinion. The Committee having re-
ported that extensive bribery had prevailed, he thought
that a case for inquiry was made out. They were•
treading en dangerous ground, and trifling with the feel-
of the public on the subject. He was of opinion that the
borough ought not to be disfranchised, but he thought a case
for further inquiry was made out.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped
the Right Hon. Baronet would lend his assistance for the pur-
pose of suppressing bribery.
Lord STANLEY said, that as the Hon. Gentleman stated
he did not know but that two Members favourable to his side
of the House would be returned for the bor.,ugh of Ipswich,
and took credit to himself for his impartiality in desiring
the suspension of the writ on that account, his
(Lord Stanley's) side of the House ought to be considered
equally impartial in moving for the writ.—(Cheers.) He did not
see any sufficient grounds for suspending the writ. It had been
already suspended a month, and a motion was now made for a
further suspension. He thought that the Hon. and Learned
Member for 'Bath, when he made his motion, ought to have
included Ipswich, as be now contended the writ ought to
be suspended.
Mr. ROEBUCK—The case was not reported to the House.
Lord STANLEY—It was not, but the Committee reported
that extensive bribery had prevailed ; and by the addition
which the Hon. and Learned Member made to his motion, he
included boroughs which were guilty of bribery.—( Hear. )
Why did not the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who acted as
inquisitor-general, and who certainly acted with fairness to-
wards all parties, include the borough of Ip3wich ? The other
suspected boroughs enjoyed the benefit of representation,
and he did not see why the borough of Ipswich should not pos-
sess the same advantage, It was not contended that, because
Southampton, Nottingham, Lewes, and Reading, were under
suspicion, they were not to have the benefit of representatives.
These boroughs were to be considered innocent till they had
been convicted ; and why was it proposed to take a different
course with regard to Ipswich. Unless they were to reverse
all principles of English law and justice, by punishing before
conviction, he did not think they would be justified in sus-
pending the writ.
Mr. HAWES thought there was no difference between the
present case and that of Nottingham. In the case of tie
latter, a special inquiry was appointed on the statement of
an Hon.e Member of that House. In the former case, the
borough was twice convicted, and the Committee who tried the
last petition, reported that extensive bribery had been practised,
and yet, in his case, they refused to suspend the writ. Where
was the consistency of granting inquiry in one case, and refusing
it in the other? There was no injustice in suspending the writ,
because, if Ipswich were deprived of representatives, it was the
act of the electors themselves.—( Hear, hear. )
Mr. H. HINDE, who spoke amidst loud cries of " Divide,
divide," supported the motion for the issuing of the writ.
Sir T. , WILDE said that, if the borough of Ipswich had a
right to be represented, the country also had a right that Mem-
bers should not be in that House owing to corrupt means.—
( Hear, hear.) The grounds for suspending the writ in the
present instance were not slight, and it was proposed that it
should he suspended until the House ascertained whether
it ought to be issued at all.—(llear, hear, hear. )
If that inquiry were prolonged for an indefinite period, was
that any reason why it should not take place at all ? Now,
what were the grounds? The House had thought it right to grant
a Committee for the purpose of inquiry into certain corrupt
compromiset which had been entered into for the purpose of
preventing inquiry into bribery. That Committee was granted
upon the statement of an Hon. Member. It was said those
places were not without Members. That was true ; but the
House had done nothing to give them Members. The House
had riot acted. In the case of Nottingham they were com-
pelled to act, and they had suspended the writ. So far as the
cases were analogous at all, that would justify the suspension
of the writ. When in the case of Nottingham they had re-
fused to issue the writ, was the present case, he would ask, dif-
ferent from that? In what state. would the House stand with
the country, when it suspended a writ upon the suspicion of an
Hon. Member, but would not do it upon theißeport of a Com-
mittee ?—( Hear, hear.) The Report of that Committee was,
that they were satisfied that extensive bribery had taken place.
They had not stated the extent of the bribery, and if, there-
fore, the House was sincere in wishing to know the extent of it
they would refuse to issue the writ. Would it be decent to issue
a writ to a constituency, whom a Committee of the House of
Commons had found to be guilty of bribery? It had been said
why was not a motion made on the subject before ? To that
question he would answer, was the country to be injured be-
cause the House had neglected its duty?—(Hear, hear.) - If
it had done so, let it perform it now. If any Honourable
Member had neglected his duty, was that any reason
why a corrupt constituency should return Members to
Parliament ?—(Hear, hear.) A tribunal of that House had re-
ported that bribery had prevailed, and in the face of that was it
to be said that the House would issue its writ? The Report of
that Committee was a constitutional ground for staying the writ,
and he trusted, therefore, that the House would adopt the pro-
position of the Hon Member for Montrose.

Mr. REDHEAD YORKE rose to address the House, and
was met with cries of " Question, question," and " Divide,
divide." He said he rose to address the House, and was inter-
rupted.--(Laughter.) He represented a large constituency,
and was entitled to be heard.—(Laughter.) He insisted upon
justice, and if the House would not deal it out to him he could
assure Hon. Members that they should be visited with some
tedious specimens of his oratorical powers.—( Great laughter.)
He threw upon the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the
Government the whole of the odium of this discussion, because
in October last he stated that bribery existed in the country to
a most enormous and odious extent, and that it was the duty
of the House to institute an inquiry with respect to it. Was
the Right Hon. Baronet in earnest when he stated that, or
not ? He thought, at first, that he was • but he doubted it
extremely after the statements he had made that night. He
(Mr. Y.) believed the House to be generally tainted, and he
entertained that belief upon the faith of the statements of the
Right Hon. Baronet; and strong as he was in_political power,
after the statement he bad made in October last, if he was not
the respectable man he (Mr. Y.) knew him to be—(Laughter)

. .
—he shou'd say that he had acted most disgracefully— (Cries
of " Order, order")—rnost disgracefully in not taking an ex-
tensive Radical initiative upon a point that affected the morality
and demoralization of the peeple.—( Laughter.)
Mr FERRAND rose amid cries of ". Question,- quest'on,"
and " Dlvide, divide." All he would say was, that a rumour
was abroad that the Hon. Member who had just sat down
had spent many thousands of pounds in corrupting the worthy
electors of the city of York.--( Great laughter.)
Mr. R. YORKE was religiously in earnest—( Great
laughter)—he was sorry that a religious allusion should cause
laughter in the House—he was religiously in earnest in his
desire to purify the abominations of that House—(Great
,laughter)—and he could assure Hon. Members, if the circum-
stances connected with the election for the city Of York, w he.
ther with reference to himself or his col'eague, should be made
the subject of investigation, he would lend the House every
possible assistance in his power ; and if, for the purposes of pu-
rity, which that House much wanted, he could have a guiren-
tee that that purification could be affected, he would apply for
the Chiltern Hundreds to-morrow.—( Great laughter, and cries
of " Question.")
Mr. W. WYNN did not think the House would do its
duty in suspending the writ unless it' had some ulterior mes-
sure in view.

Colonel RUSHRROOKE replint. •
Strangers were then et-dere-A to withdraw, and the Ilouse
divided. The nuttibers

For the peitponement
Against it ...
Majority against the pestpenement --19
On the Gallery being re-opened,
Mr. O'CONNELL was addressing the House on the question
that the writ do issue. He begged to call the attcn-
tien 'of the House to the Report of the Ctimmittee
appointed to try the .petition from the herottgh of Ipswich.
'I hey had before them a distinct Report that extensive bribery
had been committed; and was not that a prima facic case for
au inquiry ? He would not repeat what had already been so
strongly urged on this subject. in reference to the Nottingham
petition; but the Hon. Member for Bath had proeored his
Committee on mere surmise, est these Statements. He stood
before the House to ttk for a Committee, supported by the
decision of seven of its Members, sworn to investigate
the 131.1blect.—( Hear, hear.) He did, therefore, respect-
fully call upon the House to follow up that inquiry.
lii forming this Committee, they would helve the advantage of
the one they had already appointed I no seven individuals
would be so fit to conduct the investigation as those who formed
the Committee, slid those Who Were added to their number
would have the advantage of their huoitietlge. It might be
said that this motion might to have been made sooner, but all
he regretted Petty that it had fallen into his hands at
all. It Wee kit a brief period since the paper had
been ittilea, and was that a reason for refusing that
Committee ? if the House decided against the inquiry,
w0i11.,(1....ne public believe that they were anxious for investiga-
tion? They would consider their declarations as mere asser-
tions. He was anxious to see Their Words followed up by deeds.
He wished the Report of that Committee to be read by the
;,t the table, and concluded by moving that a Committee
be aprpointed to investigate the bribery that had taken place at
the glee ion forNswich.
The Report having been read,
Lord SEYMOUR said the question before the House was,
whether they should inquire or not into the existence of
bribery, and whether a writ should be issued ? They had heard
the Right Hon. Baronet say he was anxious to put an end) ot
bribery. Why then would be not inquire, and take this oppor-
tunity of putting an end to the practice ? He believed that it
was no advantage to any party in the House, and he should like
to see an inquiry, in order that it might be suppressed. He
should like to see the Right Hon. Baronet, instead of making
long speeches on the subject, agreeing to the inquiry—agreeing
to let them know how far this bribery had extended. The
public would not otherwise believe he was in earnest, and he
wished to see whether the Right Hon. Baronet would assist
this side of the House in putting an end to such practices.
Sir R. H. INGLIS did not know where the Noble Lord had
been for the last two or three hours. He could not have been
listening to the debate, or the last complaint he would have
made would have been that her Majesty's Ministers had been
silent on this question. Cabinet Minister after Cabinet Mi-
nister had risen to give their opinion on the subject. Notwith-
stancine all that had been-urged against the motion by the Noble
Ldrd, he was prepared to divide against him, and in doing so he
Would have the concurrence of some of those who cheered the
observation. The Hon. and Learned. Gentleman laid great
stress upon the fact, that the Committee was a sworn Com-
mittee; yet he now wished to refer the matter froin the deci-
sion of the seven sworn Members, to eleven who were not
sworn—to the evidence of witnesses not sworn—to a Com-
mittee that had not even the power to compel the attendance
of witnesses. Under what circumstances did the case come
before them. On the 23d of April the Report was made ;
On that day the House sat. On that day the Hon. Member
for Durham made a motion that a writ be issued. A motion
was made on the opposite side of the House that the writ should
not be issued until the sixth of the next month. That motion
and the amendment were withdrawn, and the question was left
an open question for the House to take up. With all submis-
sion to that House, and respect for a great majority of them, he
still felt that the House was not a competent tribunal to inves-
tigate
this case.
Mr. C. WOOD said no one could accuse the Hon. Baronet
of inconsistency, but it surpassed his comprehension to dis-
cover how any person who assented to the appointment of a
Committee to inquire into bribery—how they could assent to
the suspension of the writ of Nottingham, on the
ground that a Committee was to be appointed;
he said it passed his comprehension how these
gentlemen could resist that inquiry, and resisting that inquiry
urge the issuing the writ for Nottingham. Bribery had been
alleged at Ipswich and Nottingham; so faras they knew, except
from rumour, the Hon: Gentleman had no knowledge that
bribery had taken place at Nottingham. They had the report
of the Election Committee that bribery had prevailed at Ips-
wich, and, on the strength of rumour, the House had appointed
a Committee to inquire into the existence of bribery at Not-
tingham, and he asked how could they ,refuse to appoint a Com-
mittee to inquire into bribery at Ipswich, which was known to
exist, by a Report of their own Committee ? With respect to
the motion of the Hon. Member for Berkshire, he
admitted they might. support consistently that motion.
But he asked whether her Majesty's Government was
consistent in refusing a Committee to inquire into alleged
bribery at Nottingham upon the unsupported assertion of one
Member ? If they had the slightest regard to the character ot
that house—if they were to act on an intelligible rule which thg
people could understand—it seemed to him to be perfectly im-
possible for them to do so. It might be well to say the Govern-
ment would- support any reasonable Bill that might be
brought forward, if they were not prepared to take the
first step to inquire into the bribery, and upon that to found a
measure. That would be an intelligible course, but he would
say that anything more grossly inconsistent than the course
proposed was never submitted to that House.
Sir R. PEEL said, the other night he gave his vote for the
inquiry moved for by the lion. Member for Bath, as he wished
to give all the assistance in his power for the purpose of for-
warding the object of the Hon. Gentleman, and he voted for
the suspension of the writ ix the case of Nottingham on those
grounds. The Hon. Member charged certain Members of
that House with what he called corrupt compromises, for the
purpose of avoiding an inquiry into bribery. He stated that he was
enabled to establish certain facts, and he would prove them to the
House if a Committee of Inquiry were granted. It was need-
less to refer to the four other cases, which were included in
that motion. The lion. Gentleman stated that a bond had
passed in the case of Nottingham, and that money had been
given in that case that no opposition should be offered in the
event of the sitting Member vacating his scat, and a new election
had. The Hon. and Learned Member stated that this motion
did net rest upon his unsupported, assertion, but that there
were facts in corroboration, as the Committee had declared
that the election of the sitting Member was not void, but that
he was entitled to the election. Yet, notwithstanding the
Report ,of that Committee, affirming the election to be a good
one, one of the Members accepted the Chiltern Hundreds, and
vacated his seat. Under these circumstances the House
assented to appoint a Committee, and he (Sir R. Peel)
gave his vote in favour of the suspension of a writ issued under
these circumstances. The Committee having stated that the
election was a good one, the seat was vacated next day. He
( Sir R. Peel) therefore thought that these facts were strongly
confirmatory of the charge of the Hon: and Learned Gentle-
man. The Noble:Lord opposite expressed his intention of op-
posing him (Sir R. Peel), and that he should do so from his
own conscientious views of the case. lie (Sir R. Peel) never
charged the Noble Lord with making plausible speeches against
bribery and then giving his vote for it. If he intended to
give his ( Sir R. Peel's) vote against his view ()idle case, he would
submit to the imputation. But he knew absolutely nothing as
to the result of the election. It probably might end in
the return of an Honourable Gentleman professing the opi.
nions •of gentlemen opposite, and it might end in the
return of a gentleman of opposite opinions. He hardly
thought it necessary to say that no consideration of that kind
influenced the vote which he intended to give. He had said,
from the first, that he thought the House ought to be care-
ful how they interfered with the rights of c nstitueneies to
have representatives in that House, and that the less inter-.
ference in those rights the better. But he thought, that if a,
majority of that House agreed to this course, there would he
no sensible limit to it. It was a power lodged in that House.
to be exercised on individual authority. Notice had been
given'the other night by an lion. Member, that he should
move for a new writ, and his Hon. Friend gave notice of a •
motion for an early day, to direct the Attorney-General to
prosecute; and he had been willing to consent to the suspen-
sion of the writ until the sense ot the House had been taken
on that motion. But still he retained his opinion,
that if the House acted in conformity to the mode
it had hitherto acted, it would not then withhold
the issuing of that writ under the present circum-
stances. A Report,had been made hy au Election Committco,
then ncarly.a month since, in the case of the Ipswich election,
and that Committee recommended the House not to issue the
writ until the evidence,was published. On the motion for the
suspension of the writ until the printing of the evidence; the
Hon. Member Or Droitwich, shortly after that public intima-
tion had been made, said that it was not the intention of the
Committee to move the suspension of the writ. For the
purpose of avoiding further proceedings that public intimation
was given to the House of Commons. He (Sir R. Peel)
did not think himself justified in proposing any measure for
the disfranchisement of the borough. He presumed that was
the conclusion to which every individual Member of that
House had come also. No other Member of the Committee
gave notice of any proceedings with reference to further in-
quiry, and it was not until that night that a motion for an
inquiry was instituted. They had also notice of another
motion. They came to the discussion of that question, and
the debate began by the Hon. Member for Montrose pro-
posing an indefinite postponement of the writ; and he then
proposed that it should be postpored for a month, as it was
proposed to bring forward the Bill for the prevention of
Bribery; and he consequently wished that the election might
not be held until after this Bill Was passed. The Hon. Gen-
tleman supported the suspension of the writ on those grounds.
He said that a Committee had been appointed for the purpose
of conducting an inquiry, and on the result of that inquiry a
Bill would be framed ; and that it would be material for
the House to know what were the characteristics of that
bribery in the several eases to which reference had been made,
and that .the issuing of the writ should be suspended until the
result of that inquiry was known, and some legislative measure
founded on it. He said no notice had been given of the intention
to introduce the Bill. He thought the Noble Lord and himself had
expressed a desire to co-operate in measures for the preven-
tion of bribery. No such measures were now, however,
before the House; it would therefore be thought unfair to
prevent a constituent body from returning a Member to that
House until the proceeding had received the sanction of both
Houses of Parliament, He thought it h'ghly improbable that
the Bill would disqualify individual voters, and lie did not see
what bearing the Bill had with regard to Ipswich; at a late
hour of the evening, all of a sudden, influenced, he supposed ;
by the arguments which had been advanced, gave notice that
he should move for an inquiry. He ( Sir R. Peel) thought
that a notice for inquiry, given under such circumstances, was
not entitled to much weight. It appeared as if the House
rnoduntdhse
foirssus eu
cho fa tphreocewerdiitn,
gb,uat
iabn Hon. Member for an inquiry.—
suspend the issue of the writ, but
having no very plausible g spe
motion
no
gnd e tlney
very
m
vi
en
reaydd
epl toabuy s
( Hear.). That was the history of the circumstances under
which the suspension of this writ was to take place.--( Hear.) '
He believed it was quite possitile.so to constitute a Committee
that their inquiry should be satisfactory and complete he did
not distrust the Committee; he only referred to the
.eire
cumstance of no notice having been given as a strong
proof that they did not feel their case to be sof-
the borough. That
ficient to warrant them in disfranchising