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

the question was to inquire into loose and vague alle7a-
LhO O in that house, upon a. mcre rumour or their hav;ng
taken place. On Friday had no Palgiamen+ary
grounds to proceed, and to-night two petitions were pre-
sented, but he thought those petitions were not specific
enough. If those petitions had been presented from
Nottingham and Reading, and complained of specific
and definite abuses, and asked for a Committee to inquire
into their allegations, the House, he scarcely
thought, would refuse an inquiry. That was the
case with regard to Carlow. But he thought
the allegations at present were so vague that
the inquiry would be productive of no practical conclu-
sion. With regard to bribery and corruption, no per•
son deplored more strongly than he that those practices
prevailed in the large and small towns ; and no Member
was prepared to go further in applying an efficient re-
medy to those evils.--L-(Hear, hear.) But for that pur-
pose an Act of Parliament, and not a Committee of that
House, was necessary. Great caution was requisite in
investigating the bribery alleged to have been committed
at elections, that the prosecution of individual rights and
the vindication of the character of the House, should be
kept separate.—(Hear, hear.) - The question of disfran-
chising a borough was one entirely distinct from the
proper subject of inquiry before the Committee, who
had to determine whether A or. B was entitled to a
seat.—(Hear, hear.) If the public were to take the
conducting of those inquiries, the result would be, that
the disappointed candidates would take advantage of that
opportunity to avenge themselves on the borough ; and
though individual cases of disgrace might be detected, it
would not be sufficient to disfranchise the borough.
He did not, by any means, mean to say that where there
was a strong prima facie case of bribery, the investiga-
tion should not be instituted by the House of Commons;
but he would say that where there was a contest between
two individuals, the one in possession of the seat and the
other claiming it, the House should not take upon itself
to conduct that inquiry at the public expense.—(Hear,
hear.) He wished at the same time, that it should be un-
derstood, as had been said by his Hon. Friend behind
him, that an objection to this motion was not an objec-
tion to inquiry.—(Heat, hear.)
Mr. SHIEL (who rose amidst cries of " Divide,")
wished to say a few words.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed
the general feeling of the House that the inquiry, if it
could be conducted properly, ought to be gone into.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought it was a mistake to say that
his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath was
not specific in his allegations, and he thought the House
ought to take care lest any charge of indistinctness in
his speech, or indistinctness in his motion, should cause
them to lose sight of the object which they ought to hold
in view. With respect to the right of his Hon. and
Learned Friend to bring forward this motion, it should
be recollected that his Hon. and Learned Friend had asked
the Speaker, who informed him that if he made allegations
of a breach of privilege, he could bring forward a motion
founded on his own allegations. Allegations were made
in the House of Commons, and a Member took upon
himself to state that he believed in these allegations.
He was permitted by the Speaker to do so, and by the
whole of the House. Some lion. Gentlemen denied the
accusation ; others remained silent. Why they remained
silent it was not his province to inquire. There had been a
bona fide case made outfor going on with the inquiry; and
they were, therefore, after all disputating about smatter of
form, about the phraseology of the mation of theHon.Mem
ber. They did not wish to injure individuals. They made
changes of things, of which many others had been no-
toriously guilty. What they wanted was to get facts
that would illustrate the nefarious system, in order that
some public act of legislation might be had upon it.
They wanted facts, they wanted something better than
charges. It had been said, " Hear my allegations."
Give him (Mr. Sheil) something better than allegations.
Let witnesses be examined and the evidence be taken
down, and let this testimony be such that there would be
no difficulty in another place... The Noble Lord, the
Member for Tiverton, lamented that a most important
clause in the Bill of the Noble Lord, the Member for
London, had been objected to by the House of Lords.
Let them have the power required by, his Hon. Friend;
let them have such facts that would go before the House
of Lords and before the country as would set all doubt
at rest.—(Cheers.)

Mr. ROEBUCK said, that if he had understood the
Right Hon. Baronet, he should not have troubled the
House with more than one or two words in answer. He had
been, by accident, absent from the House at the time,
and he had therefore lost part of what the Right Hon.
Baronet had said. He,(Mr. R.) had stated, last Friday,
that certain remarks had come to his ears respecting cer-
tain specified individuals. Those persons lie had named,
and the allegations he made. He had made these alle-
gations in such a manner as to meet the objection of
the Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire. The first
of the cases to which he had referred was the case of Not-
tingham, in which money was paid down' to avoid investi-
gation. The charge he-brought forward was a Compromise,
for the purpose of screening bribery. Now, he wanted to
know whether the Houseveould grant him the Committee
he asked ? The Noble Lord said he must have some evi-
dence. Indeed I Why, the evidence was given on the
trial. What could he do more than make the charge ?
—(Hear, hear.) He had made the charge, and named
the places. But it had been said that his charge and
motion were too narrow—that it ought to sweep at the
whole practice, and not 'select certain eases 4 :while, on
the other side, it was stated' that he wanted a roving
commission. He could net, pleese- any one Lhe was
like the man whipping another,' 'let *WM' hit Where
he would, it* did not please .-:=-' glean Via latiihter.)
He wanted no roving Committee, for he had named
the places ; he hoped he should have the unanimous
consent of the Right Hon. Baronet and the House to his
motion. It was well known to the House, when Com-
mittees of this sort were -appointed, that a short Bill of
Indemnity was 'brought ' in, Which -he would introduce
to -morrow, and it might be passed through the House in
three days. There was the-_, Case 'of- Reading, where a
bend was entered into for the same purpose ; there
was Penryn, in which the only
zpurpose that had been
kept in view was, to- pre-vent an investigation. There=
was the case or Harwich, in which the same charge *as
made, and not denied - and there was the case of
Lewes,. in which he had put it to his /ion. Friend dis •
tinctly, not whether he was about to ac..ept the Chiltern
Hundreds, but whether the investigation was not with-
drawn, on the distinct understanding that there was to be
no ingairy ? That was his charge--that was his indictment;
but he thought there was nothing in his manner that
could be considered offensive. He had made it with per-
fect boldness, and perhaps it was an extraordinary
charge—but the facts . were extraordinary ; still
he was extremely desirous to give no man
offence. It was the systere which he desired to brand as
infamous. To meet the objection of the Hon. Baronet
he cited the case of -the Shepherds, who were charged
with bribery in 1700. It appeared on the Journals of
the House that Samuel Shepherd, a Member of the
House, was charged with bribery in several corporations,
to procure Members to be elected ; and Mr. Shepherd,
being heard in his place in the House, and insisting on
his innocence, it was resolved that the matters charged
should be heard at the bar. He asked no more than
this, and what would appear.? The Hon. Gentleman
must be perfectly aware of the difference between an
oral and a written charge. That oral charge he made,
and he simply required from the House a Com-
mittee of Inquiry. That was within the re-
gular proceedings of the House, and all he
wished to avoid was the • charge of having rushed
into a course not consistent with the rules of the House.
He was prepared to adopt any mode of proceeding that
would grant him what, he wanted. He would ask the
Right Hon. Baronet, if he moved a resolution affirming
that certain corrupt practices had prevailed at Reading,
Nottingham, Lewes, Falmouth, and Harwich, whether
that would be sufficient for entering into the charges
in all those cases in which there had been corrupt com-
promises for the purpose of preventing investigation into
the bribery practised at the elections. He did not wish
to bring 'invidious charges against any individuals ;
he wanted only to brand the system as infamous.
But without that power the Committee could do nothing.
They would say " You give, us an instrument, and give
us no power of using.it.” He was not going to ask a
Committee to disown shame when the whole world was
looking anxiously at the'proceedings. If the House de-
sired to probe to the bottom this' festering wound, and
would puttlse instrument into his hands, he would plunge
to -the place of its nastiness.—(Hear, hear.) He would
now distinctly state to the House the exact terms of the
motion which he was about to make, and then he hoped
to have the unanimous concurrence of the House.
Sir T. D.' ACLAND said he thought the case of
Lewes should be exempted from the investigation, as he
conceived that that case rested upon totally different
grounds from the others In that case it did
not appear that either of the parties had intended not to
abide by the judgement of the Committee.
The original motion was then withdrawn. - -
After a desultory conversation between Sir G. Grey,
Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Roebuck, as
.to.the form of
the motion. _

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

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

Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he was sure those Mem-
bers who were present during the discussion of the mo-
tion, would agree with him that it would be improper
to exclude Lewes. (Hear, hear.) It had been
stated by one of the Members for Lewes (Mr.
Elphinstone) that his belief was that a compro-
mise had taken place with regard to that borough, and that
the borough would have been disfranchised if the proceed-
ings had not been stayed, in consequence of the general,
flagrant, and gross bribery which had taken place.—
(Hear, hear.) The House haying agreed to the prin-
ciple of the motion, he thought that, of all other cases,
Lewes was the one that ought not to be excluded.—
(Cheers.) He was glad the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Bath was altered, because he could
now vote for it, whereas he could- not do so as it stood
before, notwithstanding 4he misrepresentation that he
might be subject to in cogjequence.