The Sun.
London, England, 1842-07-29 00:00:00

T.H.E SUN, LON DON, FRIDAY MORNING, JULY 29, 1842.

llcrhaPs by some that it was sufficient if the ship-
Owner or merchant himself was satisfied with the
coMmander's capacity, but' let the House bear in
4411-1 that passengers who went out in ships,
40(1_:the country generally, were interested in the,
;capabilities and qualifications of captains of vessels.
4„._•toe length of a passage depended almost en-
Autay- -upon the judgment, skill in navigation,
444(1-2practical seamanship of the captain, and from the
1410 e the vessel left the shores of our country
10;itil its arrival in a foreign port, the
• s of all ou board were in his hands.
• once met a ship in the Pacific Ocean, which was
'or seven degrees out of her longitude, and upon
~lus asking the Captain how it was, he replied, " why,
we do not come here to navigate, we come here
.to fish." What he would propose was, that Boards of
"a miners should be appointed in England, Scotland,
'zedireland, consisting of three examiners each ; that
there should be a principal examiner, and a secretary ;
that that principle examiner should have the choice
4f the executive management of the whole system,
that system to be approved by the Trinity House and
Put under the control of the Board of Trade. These
'4Ol1-liners to be all of them practical seamen, having
trmemanded ships in the merchant service a certain
dumber of years ; one of the three should have been in
the
southern hemisphere, another employed in the
°lasting, and the third have been employed in steam-
leuels. This was in order that they should
cbine practical knowledge and experience.
'lce expenses to be defrayed by moderate
tte
s, and be paid by each officer examined upon re-
eivinghis certificate of qualification. The fee for a
master to be for a certificate entitling him to go to
44.!Partof the world ; the master of a coasting vessel,
"ingshort-voyages; 21., and mates 30s. ; and the mates
`ItF toasting- vessels 11. No one could complain of these
fies when they considered that the pilots in the river
hainespaid three guineas for a less time, it being
three guineas annually, and in other parts of the
tigdom they paid three and two guineas annuallyfor
•
e•
tr license, therefore no one could complain of a
"0 of three -guineas for a lifetime. This Bill would
4'2 t apply to persons now in employment ; they
'°,old only be required to furnish a certificate of exa-
lpea.tion, for which they would pay 10s. and mates ss.
tovision would be found in the:Bill, for meeting, as
Ittoch as possible, all the objections urged by practical
men ' on the subject, and he thought he might go so
as to say, that some who were averse to the
,„leasure had, in consequence- of the various
Pins
that had taken place, and the
-,,r441s proposed to meet the ola:ections, given
• all their former opposition. They all felt it
not a measure that should be dealt with by any
rate individual, but one that ought to be taken up
t the Government. The Hon. Member concluded
KY: asking leave to bring in the Bill to which he
td. referred, not with a view to proceed with it
her in the present session, but that it might
Printed and circulated through the country, in
'tiler that the objections entertained to it might be
713: considered.
11:41*. A. CHAPMAN seconded the introduction of
Ze Bill, but in doing so he begged 'to be understood
lit to pledge himself to the details of the measure.
e would take its provisions into consideration, and,
41the course of the next session, when the measure
010),.4 again brought forward, he would state his opi-
upon them.
41•1*. GLADSTZ)NE said it was desirable that
dinelne measure like the present should be passed
to
b a law by Parliament, but he thought the
Ject ought to be duly considered before Par-
;Zent was. called upon to adjudicate on the
.11 Jeo. He thought the course proposed by the
1:11ourable Member was the best the House could
tirfstle, and he should, therefore, most cordially con-
?-ff the motion of his Hon. Friend.
-,,„1r T. TROUBRID GE approved of the course pro-
''''sej to be pursued by the Hon. Member.
~• HUMFI thought they would derive great be-
e from the experience of the Gallant Officer, and
e,hould, therefore,
Rgive the measure his support.
_ir G. COCKBUN said it would be necessary to
71n Sir
ly into.* question, before giving any decision
14°4, it. If the Bill was brought in, printed, circu-
eQ(l) and read by those interested in it, he should
ve no objection, but should be quite prepared to
tlicler it, and, in another session, give his decision
13410 it.
•
.--.4eaVe was given to bring in the Bilk
RoEELBECTION COMPROMISES.
'hich he h ROEBUCK K rose to move the resolutions of
said he shouldad
have
notice on the previous day. He
having to
oave been glad, if possible, to have
but avoided
come forward on this occasion;
t 4 it was absolutely necessary, after the
urse that had been taken, that some steps should
taken at the close of the session. When he
• t stated iii. the House that he had heard certain
1.1110, ours respecting certain individuals in that llOuse,
itliouse believed those statements to be so extraor-
Zry, so remarkable, and so important in their
that it appointed a Committee of inquiry to aseer-
Civhether they were well founded or not. The House
t'Z'further passed a Bill giving some extraordinary
jiZers to the Committee so appointed. He conceived
tdionse would not have taken that course unless it had
•#;l,7_tved•the'inquiry was an important one, and he felt
te71.1 they came to the close of the proceedings that
N,._°light not to shrink from a , necessary duty.. He
Nw came down to the House to ask it to say aye or
to the assertions he then made, to ask it whether
knot he had made out all the statements he had made
hat House a few-weeks since, and whether, if they
been so made out, the House was now willing to
Ittt contented with those assertions, or to proceed flir-
t!, and adopt measures to protect the honour and
"Kuity of the House.—(Hear, hear.) When he first
s,itle that statement, much surprise was expressed by
tkin parties, and various exceptions were taken as to
tnode of proceeding. It had been said that the first
4:kn.:tent he made was scandalous on Hon. Members.
tlitlle Hon. Members came down to the House with
Iv 40 words on their lips, that they were slandered. It
143 now for the House to determine whether those Hon.
T,:rnbers were slandered or not.— (Hear, hear.) But,
Ail the other hand, it had been said, supposing
this was true, yet all the world knew is
:telt!' a thing done every day ; there was ne harm
11,, • But the House did not take that view of the sub-
‘. The House thought it was a very serious subject,
let its character was very much compromised by it, and
it4t it ought to be inquired into, and now it had been
litlitired into accordingly. Let him then recal to the
bullse, first, the statement he had made, then very sue-
tirtly the proof that he had laid before them, and upon
trot let him ask the House whether any course could be
i i,l)osed better than he was about to submit to them,
t,O a due consideration for the parties implicated, and
Ilgeep sense of the honour and dignity of the House.
Le,stated that in one of those cases a compromise had
i;sq. ,
that one of the Members had agreed to retire from
t,h4 seat. He recollected the indignant denial made b).
4,110 n. and Gallant Member opposite (Major Beres-
e'). lie (Mr. R.) was almost startled by the dignified
tude of the Hon. and Gallant Member ; for, not con-
0. with the simple negation which he gave, he
sZinit to make charges against others, charges
Ao"teh were neglected at the time, as they ought
La be, and which had now passed by.— (Hear,
biat) Were not the charges he-made substantiated ?
40(1 not one of the Hon. Members for Harwich—he was
1: obliged to -distinguish them by their names—did
ia Mr. Attwood pay 2,5001., as he said, " out and out,"
eerder to withdraw from the consideration of the Com-
ei(ltce that disclosure which afterwards took place? and
t„,, he not bind himself to retire from his seat by ac-
eting the Chiltern Hundreds?—(Hear, hear.) Both
},its had been proved, and they were the facts which he
,N stated could be proved. He would now enter upon
consideration of the spirit in which the inquiry was
t",?(Ie. When he first made those charges, lie was met
angry hostility; still he persevered, and he now be-
b*lVecl that many of the Hon. Gentlemen who entered
41trl those compromises were unwittingly and un-
the victims of a vicious system, and
41 they did well to lay bare the system,
g for himself he felt no enmity to those Hon. Gentle-
Iteh, but feelings of sympathy with them.—(Hear, bear.)
blo,;' Was glad to say that most of those Hon. Gentlemen,
(th slight exceptions, had cone forward and stated in
tadid manner to the Committee, and voluntarily
vcqt, that evidence which they could not obtain from
kl
5' other source.—(Hear, hear.) For this they de-
ttavod well of their country, and, if being made the vic-
q4 of a bad system, they had done wrong to enter into
°4O compromises, they more than justified themselves
ttY4teming forward in 'the manner they had done, and
ting to the House and the country such evidence as
".stein.
them to have ?tern. Therefore, as a perception of the mischief of the
far as he was individually. eon-
;‘,Tled, he had no feelings of hostility, and the resolutions
ti,,ch he would lay before the House were of a prospec-
n nature, not referring back to any proceedings which
4,4 taken place, but- directing their future conduct,
_,
casting no blame nor reflecting in any way
those who had been concerned in those (ompromises,
0 providing against future mischief.—(Hear, hear.)
tYery word he had uttered with respect to those corn-
nilises had been justified before the House. lit
Bear,
exaggerated in one tittle of what he had sttied
41,11 ear, hear)—and that be had fully prove":3,—more
trri proved—all his assertions. The Hon. 714. ember for
:61,1criti was particularly conspicuous in throwing a broad
.`4!eitl over those practices which had c;nne before thce
biujnitittee, and bad come forward P„d their first cham•
--(Cries of " Hear, hear.") He stated that 'that
kh_,ltse had really nothing to coo with those practices,
-Co_ that the dignity or character of the House
the
not impugned by them. But what would
t.' country say to bribing the poor constituenc
kttetslins disgracine;, debauching, and destroying, anti
th- 'wards shiele.ting themselves by quibbling or buying
Woril.eelves out of the difficulty ?—(Cheers.) Would the
w As the eaoughtful people—the really honest people
te
the
cour.try consider such conduct either honourable
the "Ise).ves or beneficial to the country ? lie believed
o,.:°„un:cry would say that the grand and chief criminal
‘,„24'.0 briber.—(Hear, hear.) They could not expect
%,;,:rt,ellous morality in the people, unless their leaders,
IV,', those who sat in high places, had an exalted Leo-
%goy ; and if those who represented learned bodies, and
tog_e Who represented high constituencies, exhibited a
(lif_tipt morality, they would have a cotrupt people.—
ho„!_ar, hear.) No matte,' how great was the ttbility—
tu:
arespectable the reputation of the Hon. Gentle-
""' " (114. Roebick) would be the first to brand with

indignant reprobation any person who would be found
defend such a base and pitiful morality.— (Hear, heif.)
The briber was the great (Hear, heir.)
Who was the greater crimintd—toe great man who went
down to a poor constituency, and, finding some man
pressed with want, having a large family, offered him
a bribe to sell his conscience and his country—(Hear)—
or the poor unfortunate wretch who yielded to the
temptation held out by his base corruptors "—(Cheers.)
Let them have a high morality and they would have a
virtuous people; and let them not sneer, and refine away,
as the necessary results of the circumstances under
which they were labouring, or any other vague and
rounded generalities, those practices which had taken.
place.—(Hear.) If they did the people would under-
stand them. If they did not think the giving of the
bribe was a crime, the people would not think the
taking of it one ; and if they were content with bribery
let them have no bribery laws—let them have no hypo-
crisy about it.—(Hear, hear.) They had far too much
of that. They passed from half-past four o'clock in the
evening until early next morning discussing a Bribery
Bill, notwithstanding which, a candidate would go down
to-morrow to bribe a constituency.—(Cheers.) Dis-
guise it as they would, cloak it as they might, the
fact was, that as regarded bribery they had hitherto been
a band of hypocrites.—(Cheers.) He had stated in his
place, that cases of the grossest bribery, flagrant breaches
of the ordinary rules of law, had escaped froni detec-
tion. Whit had been the reply to him ? You are tell-
ing us nothing new. Why do you snake such a fuss
about it ?—it is nothing but nlhat we all knew before.
Go into the Lobby, and every Member will laugh under
your nose at you. When the Committee was appointed,
it was asked, what will you do with your Committee ?
We wish you joy of the inquiry. The House would
have thrown him overboard, if the Right Hon. Baronet
at the head of the Goveimnent had not stood by him.—
(Opposition cheers.) He (Mr. Roebuck) was not in-
clined to flatter, but the thanks of the country were due
to the Right lion. Baronet for his conduct on that occa-
sion.—(Opposition cheers.) If the Right lion. Baronet
had not done so, he (Mr. Roebuck) would never
have got this Committee.—:Continued cheering
from the Opposition,) He nevei should have got
it, if the Right Hon. Baronet had not stood by him • and
the Right lion. Baronet was deserving of the applause
of the country for his conduct on that occasion.—(Loud
Opposition cheers.) In spite of everything, they had
been enabled, by means of the inquiries instituted by
that Committee, to obtain a complete 'account and ex-
posure of a most base and degrading system. They
should lay aside everything like personal consideration ;
with individuals they had no concern ; they ought not
to look back to the past but forward to the future. It
was necessary to refer to some of these cases—he did not
refer to them as matter of personal consideration, but as
illustrative of a system. An Hon. Gentleman goes
down to a borough with 5,000/. in his pocket ; the
constituency consist of 150, and he. takes an Hon. and
Gallant Friend with him. He wants no bribery—he
knows nothing at all about it—he never intended it. His
eyes are so delicate that he cannot see it ; his sensibility •
is so acute, his sense of honour so nice, that he will not
hear a word about it. Elect me Member for the borough,
he says, but do not let me know the means by which I
am elected ; there is I,oool.—there, take it—go away,
ind let me know know nothing more until you let me
now that I am Member for Harwich.—(Cheers.) No
doubt such an Hon. Gentleman was correct in stating
that he knew nothing of any bribery. No doubt he might
.say that he did not know it ; but he would ask,
could any one, as an ordinary man of business, not know
to what purpose it was intended to appropriate that
money ? It was as clear as the sun at noon-nay, that he
must have known that that sum must have been put as into
conduit pipe, through which it descended into several
smaller pipes, until it percolated through the whole con-
stituency.—(Cheers.) Who but must have known that
it was employed in the grossest and most debasing
bribery? The Hon. Gentlemen goes through the streets,
he sees his colours displayed at beer-shops, he knows
nothing about it—no doubt he has his opinion that so
large )'sum of money must have been employed in that
way, but he knows nothing about it. Doubtless, legally
speaking, he knew nothing about it ; but was not that
man just as wrong as if he had gone more openly, More
avowedly, more barefacedly, and bribed the constituency
with his own hands? The late law suffered this state
of things, but ti.e Act introduced last year by the Noble
Lord the Member for London, had had the effect of
leading to the. detection and exposure of this system.
But having been so far successful in one attempt, should
they not go still further ? He believed that the Bribery
Bill passed last night, shorn though it was of its most
efficient clauses through the somewhat over-technical
feelings of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Solicitor-
General, would have a beneficial effect. But if they
went on in the course they were now pursuing without
making any change, bribery, which the Hon. Member
for Oxford said he did not consider as so very great a

sin
Sir R. INGLIS appealed to Hon. Members who had
heard him, if such were his words. He had said that he
odridimninotalrietgya_rdthbartibheorydiads
notthe concentratedlook ur oi essence
i bribery
as
being
great a sin as murder. •
Mr. ROEBUCK •was obliged to the Hon. Gentleman
for his explanation. He was sure the Hon. Gentleman
would give him credit for not having any desire to mis-
represent what fell from the Hon. Member. He (Mr.
Roebuck) must have an inaccurate recollection of what
he had heard. But he still felt that there was
a sort of turning given to the statement of the Hon.
Gentleman of which he (Mr. Roebuck) could not
approve. It was not the concentrated essence of crime
—it was not equal to murder ! That was -a sort of
exaggerated phraseology which went far, by a side-wind
sneer, to, depreciate the value of the operations against
bribery. He did not like that mode of speaking. The
question was, was this bribery a thing to be put down,
or was it not ?—was it mischievous to the community,
or was it not ? If it were mischievous to the commu-
nity, let them see if they could put it down, and do not
let them use such exaggerated language as that he had
just quoted. Was it a matter to take into their con-
sideration for the purpose of remedying it ? That was
the simple reasonable view of it. If so, why was that
vast farrago of language launched against him ? Why
should they not rather join together and endeavour to
put down the practice ? There was one argument used
on this subject to which he gave every possible atten-
tion—he meant the argument advanced by those who as-
signed 'as a reason for retiring from the icontest the
enormous expense to which they would be subjected. But
that should not draw off others from the inquiry.
He would refer to the five boroughs to which his inquiry
,extended to explain his views on the question—to show
that it was fear of discovery, not fear of expense, that
deterred persons from pursuing the contest. At one of
these cases the party having learned from his agent that
bribery would be proved, paid 2,000/. to get rid of the
inquiry, and the 'agent employed was so strongly
pressed with the danger of the inquiry, that he added
500L—(Hear, hear)—so that at the present moment
2,5001. had been paid to get rid of the inquiry.—(Hear.)
Was it not, he would ask, a remarkable thing that a
person like the Hon. Member for Reading should agree
to pay 2,0001. upon that which was not certain ? This
showed that the inquiry was dreaded ; • the thing
dreaded was the inquiry, and nothing else—
(Hear, hear)—and it was as clear es the sun at
noonday that there was something behind hand
of which all were afraid. Was it not, therefore,
he would ask, the duty of the House to come
Forward and say that it was determined that in all such
cases as he had mentioned, it would deem the proceedings
he had described as a gross violation of the rights of the
people, and a gross breach of the privileges of the House?
'Now, he would take the case of Lewes, there the party
who was placed at the head of the poll, was, at first, far
down in the list. Now, how, he would ask, was such a
change effected ? Why, one witness stated that it was
done by shuttlecocking the votes. Was that, he would
ask, the way to deal with the franchise, and was
the House prepared to give such a measure its sanction ?
It was wise for the House to consider in the first place
the great interests of the nation—the interests of the
voters ; and in the next place, as representing the peo-
ple, they ought to consider such proceedings on the part
of any one as a gross infringement of their privileges.
He would ask the House to consider for a moment the
danger to the character of that House from the exposure
which had been made of the mode in which Members
were elected. The Hon. Member for Pontefract, whom
he did not see in his place, had said that his (Mr. Roe-
buck's) object was to bring that House into contempt.
Now that was not his object. His object was to bring
into contempt a bad system. He did not care whether
that House was or was not affected by that proceeding ;
if the House was implicated in a bad system he could
not help it. He would ask the House what the world
would think when they found men, in private life, of un-
blemished honour on both sides—men who might be
trusted with untold gold, going down, and for mere party
ptirposes, in the heat of party politics, debasing, debauch-
ing, destroying the whole constituency; and not a whole
constituency alorie, but a whole town ; promoting
drunkenness, crime, confusion, terror, and every species of
immorality, under the sacred name of making laws for the
people ? The evil had come to a crisis, and it could not be
suffered to continue, for it would bring the House into con-
tempt with the people. If they hoped to do any good for the
nation it must be by ruling the minds of thu people, and lead-
ing them to love the institutions under which tbey lived. But
their love for the Institutions of the country would be converted
to hatred, if, after the scenes which had been described, after
the terrible secrets which had been evolved by this Committee,
the House did not feel it incumbent on them to do something
more than indulge in a sneer and a laugh at the painful expo-
sure which • had been made. He thought he had now
said enough, though he had avoided, as much as pos-
sible, going into a dissection of the evidence, believing
that all his charges had been proved; but he thought he had
said enough for his justification in bringing forward this ques-
tion, and in support of the two propositions which he had sub-
I mitted to the House. He now asked whether it would be wise,
in the peculiar circumstances of the case, to issue a writ for any
one of the five towns first submitted to the consideration of the
Committee, before they had further safeguards for the protec-
tion of the voters? He put it in that form designedly. He
did not want to protect the candidates, they could protect them-
selves ; but he wanted to protect the voters against that system
which was employed for the purpose of debasing the constituencies.
What was there to protect the voters of Nottingham from the
same scenes described in the present evidence ? Let them get
a better state of things, and then they might issue a writ, but
till then he would call on them to pause. He alluded to the
readiness with which the inquiry of the Committee had been
met by the different parties, with one exception (we believe the
Member for Reading, but the Member for Bath was very indis-
tinct), and he believed that the recusant gentleman was quite
as guilty as the rest. He concluded by moving the following
resolutions:—" That the compromises of election petitions, as
brought to the knowledge of this House by the Report of the
Select Committee on election proceedings, must, if for the
future they be allowed to pass without punishment or censure,
tend to bring this House into contempt with the people, and
thereby seriously to diminish its power and authority. That
all such practices are hereby declared to be a violation of the
liberties of the people, and a breach of the privileges of this
House, which it will in all future cases strictly inquire into and
severely punish. 'Tina whereas in • cuens for Har-
wigh,Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Falmouth and Penryn, and
Bridport, the present lain; have been found insufficient to pro.

tect the eetere frlim tha misehievoiit teriiptetions of bribery. it
be ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue no writ for any election of
Members for the said towns, till further legislative enactments
have been adopted to protect the purity of elections."
Mr. C. RUSSELL said that as long as his conduct wts
under consideration he had abstained from making any obser-
vations. When the Honourable Member for Bath
thought proper to interrogate as to certain transactions 'to
Whitn he was pleased to affix the epithet of corrupt, lie had
refused to answer the question, because he believed it was the
only course he could adopt consistently with his own inde-
pendence; the Speaker ton had decided that the Member for
Bath had neither right nor precedent to put the question. He
had offered no opposition to the appointment of the Committee
as he had no wish to shrink from investigation, but he did
now enter his solemn protest against this unjust and tom-
cedented proceeding. He felt it to be his duty to his consti-
tuents to resist any resolutions that might be founded upon
them. He objected to the Hon. Member for Bath, as an Weft
person to be entrusted with such an enquiry from his strong
predetermined opinions; he having declared that he wonlit fix
and crucify them before the people. Had not the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bath, also, sold his Parliamentary services for money ?
(" No, no," from Mr. Roebuck.) Did he mean to deny it ?
Mr. ROEBUCK—Certainly, I do.
Mr. RUSSELL—It was universally believed that he had
done so.
Mr. ROEBUCK said whoever had told the Hon. Member
so had told him a falsehood.
Mr. RUSSELL said it was universally believed that the
Hon. Member for Bath had sold his Parharneetaxy services to
the Canadian rebels.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the best answer to that was that he
was rot in the House when Canada was in rebellion.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member for Reading must
withdraw the expressions he bad used.
Mr- RUSSELL would unquestionably do so, if the Hon.
Member denied it. He proceeded to object to the constitution
of the Committee and the manner in ss hich the inquiry was
conducted ; it was secret, was not sworn, nor could swear
others, and was totally irresponsible. The Hon. Member for
Bath made himself their accuser; and the House had consti-
tuted him their judge. He allowed that he and the. Members
of the Committee had showed the utmost personal urbanity, but
he believed it proceeded as much from policy as disposition.
He would ask, not offensively, how. many of the constituency
of the country were entitled to cast. the first stone ?—( Hear,
hear.) It was notorious not only that thousands, but hundreds
of thousands, had been spent in contests for counties.—( Hear,
hear.) \l as it not a fact that Roman Catholic families had
become rich, because the law had prevented them from spend-
ing their wealth in contested elections? Were not the large
constituencies, such as Bath, bribed by the promise of their in-
tended representatives ? He did not mean from these observe.'
tions to say that bribery was a crime the House could not
touch; he meant no such thing. Let them improve the law,
but let them not select a few private individuals and wreak
their vengeance upon them. He was as anxious as any man
to suppress bribery, but he was not prepared to break through
one great principle for the purpose of establishing another.
He was
_prepared to legislate with the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Tiverton, but not the inverted maxim of the Hon.
Member for Bath, that they should bribe in order to punish.
—( Hear, hear.) He believed for these evils there was a sure
remedy. Let them surrender a privilege they could not exer-
cise with satisfaction to themselves or justice to others ; let
them give to the Judges of the land the exercise of the ordinary
law. —( Hear, hear.) If they would adopt these measures
they would ensure the confidence of the people of England.
Major 13ERESFORD said, that the object of the on and
Learned Member in moving for the Committee, and in drawing
up the Report, might be said to be to make the country dis-
contented with the representative system, and to endeavour to
bring the House into disrespect. He would not attempt any
further to discover what were the motives of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, but he would state what, as far as he
(Major Beresford) was concerned, were the real facts of
the case. The Hon. and Learned Member in relation to him
(Major Beresford) had got Up and talked about slander, and
said that he (Major B.) had alluded to what had passed on a
former occasion when he (Mr. Roebuck) had put questions to
different Members. On that occasion, he (Major ilereeford)
had said that the Hon. Member had no right to ask him such
a question. The Hon. and Learned Member had accused him
of slander. Now, if the Hon. Member would procure him a
Committee armed with the same stringent powers as the Com-
mittee he had procured for himself, he ( Major' Beresford) would
undertake to prove every accusation he had made.—(Cheers.)
The first day the Hon. and Learned Member had brought for-
ward his accusation, he had accused him (Major B.) of a cor-
rupt compromise of bribery and of treating Now, he
would call upon the Hon. and Learned Member to point
out what portion of the evidence he relied on to bring that
charge home to him. He denied that he had had anything
to do with bribery and treating, and he denied that he had had
anything to do with a corrupt compromise. The only compro-
mise he had engaged in was this : He certainly did engage to
retire rather than that his colleague should be forced to do so,
in the event of one of them being obliged to resign his scat,
because his colleague had been at all the expense of the elec-
tion, and he felt, that if one must go, it ought to be the per-
son who had not paid.—( Opposition cheers.) He repeated, he
was utterly innocent of bribery in any way, and, if he had
chosen to defend his seat, he could have done so with suc-
cess, for he felt that he was innocent of bribery, corruption,
and treating. He would just call the attention of the House to
certain parts of the Report and evidence. At page 4of the
Report it was stated that a compromise had been entered
into between the agents of the parties concerned, with the
consent of the principals. Be denied that any compromise
had been entered into between his agent and the agent of
Sir Denis Le Merchant. He had never entered into any
negotiation with the agent of Sir Denis Le Merchant.
Ho had written a letter to Mr. Attwood, which he had given
to Mr. Currie, as Mr. Attwood's agent, stating that if one
was to retire he (Major Beresford) would be that one. He
denied that he gave that to Mr. Currie as his ( Major Beres-
ford's) agent. In the evidence of Mr. 1. Parkes, p. 24, it
would appear as if Mr. Currie was his agent; but Mr. Currie
was not his agent, and, as a proof, he would state that while
the Committee required Mr. Currie to bring tip the names of
the persons who had been briVed, which were stated in his
brief, he refused to give them up withotit the consent of his
principal, but having got the consent of Mr. Attwood, he gave
up the names without consulting him (Major Beresford),
which was a proof that. Mr. Currie did not consider himself as
his (Major Beresford's) agent. He, therefore, trusted the
House would consider that allegation as unsupported by
evidence. He denied that he had been any party to a compro•
miss, except by that letter to Mr. Attsvood. He had given up
his seat because he had not the means of defending it, and because
he felt that, in honour to his colleague, he was bound to re-
sign rather than suffer his colleague's seat to be perilled. He
was not ashamed to confess that he was not a wealthy man,
and could not afford to defend his scat, but if he could have af-
forded it he bad no doubt he could have done so successfully,
for he felt that he was innocent himself, and he kmew that
the petitioners had not come before the Committee with
clean hands. They had asked for the seats. If they had
asked for a void election he should have felt secure of his re-
election, for he should have felt perfectly secure, as he felt now,
in again going before the electors of Harwich, The Hon. and
Gallant Member then commented upon that part of the evidence
relating to the late Mr. Cox, who was said to be a medium
through which bribes were conveyed. He (Major Beresford)
knew that Mr. Cox was incapable of such conduct, and if he
knew that such evidence was to be adduced before the Com-
mittee, he would have taken means to contradict it. The
Committee had, by their Report, cast a brand into the breast
of a young and interesting female, and who was about to be-
come a widowed mother. The evidence showed that only
about 80 individuals had been bribed; but if even so many
were bribed, that was not a large portion of a constituency
consisting of 182.—(Much laughter.) The Hon. Member
then referred to Question 205, page 18, of the evidence relating
to an answer giver, by Mr. Parkes, to the effect that he knew a
person who was offered 5001. for his vote in 1837. The only
person to whom he could refer was Mr. Rumnacles, who gave
his casting vote in favour of Mr. Herries and Captain
Ellis. Mr. Rumnacles held a situation in the Board
of Customs, and, tearing that he would be brought
into trouble if he gave his vote, he hesitated for
some time, but towards four o'clock, being a person of Con-
servative principles. he at length gave his vote. He voted for
Mr. Herries, in order to conciliate strong assistance, in case
his voting brought him into any trouble ; and for Mr. Ellis, in
order that the expense and trouble of a petition might be avoided.
The Hon. Gentleman then read a letter from left. Rumnacles,
denying that he was ever offered any money. It had been the
talk of every Club in London, that the Committee of the
other candidate had been bought for Mr. Attwood and himself;
and this had not been denied by those who knew it to be false.
He begged to state that the Committee of his adversaries voted
for his adversaries. The woids " veni, vidi, viei " had also
been applied to him. In reply to that he begged to state that
he was in constant communication with 182 of the electors for
fourteen days. He trusted that the Home would excuse him
for having detained them so long with his own private affairs,
and that they would come to the conclusion that as all was
not gold that glittered, so all was not corrupt that was calum-
niated.--( Hear, hear. )
Captain FITZROY wished to correct one or two misstate•
merits in the Report. He would particularly call the attention
of the House to the item 'elating to the agreement that all
actions and indictments for bribery on both sides should be
a ithdrawn. Any one who read that agreement would
imagine that it was from fear of personal con-
sequences that he consented to the compromise. Now
in page 1140 he stated to the Committee that the only
arrangement entered into was that Mr. Harford gave up, and
after that all cross actions for bribery should cease. Mr.
Briggs, the lawyer for the °posing party, when questioned
with respect to the indictments and cross actions being
dropped, stated that that was not the basis of the agreement.
There were two cases of actions for bribery. In one of those
cases he caught the party in the act of paying the bribe. The
instant he discovered it, the opposite party got up a sham
action against him, to prevent him from being prosecuted by
those who had caught him in the fact. He thought it
rather hard, under these circumstances, that that should be
stated to be part of the agreement. Now, he must say he
thought it rather strange that the Committee- bad neither ex-
amined his agent in London, nor his agent in the conduct of
the petition. They had called Mr. Clark, who was a partner
in the same firm as his agent, but they appeared to kave stu-
diously avoided calling the agent himself. He thought it
would have been only fair to have examined his agent in Lewes,
and his agent in carrying on the petition, to see whether his
statements were borne out. As to the statements which
had been made with respect to the constitution of the clubs,
the hardship in that respect aeose from the manner in
which the investigation had been dlalducted, namely, with
closed doors. With respect to treating, he begged to state
that he bad received a letter from Lewes that morning, stating
that there had been no hot, suppers since the time of the
Reform Bill.
Mr. ESCOTT said he had been opposed to the mode of
conducting the inquiry, but. the House having sanctioned it he
did not think he would be justified on that account in voting
against
case,the excepttwofir thstatof h
resolutions.islon H.
Friendethou (Captaingh ttheeviden
evidence in
every Fitzroy)
was perfectly satisfactory ; he did not think there was
any proof that his Honourable Friend had been cognisant
of corrrupt practices ; on the contrary he thought he came free
from the inquiry. The other cases were totally different, and
it appeared to him that the gravest part of the charge was that
such compromises went to turn over a constituency to parties
whom they did not elect to represent them, and this trifled
with the rights of the electors of England. He would now
state why Ile could not vote for the first resolution. He could
not do so because he believed it would be a virtual disfranchise-
ment of those towns, and because there was no proof
that the majority of the electors had accepted bribes.
He could not understand how, with a view to public liberty,
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman could now propose to dis-
franchise the electors of those towns, without having proved the
majority of them guilty. And even if the majority were proved
guilty, why punish the whole of the electors? The Compro-
mise Election Committee had entered upon its duties with a
view to further legislation ; but the evidence brought before it
had not been made use of for that purpose. Under all those
circumstances he thought' it inexpedient to withhold the fran-
chise from those towns. He would vote for the two first reso-
lutions, because he thought the proceedings they referred to
ought not to pass without censure.
PLUMRIDGE asked whether he ought to be included
among those subjected to the censure of the House, when, ac-
cording to the Report of the Committee, the arrangements
which were condemned in his case were made without his
knowledge. If the Right Hon. Baronet., at the head of the
Government, were in his place, he would ask him whether,
after the Report of the Committee, he (Mr. Plumridge) ought
to apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, and thereby carry out the
compromise.

Mr. BLACKSTONE could not, as there was such a tri-
bilnal in the House as an Election Committee, consent to the
sweeping denunciation of compromises as being a violation of
the liberty of the subject and of the privileges of that House.
The Hen. Member for Harwich had stated that he was not a
man of much wealth, and that it would be impossible for him,
in case of a petition against his return, to- defend his seat on
account of the extraordinary expense which his doing so would
entail on him. He (Mr. Blackstone) could not, therefore,
agree to the last resolution.
Mr. LASCELLES, who was thoroughly inaudible from the
low tone in which he spoke, was understood to say that the reso-
lutions had been agreed to on the authority of the Chairman
and not of the Committee generally. The Committee had
been appointed to investigate certain charges, without its being
intended that any criminatory proceedings should be taken
against individual parties. He bore testimony to the impartiality
with which the Chairman had conducted the investigation and
drawn up the Report.
Lord CHELSEA, who was also very indistinctly heard,
complained of certain parties being selected in this matter for
the purpose of their being held up to public contumely. If any
Hon. Member bad complained of the prevalence of such prac-
tices as it was now sought to condemn, and had called on any
oth.r Hon, Members to aid him in carrying a measure to pre-
vent. the continuance of those practices, he was sure no Hon.
Gentleman would refuse so to do. In the present case, he
must say that notoriety might be bread and meat to the Hon.
and Learned Member for Bath, but was poison to him (Lord
Chelsea).

ib,e.
rlebrp.,:anWt
efl: r
th eus aerni dao thatdra ,alc tol
eerana
g,enre,a
in
allegations
so i nr
e,bintr
dhi boteuhrtey a
asmyi
ei
egmoh e
-t
proceeding to a legislative remedy in consequence, if it had
ot
oi
her for Bath coming forward as he had. He never knew of
any person having such a ta-k to perform who bad acquitted
himself with the concurrent favourable testimony of all, as the
Hon. Gentleman had. He asked now what was to be done
with the Report ? Could anything be more indispensible than
the proposal of his Hon. Friend ? Corrupt practices had taken
place, and was the House to pronounce no opinion upon them?
If the Right Hon. Baronet were here, he believed his opinion
would serve to guide other Members on this occasion; and,
indeed, from what had fallen from him last night, he expected
he would do so in the right direction. He trusted her Ma•
jesty's Government would support the resolutions ; and whether
ther they did so or not, if the House did not wish to destroy
the whole ilillitiminary proceedings which had taken place, it
would support the resolutions of his Hon. Friend: If the
House did not pronounce some opinion, in condemnation of
such practices in future, he did not see what was the use of the
inquiry at all. If the writ fur Nottingham were issued to-
morrow without taking steps in the cave, it were better the in-
quiry never had taken place.—( Hear, bear.) He supported
the inquiry from the beginning, and he was now prepared to
support the resolutions, as the necessary compliment of that in-
quiry. And if the House would not go with him, he thought
they were only evincing another instance of that hypocrisy
with which they were charged.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HA WES said he could not support the resolutions of
the lion. and Learned Member for Bath. The object of the
inquiry was to lay before the House the facts of the cases which
had been referred to the Committee, and not for the purpose of
expressing what legislative enactments ought to be passed with
regard to them.—( Hear, hear.) He confessed that, as a Mem-
ber of the Committee, he did not think he could travel out of
the order of the House, under wlich the Committee was ap-
pointed.—t. Hear, hear.) He thought the value of the Report
consisted in bringing to light, upon authentic evidence, facts
which existed before upon mere surmise, and which furnished
grounds for legislation. The second resolution was one which
he found it difficult to support, but, when he came to the third
resolution, he had no doubt at all as to the course he should
pursue. He considered that the Committee which brought
those facts to light, was in the nature of a preliminary Com-
mittee, and that to take further steps, a judicial inquiry ought
to be instituted. He, therefore, differed from his Hon. Friend
the Member for Bath, in thinking that legislative measures
ought to be founded upon and proceed from the Committee which
sat merely to investigate certain cases which hadbeen referred to
it, though he agreed with him in the general substance of his
resolutions. He admired the energy and courage
with which his Hon. Friend pursued his inquiry, and what
was, he believed, a singular fact, there was not a single dif-
ference between any Member of the Committee.--( Hear,
hear.) The only point in which he differed from him was the
one he had stated.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that if the resolutions which had
been commented upon by the Hon. Member for Lambeth,
were much stronger than they were he would vote for them.
—( Hear, hear.) An inquiry had been instituted by that
House into certain compromises which had taken place, and
the Report of the Committee who made that inquiry was now
before them. He had carefully read the evidence over, and he
did riot see how the Hon. Member for Lambeth, who had been
a member of the Committee and agreed to the Report, could
oppose the resolutions of the Hon. Member for Bath.
Mr. AWES—The Hon. Member did not understand
what he ( Mr. Hawes) had said. He agreed with the resolu-
tions, but as a member of the Committee he could not support
them.
Mr. AGLIONBY confessed he did not see the distinction
of the Hon. Member for Lambeth. But the real question was,
would the lion. Member vote for the resolutions ?—( Hear,
hear.) The evidence showed that the system which bad been
pursued was a disgrace to the House of Commons. With re-
gard to those who, he might say, were convicted by the evidence
given before the Committee, he thought the resolutions ex-
tremely mild, and he hoped that would induce the House to
adopt them. If any Hon. Member moved stronger resolu-
tions he would support him with all his heart.—( Hear. )
The SOLICI I OR-GENERAL said he quite agreed with
his Hon. and Learned Friend as to the nature of the com-
promises which had been made. But that was not the question
they had then to discuss. The Hon. Member for Lambeth
and the Hon. Gentleman behind him, who were members of
the Committee, could not shut their eyes to the fact that the
Committee was not one of a judicial character, but was con-
ducted by evidence given in a manner altogether at variance
with the usual course.—( Hear, hear.) What was the purpose
and object of the inquiry, and upon what grounds did Mem-
bers on both sides consent to the inquiry at all ? The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman then referred to the grounds upon
which the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath obtained the
Committee of Inquiry, and said, that although it was clear
from the evidence that compromises had taken place, and
could not be denied to have taken place, for the purpose of
preventing investigation—( Hear, hear)—the Hon. and Learned
Alember .for Bath could not thereupon the inquiry
not being of a judicial charieter, and .not granted
for that purpose—ground his present resolutions.—( Hear. )
He was reluctant to vote that anything was a breach of the
privileges of the House without following it up by punishment.
He thought the adoption of such a course as had been proposed
would be a farce, but in his opinion it was perfectly clear that
no such thing could be done by the House. There had been
no legislative measures adopted since the Report; it was true,
there had been a measure brought forward by the Noble Lord
the Member for the City of London, but that was founded,
not upon the Pirrt, but upon the facts stated by the Hon.
Member for Ba .—( Hear, hear.) The Bill now before the
House, it must be remembered, was retrospective only in its
operation, and the resolution, therefore, which the Hon.
Member ought to have proposed to the House, supposing there
had been no measure proposed, was, that what had been dis-
closed showed the adoption of a system that was calculated to
prevent the investigation into charges of bribery, and it was
therefore the duty of the House to adopt some legislative remedy
on the subject. To such a resolution he should have been
prepared to assent. Such, in his opinion, was the proper course
to have pursued. and not to call upon the House to pronounce
all the compromises that had taken place to be criminal.—
As to the last resolution, calling upon the House to issue no
writ, lie wished to ask the Hon. Member if hi was prepared
to introduce any other measure than the one brought forward
by the Noble Lord the Member for the City of London ? be-
cause if he was not, was it just to keep vacant twelve seats in the
House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He (the Solicitor-
General) doubted the right of the House of Commons to adopt
any such course, it was but one branch of the Legislatut e, and
unless the other branch assisted, he believed it would be
dangerous for the House of Commons to suspend the issuing of
a writ. unless it was intended to found upon that suspension
some legislative measure. He believed if the resolutions
of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath were
adopted, they would afford a precedent which might be taken
advantage of in worse times for evil purposes. He trusted,
therefore, the House would not countenance the resolutions of
his Learned Friend, as they were totally unnecessary, and if
they were persevered in he should move the previous question.
Sir R. INGLIS objected to the resolutions altogether, and
would have been much better pleased with his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Solicitor-General if he had met them with
Election
h y
a a direct negative. The Hon. Member seemed to have forgotten
that
Committees trialspesrwaesreeeatoe; a
of
ma
theypriv had no right
right, not
conducted
to ray that a person withdrawing a petition for his private ad-
vantage was guilty of a public wrong. He took the three
resolutions together on account of its greater convenience. The
Solicitor-General had stated his objections to the third resolu-
tion so forcibly that perhaps he ought to be satisfied
with it. He had stated that when the House met again they
would be as far from any legislative enactment that would
content the Hon. Member as now. What did he fancy to be
" purity of election?" He believed it consisted of Universal
Suffrage and Vote by
.Ballot.—( Hear, hear.) That, he hoped,
was a purity of election that would never be realised in that
House. Llelieving that the practice mentioned in the second
resolution was not sustained either •as violation of the liberty
of the people, or the rules of the House, it would be most un-
advisable as a precedent to g what had been termed a ty-
rant majority the power of deciding what places should or should
not exercise the franchise. He should cheerfully meet the mo-
tion of the Hon. Member for Bath with a direct negative.
Mr. HUME defeeded the course taken by the Hon.. Mem-
ber for Bath, who had acted strictly according to the instruc-
tions given to the Committee by the House. The Hon. Mem-
ber for the University of Oxford seemed to have forgotten that
fact. lie had not understood the Solicitor-General to make
any motion.
The SPEAKER said he believed the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman said he should move the previous question, if the
Hon. Member for Bath did not withdraw his motion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL then moved the previous
question.
Mr. HUME said he was sorry that the Hon. and Learned
to put an end
Gentleman should have put the House in that situation, since
he had admitted the practices proceeded against.
All that
ted from the honour and dignity of the
wtoa .ces
House. Would it be denied that such practi tended to produce
duce that effect? Then why refuge to_condemn them ? The
object of the motion of the Solicitor-General was to prevent
isffpareotpieoessedthtoatbdeedroognae by his Hon. Friend was
, and it would
appear a direct encouragement the House from
n that of And
on what authority would they so refuse?_ of the legal
officer of her Majesty's Government?_ How could they recon-
cile the openly stated opinion of the Right _ Hon. Baronet the
passing an opinion
tupotnothem
Member for Tamworth with this motion? The Member for
the University of Oxford said he wa.t at a loss to know hnw
these practices could be called a violation of the liberties of the
people. Why, everything that interfered with the free and fair
exercise of the franchise by the people was a violation of their
rights and liberties ; and they were equally a breach of the pri-
vileges of this House, since these compromises were for the ex-
press purpose of preventing justice being done. And would it
not tend to bring the House into contempt to let them pass un-
punished? Such language on the part of the Solicitor-Ge-
neral was a direct encouragement to their continuance. It
would appear to the public a complete farce if, after all
the trouble that had been taken, it should turn out to have pro-
duced evil instead of good. They would neither pass censure
upon them, nor provide a punishment for them for the future,
and he apprehended the Government was about to support tke
declaration. Then, he suppose& since they were not to re-
ceive the censure of the Government, they were to receive its
praise and sanction. 'That seemed to him the alternative. They
might at least concur with the third resolution ; if they issued
the writs under the present declaration, it would only
be issuing them for a renewal of the bribery. He
thought the House ought to agree to the resolutions.
He believed that, under the present constituencies, there might
be purity of election ; but he thought it would be much better
secured by Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. However,
he would support the resolutions.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE would not occupy the House many
moments. But he wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was his intention
to grant the Chiltern Hundreds to those Members who had
agreed to apply for the Stewardship, in pursuauce of the
corrupt compromises that had been exposed?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
no application had been made to him as yet. When applies-

tions should be made, it would be time enough for him to say
what answer he should give to those who made them.
Captain PLU.IRIDGE begged to ask the Chaneellor of
the Exchequer whether he would give him the Stewardship, in
order to carry nut the compromise to which he was an innocent
party? —( Laughter. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would give the answer when the application was made.
Captain PLUMRIDGE—I make the application now,—
(Great laughter, and cries of" Order.")
Mr. 13. COCHRANE strenuously denied that any charges
against him or his agents had been made out. He had refused
to give evidence before the Committee upon principle, and not

from any fear of inquiry,
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that in the course which he had

pursued in respect to the inquiry he saw no reason in the
slightest degree to regret it. He believed that the inquiry and
the development of the facts would lead to the discontinuance
of the practices which had been exposed.—( Hear. hear.) He
thought that the Hon. Member for Bath bad been hardly

dealt'with.—( Hear.) The Report of the Committee was not
the Hon. Member's Report, but that of the eight gentlemen
whom the House had appointed to carry on the inquiry with

him.—(Hear, hear.) He could not. however, rime with
the resolutions proposes( by the Honourable and Learned
. .

Member, for he thdught that it was under a distinct on-
deNtanding that they were to be indemnified Honourable

Members —came before the Committee, and gave that
evidence of which the frankness was acknowledged in strong
terms by the Committee itself.—( Hear, hear.) If the Hon.
_ _ .

and Learned Member for Bath applied for a legislative
measure to prevent such. compromises in future he

mould vote for it. But he did not think it right to pass a resl-
lutien of censure upon those gentlemen. As to the suspen-
sion of the issue of the writs for particular boroughs, he thought
that it was right to suspend the issue of a writ when it was in-
tended to disfranchise a borough, or to institute an inquiry with
a view to disfranchisement. But he could not consent to a
suspension of writs for an indefinite period until some law
should have been enacted for the more effectual suppression of

bribery. In other words, it was saying that, suppose on that
subject some future conflict should take place between the
Houses of Lords and Commons, they woulddeclare by this reso-
li in that those boroughs tushould forfeit their right of returning
Members to Parliament until the Houses of Lords and Commons
should consent to some Bill whish,in the opinion of the House,
should have the effect of preventing the commission of bribery.
Therefore he could not support the rt solution calling upon the

House to consent to a suspension of the writs in these cases.
Throughout the whole of these proceedings he (Sir R. Peel)
had taken that course which he considered must consistent with

lustie;. He feared he should gain little approbation for. the

course he had pursued; but throughout he had adopted the
course whicli he had considered most consistent with justice ;
and those Hon. Gentlemen who had acted with him had been

actuated by the same motives. He had supported the Hon.
aneLearned Gentleman in his motion for inquiry for those rea-
sons, but for the same reasonshe could not support the resolu-
tions ; at the same time he would declare his intention of sup-
porting any Bill which would have the effect of discouraging
and preventing these compromises for the future.
Mr. VERNON SMITH protested against the doctrine at.
tempted to be inculcated, that every person was bound, in
order to show his detestation of bribery, to vote in favour of
any resolutions that might be proposed against it. The Com-
mittee had done all that had been expected from it; it had
brought to light facts for the purpose of future legislation—
true, it had not carried out the speech made by the Hon.
Member when he moved for it; but the grounds on which it
had been ultimately granted, were very different from the
grounds on which it had been first moved for. He denied that
all compromises were illegal—he questioned if they were
breaches of privilege—and he was not prepared to say that
they were in every case improper. One fact had been brought
prominently forward, in the evidence taken before the Commit-
tee, and that was the expense attending the prosecution and
the defence of election petitions. In the Nottingham case, it
appeared the expense would not be less than 20,0001. Under
such circumstances, he was not prepared to say that a per-
son did wrong who, rather than incur such an immense
expense, consented to enter into an arrangement. It was
an evil, he admitted, but it was an evil that had arisen
from the mode of trying election petitions. He objected to
the second resolution on the same grounds. With regard to
the third resolution, he had more doubt than with regard to
the others. The resolutions ought tohave applied equally to Bel-
fast and Southampton. He objected to keeping the writs sus-
pended an indefinite time, but he doubted whether the writs
ought to be issued pending legislative proceedings for the pre-
vention cf bribery. He should vote against the resolutions ;
but if any lion. Member would in each individual case move
the suspension of the writ until the Bribery at Elections Bill
should have passed, lie (Mr. V. Smith) would support such a
motion.

Mr, AGLIONBY rose amidst cries of " Spoke, spoke,'
which rendered him at first inaudible.

The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member had spoken to the
original question, since which an amendment had been moved
to which the Hon. Member had a right to speak.
Mr. AGLIONBY said this debate would not be without its
results. A tree had been planted which would bring forth
good fruit. The Right Hon. Baronet had assisted at the
planting ; he was sorry that the Right Hon. Gentleman had
refused to assist in culling the fruit. It had been said that they
had on this subject been engaged in acting a farce, and this
was the second act of the farce. If the Solicitor-General had
been disposed to adopt a straight-forward course, he would
have taken the sense of the House on the resolutions seriatim,
instead of attempting to give them the go-bye, by moving the
previous question. The moving the previous question was, in
fact, admitting that the propositions contained in the resolu-
tions were undeniable, but that it was inexpedient to entertain
them at the present moment. There was nothing in the first
resolution from which any one could dissent, and yet they were
about to give the go-bye to that resolution. He warned the
House tobeware lest by their own act they should do more to
bring themselves into contempt and, disrespect, than anything
could bring them that might be said at public meetings, of which
they entertained such horror.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD would vote against the
previous question, as he was not for throwing overboard all the
resolutions. He approved of the first and second resolutions,
but he was opposed to the third, because, as the parties before
the Committee were not punished, he thoughtit wrong to punish
the electoral bodies by thus indirectly disfranchising them.
Mr. TURNER alluded to the disreputable character given of
some of the witnesses in the Penryn case, and contended that
it would be unjust to disfranchise a borough on the testimony of
such witnesses. He supported the amendment.
Mr. ROEBUCK rose, but was for a considerable time inau-
dible, owing to the extremely low tone of voice in which he
spoke. He said the Hon. Member for Reading had chosen to
speak in a way he (Mr. Roebuck) thought he would, upon
cooler reflection, be rather sorry for. It was certainly in a
very pompous phraseology, and not bearing upon the matter in
question. He would not reply. to his exclamation concerning
the principles of the Constitution or of the administration of
the law in England. He took upon himself to attack him (Mr.
Roebuck), but he would not answer it. The Hon. Member
for Harwich's objection was, that he was not a party to the
compromise. Now there was nothing like coming to the book.
Mr. Currie was asked, " You were treating of two principals,
Mr.' Attwood and Major Beresford? Yes." " Had you any
previous communication ? Yes; a letter from Major
Beresford."
Major BERESFORD—That letter was addressed to Mr.

Attwood, and not to the agent.
Mr. ROEBUCK—The Hon. Member for Lewes's objection
was, respecting certain actions. The question was, " You
were concerned in certain arrangements respecting actions
pending ?—Yes." Now this was the class bf objections to
these practises. Now he would answer to all those sort of declara-
tions about English principle, that these facts had been detailed
voluntarily by the parties themselves, before that Committee.
He could not understand bow the House could doubt that these
compromises had been entered into, when the parties themselves
had stated that they had engaged in them. Major Beresford

was asked, " You were concerned in the arrangeinent to give
up all actions pending ?—Yes; but I do not know that I was
consulted." So that the Hon. Member sactioned it.
Major BERESFORD—I beg your pardon. I did riot
know that I should have consented if I had been consulted.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Was that the way in which the Hon.
Gentleman would object ? HeX Mr. Roebuck) had stated that
compromises had been entered into by the Hon. Gentleman to
escape bribery, and these were the objections. He now came
to the real and serious question, and he would at
once state how far he agreed with the Right
HOnourable Baronet. He perfectly agreed with him
in saying, that the arrangements of this Committee were made
to inquire rather into the system than to inculpate individuals.
He (Mr. Roebuck) went further, and said, that if he
conceived that the resolutions which he had proposed
had the effect of inculpating individuals, they would not have
been proposed by him. He believed they did not go further
than was suggested by the Right Hon. Baronet himself. The
Right Hon. Baronet wished him to propose a legislative mea-
sure, but there being a legislative measure then before the
House, he did not do it. He wished an additional safeguard.
Ile could not conceive that there was anything more essential
than this second safeguard. When he brought in those reso-
lutions, as he had stated at an early period of the afternoon, his

object was to guard against a system, and not to inculpate indi-
viduals. The House said it would do no such thing. The
House wanted a legislative safeguard, and all the speakers on
that side the question said that there was a Bill before the
House. He wished them not to issue certain writs until that
Bill was passed. He wanted to know where was the danger of
that proceeding. If they got that additional safeguard, they
might frame a Bill, and do no harm to the con-
stituencies. He would leave the resolutions such
as he had prepared them to the House. He asked,
then, if these compromises did not tend to lower that
House in the estimation of the people, they would despise their
influence and their power? The Hon. Member for Oxford
had alluded to Universal Suffrage and Vote by Ballot. This
was one of the best arguments in their favour.—( Hear, hear. )
Ilue they on the opposite side were thoroughly imbued with the
vice of their position. They were so thoroughly mixed up
with all those bad practices by which they were elected, that
they ware ashamed to declare against them, and so they acted
one with another.
Major BERESFORD rose to explain. He had yet to
learn, that being in conversation with a man constituted him
his agent. Air. Currie did not, as he had stated before in his
( Major Beresford's) evidence, act as his agent, although the
Hon. Member for Bath wished to impugn his statement. The
Committee examined Mr. Currie, and he said he would not
give certain evidence unless he had the consent of his employer.
Mr. Attwood was sent for, and Mr. Attwood was willing for
him so to do, and he (Major Beresfori) was never asked at all.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the resolutions

Against them
Majority against them.... -89
On our return to the gallery we found
Mr. HUME, who said, then the Government will sanction
all those abominations ; and I wish to know whether they will
grant to those Hon. Members connected with those corrupt
cases the Chiltern Hundreds, to enable them to resume them ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—If the Hon.
Gember makes that application on his own behalf, I shall be
most happy to grant it.--(Loud laughter. )
Mr. HUME understood, then, from that answer, that they
would grant those lion. Members the request, as what they
would grant to him they had no right to refuse to any one.—
( Laughter.) lie understood that, after all the trouble they had
had in bringing those practices to light, her Majesty's Govern-
ment did not think them worthy of punishment, or worthy to
he inquired into. He supposed, therefore. that her Majesty's
Government had no objection to grant those Hon. Members
the Chiltern Hundreds to enable them to carry on those cor-
rupt practices.
The question was then put on the resolution that it was de-
cided that the original question had been carried.
Mr. ROEBUCK said he rose to move the third resolution.
He wanted to know why the writ for Nottingham had been sus-
pended. The Right Hon. Gentleman had laid down the rule
! just row why the writ should be suspended, namely, that while
there was an inquiry going on with respect to certain practices,
that inquiry had not terminated, and yet the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet had sanctioned the withholding of the writ for Not-
tingham, and he wanted to know how he could get over the.
difficulty of withholding the writ ?
The remaining resolution was then negatived without a
division.

SLAVE-TRADE.
Captain PECH ELL rose to call the attention of the House
to the operation of the Act 2 and 3 Victoria, cap. 73, for
the suppression of the slave-trade. He said that by re.
sliming the bounty upon the capture of slave ships, the
Government bad not only done an injustice to the parties
engaged in the laborious service of watching for slavers,