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

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
waited 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 Members were not duly elected;
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 :Member for Bath ; 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
theft day month.
Sir R. PEEL said he did not see sufficient ground for
refusing to issue the writ. It would be a very bail precedent
he thought, to refuse to issue any writ because an Honourable
Member had given notice of a Bill with respect to bribery.
In the case of Ipswich he certainly saw no peculiar circum-
stances which would justify a suspension.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had very great doubt whether in
this case it would be right to suspend the writ. Upon the
same ground which existed in this case it would be right to
suspend the writ in every case of a similar kind.
Mr. C. BULLER 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 circumstrnces connected with the election.
Mr. WAKLEY said he believed there was sufficient evi-
dence before the House to justify them in suspending the writ
permanently ; 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 of his Hon. Friend.
It was absolutely necessary that some effects ;1 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 lion.
Baronet with respect to time, appeared to him to deserve very
little weight. The 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 for 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. CHRISTIE 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 pr.viiege.
He certainly could not agree with the Hon. and Learned
Member for path on this subject, who thought that because
there were suspicions of corruption 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 Hon. 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 hail
been proved against the constituency of that borough within
his own recollection. He would to-morrow, if no other lion.
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. A GLIONBY 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 on dangerous ground, and trifling with the feel-
ings of the public on the subject. He was o 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 bat that two Members favourable t o his side
of the House would be" returned for the bor.sugh 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 he 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 Ipswich? 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 the
latter, a special inquiry was appointed on the statement of
an Hon. 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 this case, they refused to suspend the writ. Where
was the consistency of grantinginquiry 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 be suspended until the House ascertained whether
it ought to be issued at all.— ( Hear, 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
compromises 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 not 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 the;Report 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 had made in October last, if he was not
the respectable man he (Mr. Y.) knew him to be—(Laughter)

—he should say that he Lad acted most disgracefully— (Cries ,
of " Order, order ")—must disgracefully in not taking an ex-
tensive Radical initiative upon a point that affected the morality
and demoralization of the people.—( Laughter. )
Mr FERII AND rose amid cries of " Question, question,"
arid " D:vide, 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—ke was religiously in earnest in his
desire to purify the abominations of that House—((sreat
laughter)—and he could assure Hon. Members, if the circum-
stances connected with the election for the city of York, whe-
ther with reference to himself or his colleague, 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 guaran-
tee that that purification could be affected, he would apply for
the Chiltern Hundreds to-morrow.--(Great laughter, and cries
of " Question.")
Mr. W. W YNN did not think the House would do its
duty in suspending the writ unless it' had some ulterior mea-
sure in view.
Colonel RUSEIBROOKE replied.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided. The numbers were—
For the postponement
Against it ... Wfi
Majority against the postponement ... --19
On tlye Gallery being re-opened,
Mr. O'CONNELL was addressing the House on the question
that the writ do issue. He begged to call the atten-
tion of the Reuse to the Report of the Committee
appointed to try the petition from the borough of Ipswich.
Tney had before them a distinct Report that extensive bribery
had been committed; and was not that a prima facie case for
an 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 procured his
Committee on mere surmise, on these statements. He stood
before the House to ask for a Committee, supported by the
decision of seven of its Members, sworn to investigate
the subject.—( Hear, hear.) He did, therefore, respect-
fully cad upon the House to follow up that imeniry.
In forming this Committee, they would have the advantage of
the one they had already appointed; no seven individuals
would be so fit to conduct the investigation as those who formed
the Committee, and those who were added to their number
would have the advantage of their knowledge. It might be
said that this motion ought to have been made sooner, but all
he regretted was, that it had fallen into his hands at
all. It was but a brief period since the paper had
been issued, and was that a reason for refusing that
Committee? If the House decided against the inquiry,
would the public believe that they were anxious for investiga-
tion ? They would consider their declarations as mere asser-
tions. Ile was anxious to see their words followed up by deeds.
He wished the Report of that Committee to be read by the
I clerk at the table, aed concluded by moving tl.at a Committee
be appointed to investigate the bribery that had taken place at
the sloe ion for Ipswich.
1 The Report having been read,
Lord SEYIIIOUR 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 endj ot
bribery. Why then would he 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 sic the Right Hon. Baronet, instead of making
long speeches on the subject, agreeing to the inquiry agreeing
to let them know bow far this bribery had extended. The
public would not otherwise believe he was in earnest, and lie
wished to see whether the Right Hon. Baronet would assist
this side of the House in putting an end to such practices.
Sir B. 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-
stancing all that had been urged against the motion by the Noble
Lord, he was prepared to divide against him, and in doing so Ise
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 is as a sworn Com-
mittee ; yet he now wished to refer the matter from 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 lion. 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 far as 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- I
solace 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 of
that house—if they were to act on an intelligible rule which the
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-
scent 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 lie gave his vote for the
inquiry moved for by the Hon. 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 in 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 Hon. 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. He (Sir R. Peel) never
charged the Noble Lord with snaking 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 of the 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 nstituencies 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 be
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 Hon. 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 circutn-
stances. A Report had been made by an Election Committee,
then nearly 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 for 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 alter 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 cases to which reference had been made,
and that the issuing of the writ should he 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 hlghly improbable that
the Bill would disqualiey individual voters, arid he 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;
i by the arguments which had been advanced, gave notice that
'weight. It
s (Siru
esuch
R . Peel)
circumstances, thoughtw s
t he should move for an
ginivqeuniryu.
ndilere
appeared as if the House thatnot ae
nntoittiiceed f otrn i nnqutuei rhy
i was determined to suspend the issue of the writ, but
having no very plausible grounds for such a proceeding, a
motion was made by an Hon. Member for an inquiry.—
. ( Hear.) That was the history ot the circumstances under
which the suspension of this writ was to take place.—(Hear. )
i He believed it was quite possible so to constitute a Committee
i that their inquiry should be satisfactory and complete : he did
i not -distrust the Committee; he only referred to the cir-
, cumstance of no notice having been given as a strong
; proof that they did not feel their case to be suf.:
1 ficient to warrant them in disfranchising the borough. That