The Sun.
London, England, 1842-05-28 00:00:00

Lord J. RUSSELL said he perhaps differed in opinion from
a large majority of the Howse, as he thought there was less
reason to refer this case to a Committee than the others.—
( Hear, hear.) The point that most affected the character of
the House was, whether there had been a compromise for the
purpose of avoiding an investigation into bribery. If that
were established, then there would be stronger ground for
further legislation than they yet had. From the petition of
Mr. Warburton, and the full statements of the two Hon.
Members, they had all the facts relating to the compromise
before the House. This was the reason he thought there was
the less necessity for referring this case to a Committee than
the others. He did not wish to enter into all the details of
the case, and the disputes that had taken place between the
three gentlemen. Though they gave rather a discreditable
exposure—( Hear, hear)—yet he thought they were not of
such public interest as to require special investigation. It
they were to have an investigation into the bribery in Brid-
port, the motion ought to have been a different
one; it ought to have been for an inquiry at the
bar of the House, or before a Special Committee,
that had the case of no other borough to try. He thought
there was less ground for inquiry in this case than in m triv
others, but as there was a full statement in the petition of
case of a compromise, he felt disposed to accede to the motion
of the Hon. Member. Now he whiled to observe, with re-
spect to the motion of the Hon. Member for Bath, that the re
had been words added to that motion, which he for one did not
expect to see ; and he would state in what course he thought
the Committee could inquire into bribery and corruption in
respect to these several places. He thought they would ascer-
tain first, if they could, where a compromise had been entered
into, and in the next place whether it might not have been
made from motives totally unconnected with bribery and cor-
ruption. It might prove that Members had resigned their seats,
because they did not like to face a long inquiry, or because they
found themselves in a bad state of health. They would not as-
certain anything decidedly by ascertaining that certain persons
had surrendered their seats by compromise--( Hear,
hear.) He thought it would be utterly impossible for
the Select Committee to state to what extent bribery
had been committed, so as to enable the House to suspend the
writ or to disfranchise the borough ; and, in the second place,
he thought that was not the mode in which such a Committee
should be appointed. There were two modes in which the in-
quisition might be carried on. They might have an inquiry
before an Election Committee in which the facts being stated
on oath were reported by that Committee; or there might be a
special inquiry, as in the case of Grantham, with respect to a
particular borough, with a view to ascertain the state of that
borough, unconnected with any mere personal considerations.
The motion for a Select Committee with regard to compro-
mises, did not appear to him to be calculated to answer either
o: these ends. He thought the inquiry should be directed to
the question whether the compromises were connected with
bribery and corruption. Though he did not oi•ject to the pro-
posal to send the case to a Select Committee, he must say that
he was exceedingly sorry that it had been thought necessary to
enter into details of these transactions.
Sir R. INGLIS said he felt compelled to differ from his
Right Hon. Friend on the motion before the House. So far
as the constitution of that House was concerned the law had
vested in a special tribunal the decision of all questions respect-
ing it; so far as public morals were concerned, the law had
vested in another tribunal the question of punishing persons
accused of bribery. They were now endeavouring to
transfer the latter jurisdiction to a tribunal which
they had already declared to be overworked.—( Hear. )
The Hon. Member for Bath had not even got his machinery
prepared for the experiment. The Bill had only been read a
second time, and there could be no hope that it would become
law before the end of June. He mentioned that, lest the
Ilouse, in a fit of virtuous indignation, should mislead itself and
the public.-- (Cheers.) It appeared to him that it was phy-
sically impo•sible for the Committee to do all that was expected
of it. He would, before he sat down, merely allude to what
had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Worcester,
The cheers at the statements of the two Hon. Members for
Bridport had not been confined to his (Sir R. side of
the House, for he heard cheers quite as hearty proceeding from
Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House.—(Opposition
cheers. )
Viscount PAL 11ERSTON would submit to the House
whether they were not running away with rather an exagge-
rated view of these questions of compromise.—( Cheers. )
Gentlemen seemed to think that there was a great deal in these
compromises, which were as culpable as if the object of them
had been to withdraw from the cognizance of Election Com-
mittees facts relating to bribery at elections. Those gentle-
men seemed to labour under a misconception of the existing
law relating to the trial of election petitions. The law con-
sidered those matters as entirely and solely questions of private
right. It did not let in the interest of the public at all at • a
third party concerned.—(Cheers.) He thought that was a
fault in the law, and ought to be corrected—(Cheers)—but
they had no right to complain of individuals taking advantage
of the law as it was.—( Hear, hear.) The law invited com-
promise; it expressly gave the petitioner power of withdrawing
his petition at any time, and the 85th section enacted
that if the Committee should be of opinion that the sitting
Member's defence of his seat was frivolous and vexatious, they
should report the same to the House, and the sitting Member
should be punished by being forced to pay the petitioner's ex-
penses. • So that the sitting Member was told by the law to
consider well before he undertook to detend his seat. Sup-
pose that a petition, being presented against a Member, his
counsel, having duly considered the case, should tell him that by
the flagrant misconduct of his agent bribery could be clearly
proved against him—could that Member be expected to defend
his seat at the risk of having his defence declared frivolous?
compromise
And yet, if he resigned his seat he was subjecting himself to
the imputation of having a charge of corrupt
brought against him, and of having a Committee ap•
pointed to inquire into the transaction.—(Loud cheers. )
Just let the House consider the position in which
such an individual was placed by the law.—(Cheers.) He
' thought lion. Members were going too fast in attributing, to
these compromises that degree of criminality which they
seemed disposed to attach to them.--(Cheers.) He thought
it desirable that the law should be altered—(Cheers)—he
thought that the public ought to be admitted as a third party.
—( Cheers.) He denied that the seat was really private pro-
perty, in which light the existing law considered it. He con-
sidered that it was a public trust, and that all proceedings re.
lating to it ought to be conducted mainly with a view
to the public interest.—( Cheers.) The seat was not a
private right—(Cheers)—it was a public trust.—(Cheers.)
He thought the main object to which they should direct their
attention was the system, and not the individual. They should
make such a change in the law as would prevent these com-
promises being made in future. For these purposes he would
faithfully and cordially give his vote; but he thought, for all
the reasons which had been alluded to in what had passed, that
the Committee, which had been agreed to by the House, could
not arrive at any conclusion which would materially assist them
in that which was the object of their labours. Take the case
of bribery. If the existence of bribery were a thing surmised,
but not proved, they would then have to go into the cases of
' bribery ; but no man would question the great extent to which
bribery had prevailed, and they all knew that the system of
bribery had been more extensive than could be inquired into.
He doubted, then, the propriety of going into the inquiry to the
full extent.—(Cries of " Oh, oh," and hear.) He would
tell them why. If the practiee had been as extensive
as he was afraid it was, he thought that the public morality
would be best consulted by passing some law to prevent its re-
currence in future; because lie held that if they proved to the
couutry that criminal practices had prevailed, it would tend
rather to diminish the magnitude of the offence than to in-
crease it in the eyes of the public.—( Hear, hear.) There
became a kind of sympathy with it, and the abhorrence at it
died away. The most useful object to which the labours of the
Committee could be directed, would be to consider the mode in
which these practices could be prevented. 'That would cer-
tainly be a more useful occupation for the Committee than in-
quiring into a few out of many cases, and holding up to odium
a few individuals in which many more ought to share ; and more,
after the House had determined in the case of Ipswich that no
inquiry should take place, he could hardly understand on what
principle the House should act in a contrary manner on the
present occasion.—( Hear, hear. )
Lord STANLEY concurred with the Noble Lord opposite,
that the House appeared to take up, with an extraordinary de-
gree of energy, the investigation into matters of compromise,
which must be known to nsernbers who had sat in that House
as long as he (Lord Stanley) had, to take;place at every generel
election. The Noble Lord stated quite truly, that an Election
Committee was a trial for a private right, and in it the
public had no right of interference,---( Hear, hear. )
Agreeing with the Noble Lord thus far, he differed with him
in the view which he took of the duty which ought to devolve
on the Committee about to be constituted. He differed also
with the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford, who con.:
sidered that there were only two courses for the House to pur-
sue, that of examination before a Committee of the House, or
before the criminal tribunals of the country. If that were so,
if those were the only courses open to the House, he thought
there was a great gap about to be supplied.—( Hear, hear.)
He thought there was little difference between the Noble Lord
opposite and the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir H. Peel) as to the
course which ought to be taken. They both considered that
the point to be aimed at was the investigation of bribery, not
for the purpose of individual punishment, but for the purpose
of aiding in future legislation, effectually to apply limits to
bribery for the future. He wanted to know, then, what better
course they could have for their future legislation than the eli-
citing by evidence of the system of bribery in all its modifica-
tions, the different manners in which it might be carried on.
He thought there was a great objection to keeping a kind of
Parliamentary lion's mouth open, for the purpose of receiving
accusations coming from any party. He did not understand the
Right Hon. Gentleman nor the Noble Lord, in assenting to
the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, and
pledging themselves to no distinct opinion, as to whether it was
right that this ease should be referred to that committee ; but
simply to pledge themselves, that on the petition of the Hon.
Gentleman lately Member for Bridport, and upon thefitate-
nients of the two Hon. Members for Hridport, in their places in
that House, that it was desirable that that House should enter
on the inquiry, not for the purpose of visiting Mr. Warburton,
not for the purpose of visiting the other Hon. Gentlemen, with
any pi nal consequences, but for the purpose of laying before
the House that which hest occurred at Bridport, that which
might take place to-morrow, that which would take place
year after year, until the House of Commons took such steps
as would put a stop to such practices. On the one hand he
was not prepared to give at that moment a distinct declaration
hist it
y waes
for
p m io
thes
-
be for the House upon this point, he thought it was a case to he referred to the
priskaefiarrdm.
that this was a case which ought not to pass unnoticed by the
House. An inquiry ought to take place into the case of Brid-
port,Committee ; and on the other baud with respect to the motion
of the Noble Lord, to refer this to the Committee appointed by
the Hon.
.Memberforoeto d
Batelic,ide ; this was a case the
but he was rep a
for ed
Lto f
Mr. BANKES had never understood that there was any
other motion for an inquiry before the House, but that of the
Hon. Member for Path. He did not think this was a case to
first motiona nd he
that was
was therefore
madebyprtehpear Heodn. to iv
Member e vote
be submitted to the Committee appointed by the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bath. The House could not with justice agree to this
i
petition, and refuse to grant it n any other ease, and that, in
his opinion, was a sufficient ground for rejecting the motion.
Mr. C. BULLER replied.
Sir R. PEEL said he had some doubts as to the Committee
which should conduct the inquiry. The Hon. and Learned
Member for Bath had a Bill under the consideration of the
House to give indemnity
to witnesses who were to be examined
before the Committee, and it would be necessary, if the inquiry
asked for by the Hon. Gentleman was to be referred to a sepa-
rate Committee, to have a similar Bill passed in that case also,
and he thought the passing of many such Bills was open to
strong objection.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it would be
worth while to consider whether or no these Compromises did
not partake of a general nature, and whether this inquiry
ought to be referred to the general Committee or no.
Air. C. BULLER made some observations which were in.
audible in the gallery, in consequence of the loud cries of s• Di-
vide, divide."
Sir C. BURRELL said he did not think that the Members
for Bridport were placed in the same situation as the
others respecting whom inquiry was to be made, and he
should therefore vote against the motion.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Buller's-motipn
Against it .......... ...... s•e. 37
Majority in favour of Mr. Buller's motion —ll9
Mr. C. BULLER then said, that he should move the
adjournment of the debate, upon the second motion of which
he had given notice, for referring the inquiry to the Select
Committee appointed to inquire into the alleged compromises
on the subject of the elections at Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes,
and other places,