The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-07 00:00:00

evidence of another witness, a young man who ac-
knowledged that he was frequently intoxicated. From
the cross-examination of this witness it appeared that
constant and habitual bribery was common among
the journeymen hatters of Newcastle. He asked,
then, what would be thought of the morality of the
country if the House did not take some decided steps
against practices like this ? Bribery was also very
common. These witnesses told the Committee that they
were to get what wars going. William Fellovres gave a descrip-
tion of a particular species of bribery practised in this bo-
rough. It appeared that there were constantly processions
with flags in the borough ; the flag-bearers were paid ; and it
appeared that they were accompanied by burgesses as guards.
Every burgess who accompanied a flag received Si. 15s. in
money, andss. as fees. Bands were hired with the same view.
Se common was bribery in this borough—to such a system had it
been brought—that there were actually bribery agencies esta-
blished in the borough. There were established agents for
bribery, who received a regular commission. The bribe wat
usually 31. a-head, ; the voter received 21. 18s., and the agent
received 2s. as his commission. There was marketing money ;
there were dinnerings regularly paid for by the candidate
There was a regular system of bribery and of bribery agency.
He would now eall the attention of the House to the evidence
of Thomas Dilmore, at p. '26. This man's son was a voter
for the borough. Dilmore was asked, did you hear the bri-
bery oath put to your son? Yes. Did you hear him take it ?
Yes, and many more besides. Now that son had be
fore been 'proved to be bribed. The father knew
it. He suffered his son to take the oath without interfering to
prevent it. He would ask if such a case had ever before cona‘
under the cognisance (.1' a civilised assembly? A father
knows that his son has been guilty of the crime of bribery--
he sees him about to consummate it by the crime of perjury.
Does he attempt to interfere to prevent him? No ! Dees
he express any regret that he has been the suborner of his
his son's perjury ? No Ihe justifies it. Was it fit that such
things should be? Was this the scene that moral England ex-
hibited ? This was the source from which the purity of their
legislation originated. They were sent there by the vilee
drunkards, bribers, and perjurers in the world. Such fact,
having been established in evidence, be thought they ought
not to issue the writ without further inquiry. Was it not
worth while, when they found such practices accompanied
with bribery and perjury, to pause until a full investigation n 1•:,
made, and some method sought for the purpose of getting ritt
of those objectionable practices?—( Hear. )
The question having been put,
Mr. LIDDELL said he hoped the House would not be in-
duced by those portionsof the evidence produced by the HOil.
Member for Cork, with all the ingenuity of a lawyer, to cut.-
sent to the suspension of the writ. He was confident the,
was no case whatever made out for the suspension of the writ,
and as in the opinion of the Right Hun. Baronet (Sir R. Peel )
every case was to be decided on its own merits, he trusted the
Hon. Gentleman would not persist in asking for its suspension.
The Committee gave no recommendation for the suspension of
the writ. It was true objectionable practicesprevailed in the
borough.—( Hear, hear.) But if such practices were illegal,
! he hoped the House would suggest some remedy for them. I
1 it was an evil that poor voters took money it was a still greater
' evil that men of education were found to go down to thie.r
boroughs with large sums of money in order to induce those
poor electors to give their votes, not according to their con-
science, but for a sum of money.—( Hear, hear.) He hoetet
the House of Commons would give a decided opinion on those
practices. •But in a large constituency of 1,000 voters, it was
no reason why the whole should be punished, because a few
yielded to the temptation held out to them. The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the Member for Cork, would make it
appear that the amount of treating was more extensive than
was really the fact, and if the petition depended on the amount
of treating alone, the Committee would not be justified in
avoiding the election. The amount of the bills for treating was
only 501., or a little more, and that was not an extravagant
sum considering the time over which it extended, namely, four
weeks.—( Hear, hear.) He hoped he had said enough to in-
duce to House to believe that there had been considerable
exaggerations in the charges which had been made, and to
negative the motion of the Hon. Member for Montrose.
Mr. C. BULLER said it seemed to be assumed by Hon.
Gentlemen opposite, that the issuing of the writ would not be
attended with any harm. Now the plain statement of the
case was, that the bribe was paid to the electors, after the
election, in order to avoid the usual consequences. There was
here heaps upon heaps of evidence of money having been paid
on the part of the Honourable Member, under the title of
market money. The Hon. Member having read several por-
tions of the evidence taken before the Committee, observed that
the character of the borough was notorious for scandalous and
continued bribery, and the whole evidence showed that every
witness that had been examined had been bribe.:
under the semblance of flag and colour money.
He must say that he differed from many gentlemen on that
(the Opposition) side of the House, with respect to their vices
of disfranchising boroughs. He thought that a great deal of
their legislation had been objectionable. They should not sus-
pend the writ without having some good result—some practical
remedy in view. But, in the present instance, they had a
great object in view. Bribery prevailed in this borough to an
extent that was disgusting, and his Noble Friend (Lord John
Russell),meant to move for leave t, introduce a Bill to put an
end to such an evil; and they should not, while they were
adopting measures to stop the evil generally, do that which
would countenance the evil in particular instances.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Hon. Member had under..
stood him (Mr. O'Connell) to have confined his observations to
the evidence of the two cases he had adduced. He (Mr. O'C. )
had stated that the directions respecting the liquor had been
general during the canvass.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that in opposing the
amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose, he did net
mean to say that he approved of the practice of paying head-
money, which appeared to have prevailed in the borough of
Newcastle ; and he was ready to admit that some objectionable
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY. practices had taken p
elace in the borough at the last election :
bat that was no sufficient ground to justify the House in having
` sir. WA.GLACH ;live notice that he would postpone recourse
etoextrememeasures; inasmuch, as there were few or
Me' scotion to the 23d, - And that he would move for a elections at which some proceedings of an objectionable
Coettniti,:tee to inquire into the present distress of the character had not occurred. He should observe that the House
commereled and trailing districts. bad not in any case a constitutional right to suspend a writ
THE • POOR-LAW S. merely for the purpose of punishing a borough. If they
;..Tr. GRIMSDITCH gave notice of a motion, referring wished to disfranchise a borough, it should be done by an Art
Poor-lave) the purport of which was quite lof the whole Legislature, and with the consent of the Crown.
He apprehended that the Commons would not suspend a writ,
ee the.
.new
inaudible .in the gallery. He oleo begged to ask the
. even temp..rarily unless with avew ofltgid.viigrottimetocnbnrifnesgs idn
Secretary,
issuthethe r it
114r,ht Hoits.d3t!ronet, the li,:me,.
a Bill for its permanent' suspension.
was his. intent:on. to move the ,record r - gof the
I appear to him that any case of general bribery in the boroueol:
PoOr-law Coutinunetee Bill to-inor7oet ? I of Newcastle, which could justify such a step as this ,had been
Sir J. GRAHAM i.aid, it would depotgi on
the I Pr°- made out. No witness before the Newcastle Committee had
grese made in the tariff. refused to answer a question ; there had been no compromiee
LOCKING RAILWAY CAULIAGES. ,sad with regard to treating it was not considered even as suffie
.Sir R. 11. INGLIS said he had uecierstood that a via, I eient ground to unseat the Members, much less to justify the
ruler letter had been addressed by the Government to i suspension of the writ. The Committee had reported a few
thedifl'erent railways of England on the prsztie,e eefloejeieg cases of bribery, but they had made no report at all against the
the doors of the railway carriages ; he had also under- harough, and had not made any recommendation that the wilt
should suspended. He dill not consider there were any
e..00d, that on the part of one railroad that had ter proceeding against the borough of Newcastle. He
be, n more particularly referred to, die Great Western, gr°Pn4s
objetted to sttspAnding the writ, on constitutional grounds ; as
it ;'ad been signified that the Compeliy 'ye' the House of
ready Cornmerie had no power of suspending it for the
a'o alter the practice of locking the eeeend door purpose of punishing the. bprougli.
4tf the telrriages, in conft-srtnity with the requese pc , ‘
Mr. BERNAL agreed that there was no ground for the
the Gov
erre-neut. He wished to ask the Right Hoe,. : ie./evoke:am to be built on the drunkenness prevailing in New -
Gentleman,
t,.'° Vice-President of thei3oard of Trade caste,nnt they came to this point of constitutional
* circular bad been addeaeeed to the , doctrine, an'd bore he thought that his Honourable and
whether such
Railroad Companiee t whether suet a answer il.eal be. n I Learned Friend took fee neerew a view of it. If they were 10
and whethee j,::' hued any oteee..- I earnest, the House must suspend writs when the recommenda-
'returned to that letter ; ,
a. these comenteueations to the I 44.1? AL tp do so was thrust under their noses, Why else had tt e
elan to present copies of j COUltui4,49* the power of sitting and reporting: at all ?
House. • , It was proved tket the objectionable practice of giving head
• . Mr. GLADSTONE said such ft S'eply had been re; ,
az:oney had prevailed 4 flip last election, and also at a previous
eeived, in answer to a letter from the board of
'Trade.: •ce. LI. would not now ante, into the question whether heal
' seating that it was their intention to give tip the prac- • money was orzas not bribery ; but ha must say, that if there
:1.,:e of locking the seeond doer of the carriages ; there wete not sufficient icr,e:inds in this case for suspending the writ,
vamp.) objection to lay on the table a copy of the letter it would be vain even toitten:ot to suppress bribery.
from the Great Western Company in which this decision Mr. WYNN said, he could not iefrain from expressing his
opinion that, in this case, there were ' Ithtlhcient grounds for
, was come to.
EAST INDIA COMPANY. • further inquiry. For the second time, there had 4ren the pee-
.
Mr. D'ISRAELI gave notice that, on Monday next, tire of head money.—( Hear, hear.) But it would §oeut that,
he should move for a return of certain sums paid by the
if money were taken before the elector voted, it was bribersl
Lasverentent to the East India Company.
but, if it was taken afterwards, it was only a gratification.—
(Laughter, and Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman
THE BISHOP OF QUEBEC. then went on stating the evidence that was teken before the
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, seeing the Right lion. Gen. , and that there was sufficient to n gee the
Committee, said id
'tiena,it the Secretary at War in his place, wished to put House, in his opinion, to suspend the writ, The Right Beta
to hint a question which lie had on a Foote r Gentleman concluded by stating that he would support the
evening • asked t.f" the Noble Lord the Secretary motion for inquire.
for the Colonies. An officer imiel died at Quebec, Sir R. PEEL had stated, in the discussions that had prevt-
' and his brother officers,- anxious to raise a cushy taken place, that he found it difficult to adopt any pries
monument to his. metnoty, to mark their esteem ciple capable of general application. He must, therefore, judge
for his character, had applied to the Bishop for per- of the merits of each particular case, upon a review of the
mission to erect ir, in the Cathedral Church. special circumstances of that case. In endeavouring to adept
"The application was refused, on the ground that
that course, it had been supposed that he had come to eon-
the deceased officer was not tot habitual communicanz
Meting decision; ; and as a proof of that the cases of Ipswiett
,
It was understood, however, that a lengthened cornea- . wrntS,at:ldmLtmot lttoe,theeeconnerieof.eirornedthtaot.so In the case of Ips-
ffi -Sent grounds haa
poudence had taken plane between the Bishop and this not been brought forward for suspending the writ, thinkitig
Commanding Officer of the regiment ; and he (Mr. 0, • that such a course ought not to be pursued unless warranted
:Stanley) now wished to FL-.k the Right Hon. Gentleman by strong circumstances i and the Noble Lord opposite agreed
opposite whether he knew any thing of such a col res- with him that there were no grounds for suspending the writ in
pundenee, and whether,an case it had reached him, Le that case. With respect to Southampton, if ha hail
had to
deride upon the Report of the Committee alone he should
would have any objection to produce it ?
air 11. HARDINGE said that no part of the corref,- I have voted for theisseictegrogf the writ ; but when he found ups
of the le of that place, affirming that eaten
dence in question had eviir readied the authorities iu . wards (.4 300 had
pon .prevailed°there, andthat if
nine bribery
this country, and he could not consequently product: it,
lowed they should be Ole to prove it, he felt bound to vote for
He ts ould take that opportunity of saying that he had served
, the suspnsion of the writ. Looking, however, at the present
in the :tame regiment with the deceased officer, oral case, bee did not think there was se strong a ground for sue
tie could bear his testimony to his excellent cptelitie:.•• pending the writ as there was even its the Ipswich case. He
NEWCASTLE-UNDER-LYME ELECTION. admitted that the amide of distributing money under the title
Mr. ADDERLEY moved that a new writ should be 4 of inerkit money, was most objectionable; as it was, the lorg
Issued for the borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. Ile prevalence of the custom ceetaiply did in some degree diminises
did nut see how'the House could refuse to accede to the the charge of bribery. Ott the wholee be saw no ground fur
. uiotien, as no case of corrupt proceedings at the latei disfranchising the bereugh ; and he shoeld therefore give his
election had been Made out against the borough. ' l vote for the issuing of the writ.
Mr. MACKINNON seconded the motion. Lord JOHN RUSSELL seid that he should vote spiel
the immediate issuing of the writ, end he should feel it het
Mr. HUME 'Opposed the motion. He thought that
duty to do- so for the reasons which the Hon, and Learned
the Hothseshould not accede to it until the had inquired Gentleman the keelicitoreGeneral had assigned for adopting a
' fillet the allegedbribery in the borough at the last . election. contrary course, The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
Ile proposed that the" •
question of time issuing of the writ stated that it was doubtful whether head-money could he
'i ld be.Postponed'
e sou for a f •
ortmght ; and he would fur-' strictly considered as bribery; and he had gone on to sas
ther move that a Select Committee be •t 1 ' that he hoped he (Lord J. Russell) would settle the point in
quire into the extent of bribery at the
alpaps
totn election
to
fii na.--
tl:e Bill which he was abaft to introduce. There was, how-
The borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme. . doubt but the Practice WAS illegal, and that it was the
ever, no
Mr. O'CONNELL seconded the motion. He begged duty of the House, as much as possible, to discout age Dot
•to call the attention of the House to what had passed in if that were the case, it did not eppear to him that it would he
this borough. In the year 1838 a CommitteeP sat ' advisable to issue the writ at present for the borough of New •
on the subject, and they reported in the month . castle-under-Lyme, because the electors would say, that as it
of Nlarch:a that year, that most objectionable praCtices was doubtful whether bead-money partook of the nature of
existed in the borough of distributing money after the bribery, they might receive it without any danger hf ittcurrrbing
eleetiou among the poor, and in the present Report the censure of the House ; and die practice_ would, in alla p o a-
Illitye prevail at the new election, as it bad prevailed former
the charges were contained ; so
game that it e eetions.
had gotta On
appeared that these practices for The House then divided, when the numbers were-
- yenrs.-:-:(IIear.) Was the House, therefore, after a For the motion
• emend- Report, to issue a writ before knowing that the Against it
. practice was put an end to ? He believed that this clues. Majority for issuing the writ ... ~,,,, --46
non, instead of being a light affair, ++ as one of the twist 9.7 our re-admission to the gallery we found
al H UME s I,*
;. serious that had come before the House for some time. pea-mg. He would suggest a much bete?
mode .of
---elle believed that the money distributed had led to the moet
0 repeal Tieceeedtleg than the present see-saw one, which was
31 Profligate drunkenness. He arraigned the constitheney r dowe tothlettrhconstituentsagainstget and buy all they could It appeared
. ler that, for corrupt bribery and tie MI petamm7 the
people E
, to him an attempt to blind of * - -
ngland to say there
"`. . turd also he• . believed - that the minister of reit- . was a disposition to stop bribery, when he now saw the
Minister
Via was • Ile' pander to that bribery.—(llette 0 i.) 'of the Crown, leading the opposition ti, nquiry. He there.
A voter ,Atie had gat his son bribed. attended fore, regretted that the time of the House ''
. should be uselessly
'seithhis -
son at the 'polling booth, le ho innate_ occupied. .
c 'eliately vOted after his father. The bribery 1 '
yet t The SPEAKER then put the question
that
the writ be
was tendered to him in the presence of his father issued, which was agreed to,,
who hail teen instrumental • lie, bribery. When .In the , BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BII.L.
• r .i . • Lord JOHN RUSSELL then rose to move for leave 4
, rather NS b asked how he couldallow rjure'
Ihimeelais reply was thatothers bring in a Bill for the better discovery of Bribery in 4
had done the same. If he the Election of Members of Parliament. He said
wade out cases of co. • titntotte drunkenness ttnd bribery, that the House had considered that bribery was an
and a total disregard theofsolemn obligation of an oath, evil whirls poisoned the fountains and sources of re,
would the House issue its
wsent(itoempewer those drunken . presentation. He knew that ingenious arguments had
- wretches and perjurers to a Member to Parliament? been brought forward showing that as they could not do away all
-•. He would next call the nattentionCo of the House to the corrupt practices—as they could not establish complete intelli-
- • .evidence given before the
unTittee on the Belfast gence and complete purity in the theesterciseofto electoral fran-
eelection petition in 1838. Thepartial
tit. lion and Learned
bribery.chise—it was useless to attempt by lawßussell) heard that
.4entleman hero read extracts °from the evidence But until he (Lord J
,elf Richard Wade, a housekeeper considerable number in that argu.
of Belfast rnent supported by some
sad his wife, which went to show tr' he should consider that in this, as in all our cases, they would
that i .
qttentities of liquor had been - consumed on theirare endeavour by inquiry, by penalty, and by punishment, to
.pet
premises by voters during those elections, and that an end to that which the law could reach, although they might
this liquor had been ordered by the Tory c •
Committee.' said •
not be able to do all that they wished to do. It had been
with respect to bribery by a great authority, " If you show
• As far,' then, as the election went, nothing could be jme the bribery I will show you the law to punish. it." He
• ' 'claarer than that treating and drunkenness pre-
(Lord J. Russell) believed that to be perfectly true with respect
• "'tailed to a great extent. The Hon. and .to the penalties of bribery—there could be no act of bribery 1
. . `Learned Gentleman then read extracts from the committed with which
respect to there was. not some penalty
. . ,

--he took- a 'public-house, at a rent of 7(1
a ;'On; ;that owing to the progress of the temperto:ce
::,moment under Father '.,lath,: w. and other utro:tuneto
circututences, he became greatly. embarrassed ; that Lis
--poiitical opinions, with one exception, have always been
opp,::.-ied to the Tory candidates, and that he had de-
termined at the last election to vote in favour of
Loyd Belfast and Mr. Muss ; that he had been
• waited oa by partisans of the Tory candidates
and by the candidates personally, and offered large sums
of money to vote for Mr. Tennent and Mr. Johnstone ;
that he knew that large bribes had been offered to
electors to vote for the Tory candidates ; that his
wic,!. pressed him to vote , against his opinions on
aceottut of his embarrassed circumstances ; that two 1
active members of the committee of Messrs.
'Ferment and Johnstone had pressed him to ac-
cept
money for his vote ; that on the third day
of polling those two members of the Committee
pressed him to take twenty pounds for h:a vo e.
He stated that about eight or nine o'clock in the even-
ing, two gentlemen of the Tory Committee came to his
;house, and gave him a 201. note ; that he was afterwerds
srbliged to sell his furniture to meet the demande of his
crec titers ; that his -customers of the Liberal party
. totally. deserted him, and that he got very little
credit from the opposite party. lie was told
however, that Mr. Tennent hoped to get an appointment
in the Government, and that he would then get one for
him ; and a letter was written to him from Liverpool,
elated August, 16, 1841, in which he was told, that
if he would point out any situation which he
could till, the writer would exert any influence
hich he possessed to procure it for him. The le:ter
was signed "J. E. Tennent." He stated that he
then fnrwarded to Mr. 'ferment some testimonials
eigned by a number of persons in the town. Early in
April last he again wrote to Mr. Tennent ; and, in
reply, Mr. Tennent said he had better come up to Len-
clan, that he might be at hand. In reply to another
.letter, Mr. Tennent stated that he was sorry
,that he had not anything to report yet, but
:that it was almost too soon to expect it.
'rho petition then went on to state that the petitioner
repeatedly called on Mr. E. Tennent, but was unable
to obtain any favourable answer. The petition then
proeceded to state that on Thursday laSt the peti-
tioner called at the East India Board, when
it was stated that Mr. Tennent was too busy
' to see him ; and, upon the petitioner calling
efterwards, Mr. Tennent declined seeing him, but sent
hint back halfn-sovereign. On another occasion of the
petitioner's calling, he was told that the matter was com-
promised, and that the ex-Members would pay all
the expenses. The petitioners then stated that exten-
sive intimidation was exercised at the last election.
and . that the most improper conduct prevailed ;
that the arrangements were made in the Committee of
rho sitting Members, and must have been known to them ;
gat tile best thing which the petitioner now conceived
~he stools, do was to offer to prove the same to their
Hi-iOuraiele House, and to expose the scandalous practices
• took place at the election. He, therefore
.grayed for a Select Committee to inquire into the
~e4ets, and for indemnity to the witnesses. The
geght Hon. Gentleman then said that he meant to
give notice of a motion at as early a day as he could,
dee purpose of proving those and other facts which
capable of proof of the nature stated in the pe-
tition—the number of persons who were bribed—
Jflp errnspirary to personate—and that a select
itiody of persons were ready to come up and personate
• th?se whose names appeared upon the list, -and that
vane of . them actually voted for two persons.
lie would therefore, move on Thursday next
the a,. Select Committee to inquire whether
A corrupt compromise had been entered into, for the
,le,e:pose of avoiding investigation into gross perjury, and
. • c:/qensiee personation of voters, which had been alleged
• tnhave been practised at the late election for the town of
• Aelfast. lie should also move that the petition be printed
-awl circulated with the Votes.
Mr. S. O'BRIEN seconded the motion, which was
ak.greed to.
ALLOTMENTS OF WASTE LANDS.
Mr. -. •
FERRAND gave notice, that he would move for
leave to bring in a Bill to complete the allotment* of our
waste lands in those places where the population amounted
At) 10,000 persons.
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.
The HON. GENTLEMAN also gave notice that he would
ott Wednesday next move, that an humble address be
I,w:wilted to her Majesty, expressing their deep regret
t,Ne amount of distress in the country, and beseech-
iwg bet' to grant the sum of 1,000,000/., for the purpose
eif relieving that distress, and which would be provided
lemr by Parliament.
PRISON BILL.
The Hoste GENTLEMAN also gave notice that he would
„move for a repeal of the Act of Parliament called- the
titeeen's Prison Bill.
MERCANTILE MARINE.
C, NAPIER gave notice, that he would, on
Tilivliday next, move for a Select Committee, to inquire
into ti.:e state of the Mercantile Marine ; and also to a -
certain whether the Registration Bill was deficient or