Star.
London, England, 1830-12-17 00:00:00

BOROUGH OF F.VLSUAM.

Lord CIIANDOS said, I.c rose to call the attention of the house to
the report of the Committee on the Evesham Election petition. which
declared that Sir Charles Cockerel' and Lord Kennedy, the members
returned, had, by their agents been guilty of bribery and corruption.
Thy evidence. not being yet printed, he could not proceed in the manner
he might otherwise do ; but he submitted to the house whether they
should allow that corrupt borough to elect members for that house before
the subject was inquired into. The noble lord moved that the Sp:aker
do issue his wtit of supenceleas to pr,.vent the execution of a writ for
the election of burgesses for Eveshant.
Lord GEORGE LENNOX seconded the motion, and read an ex.
tract from an address to the electors of Evesham' by Mr. Edward
Protheloo, jun in which he stated that he had retired from the repre.
sentation because he could not traffic in their franchises, but now he
offered himself to their choice as an independent representative. After
such addition..l evulence of the corruption of the pace, a former inde•
pendent member having retired because he would not traffic in their
ft-Anchises, he hoped the house would not allow such a place to return
twernbers to that house.

Mr. B. CLIV F. said he believed he had, as Chairman of the Corn.
nonce, acted in the usual manner in moving for a new writ, but he
had no objection to the writ being superseded.
Mr. LITTLE'FON said he had witnessed with pleasure the new
born zeal of the noble lord, in favour of purity of election. It was al.
ways the case, that where the Committee reported general corruption, no
writ issued for a new election ; but where the corruption was confined
to candidates, or their agents, a writ always issued.
Mr.C. ROSS said, though the Report did not justify disfranchisement
without inquiry, he thought it fully justified the suspension of the writ
till such inquiry took place. In the case of theYenrhyn and Camelford
elections, the Committees did not report that there was general corrup-
tion, and yet, in both instances, the.. House suspended the writ.
Mr. TENNYSON said, this was the first time in which it was pro-
posed to suspend a writ on the report of bribery having been practised
by the agents of the candidates. Twenty-two persons had received
bribes out of 406 voters, and that was such a small minority as should
not prevent the issuing of the writ. In the East Retford case, ge-
neral and long continued corruption was reported by the Com-
mittee. If ever there was a time when he should object to the
house interfeting in this manner it was the present. We had
now an administration pledged to an effictual reform,—(hear, hear.)
—and he had no doubt of their carrying their intention into ef-
fect. One of the members who now supported the measure was member
iur Bassetlaw, by giving the franchise to which, the late House of Com-
mons had disgraced itself, and the ministers contributed to their final
overthrow ; tied which he hoped it would be one of the first acts of the
present administration to disfranchise. When he saw the present mo-
tion so supported he doubted the object, and should oppose it.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, he should not enter into the ques-
tion of general reform, nor of the reform of the borough of Evesham ;
the time for which would be when all the evidence was before the house.
The question before the house was, whether the writ should be PUS.
;tended. The precedents were all in favour of issuing the writ when
the Committee did not report corruption against some number of electors
as well as the members. Front any thing before the house it was un-
certain whether the corruption was confined to one elector, or diffused
over the majority. If it was the general wish to suspend the writ, nei-
ther himself nor his friends near him should give any opposition (hear.)
4ir R. PEEL said the noble lord had stated the case with the utmost
candour, and he thought he could satisfy the noble lord that the super.
sedeas should Issue. The election committee decided between the sit-
ting members and the petitioners ; end also made a special report, that
the returned members, Sir Charles Cockerel and Lord Kennedy had,
by their agents, been guilty of bribery and corruption ; and the Gran-
ville Act decided that the house might make such order thereon as they
should think proper. The precedents in the case of Penryn and Camel.
ford were in favour of suspending the writ. In the report of the Pen.
rya Committee the report was that eight electors had been guilty of
bribery ; and in the case of Camelford, four voters; and in both the
wilts were suspended. In the present ease, though the Committee had'
not stated that any electors had been bribed, members of the committee
had stated that 22 voters were bribed ; and with such evidence before
the house, he thought they should not hesitate to suspend the writ till
they could inquire into the practice that had taken place in the borough.
Ilis 31ajesty's government were not competent to decide on such quern.
Lions, they would run the risk of doing mischief ; it could only be done
by the House of Commons. In the case of Penryn he voted for the
transfer of the franchise to Manchester ; and if general corruption should
he proved against Evesham he should support the transfer of its franchise
to Birmingham. (Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP did not think it very material which way the
house should decide. In the cases of Penryn and Camelford, the com-
mittees reported bribery against the electors, in the present case they
did not; and though individuals had done so, it was also stated that
the committee had decided against it. His opinion was, that if they
suspended the writ, they acted against precedent; but he bad no other
feeling on the subject. (Hear.)
Mr. E. DUNCOMBE said, he was a member of the committee, and
when the evidence should be before the house, he hoped the house
would disfranchise the borough ; at present be should vote for the sus-
pension of the writ.
Mr. JOHN MARTIN said, he had never heard Evesham spoken of
but as one of the most grossly corrupt boroughs in the kingdom, and
should support the motion.
Lord 111ORPETH thought if the House proceeded further it would
be a matter of some degree of alight to their Commtttee, who had not
made any special report. When the House refused to transfer the
franchise of East Retford 'o Birmingham—a conduct for which, he
believed, all anti-reformers were now bewailing themselves in dust and
ashes—(Heer, and a laugh)—he voted for the issue of a writ for East
Retford. He hoped the Borough of Evesham, and all similar Boroughs
would have justice meted out to them—not, as was erroneously said by
the Government, but by the House and the Legislature, and he should
oppose the present motion.
Mr. WARBURTON quoted a former Member of the House, who
had said that if he saw the money laid down on the table by the Mem-
bre, and taken up by the elector, he would refuse to disfranchise a
borough ; for why should they punish when they would not reform.
He would rather let the practice continue till the people became so dist.
.:ontented as to insist on general reform. On this ground, and not from
any regard to precedent, he should oppose the motion.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANKES said the argument of the Hun. Gent. was so extraor-
dinary, that he should not remark on it further than observing, that it
would admit of thrcontinuance of every abuse till it became insupport-
able. He thought the evidence of corruption was fully sufficient to jus-
tify the suspension of the writ, and should support the motion.
Sir GEORGE WARRENDER said, he had the honour of being
an elector of the borough (a laugh), and though he never attended an
election, he thought he should do great injustice to the virtuous portion
of the electors, if he did not oppose the motion for suspending the writ.
In all cases where the report of the committee merely stared that the
members had been guilty of bribery, a new writ had been issued; and
be thought the statements of members, or the address of a candidate,
should not make them take a different course at present.
Mr. M ABERLY rose amidst cries of " Question ;" he said he bad
some small claim to be beard, as be was a voter of the burgh, and was
a sort of candidate; and he rose for the purpose of 'toting it as his opi-
nion that the quest on ought to be left to the decision of the house.
Mr. BA NKES, Jun. and Mr. TWISS both supported the suspension
off the writ.

Lord CHANDOS and Mr. LITTLETON also supported the sue-
pension, and expressed themselves willing 6that_the franchise should be
transferred to Birmingham or Manchester.
The motion was carried without a division.

In reply to some observations from Mr. BANKES, the SPEAKER
stated that he would have the instrument prepared, and ready for sig.
nature, that the writ might be issued as soon as the house bad decided.