Star.
London, England, 1826-11-23 00:00:00

those persons who were disposed to bribe, bet also of
preventing others from receiving them. He was convin-
ced that great benefit would be derived if cases of cor.
rapt perjury in Boroughs werebrough t under cognizance
of the House. He knew full well the objection which had
been raised against theseßetolu t ion soli the expense to the
country in examining witnesses before Committees.
fhere certainly was some expense incurred in this way.
but the same was incurred by Committees appointed to
examine into transactions of less importance than bri-
bery at elections.. He could not believe, however, that
the House would refuse to appoint a COnsmittee if any specific
case of bribery could be made out ((even if the Resolutions *ere
not adopted this Session), or if any Hon. Member wets to state
publicly in the House his knirwiedge of such a fact. If any objee-
tionscould be raised against them, he thought they would be all
silenced by reflecting on the extraordinary appearance it would
have to the country of adopting certain Resolutions one Pirlia-
ment and objecting to them in the next—(Hear). He would not
detain the House any loner on this subject, but would read
over the Resolutions.. and keye the Hquse to decide as to their
adoption.—The Noble Lord then read over the Resolutions (of
Lord J. Roma, relating to Bribery at Elections), May Ilk tees.
He had may further to say, that the resolutions were merely de-
claratory of the poWers and duties ef the House; they deviated-Iw.:
.no respect from those adopted last Session upon the motion of his
Noble Friend, but if any verbal inaccuracies should be discovered
in them, be would be quite ready to subunit them to correction.
Mr. W. WYNN, in rising to oppose the Resolutions,
would certainly admit that he did not differ from the
Noble Lord in any one of his general propositions. He
did consider it the duty of that House to scrutinise any
case in which gross bribery and corruption was al-
leged; and he trusted that this House of Comatose
would imitate the conduct of its predecessors, and strive
as much as possible to repress the practices so disgrace-
ful in themselves, and so hostile to the principles of the
Constitution. He only differed from the Noble Lord as
to the mode of pursuing that object, and thought that
it was by means of election petitions that those cor-
rupt practices could most properly and effectually be
brought under the notice of the House. It was com-
petent by the present law, not only to any voter or any
candidate, but to any man who had presented himself
as a candidate, although be might not have taken a
single vote, to petition the House against the return,
and he thought it impossible that any instance of ge-
neral bribery could exist without the possibility of prov-
ing specific instances. Toe Statute Law had made provi-
sion for the punishment of bribery at elections, and when
proceedings had taken place in a Court of Justice, the
House was furnished with specific grounds for its inter-
ference. It could then determine on the expediency of
adopting further proceedings, and if it should appear
necessary, pass a bill of disfranchisement.- He could
not, however, but think, that if for eighteen months any
individual whatever, without incurring any expense or
responsibility, was to have the option of bringing for-
ward a Petition on the ground of general bribery, it
would produce the greatest inconvenience. The effect
of the resolutions would be that, whenever such a Pe-
tition was presented, notice must be sent down to the
.parties' accuses!, calling upon them to defend them.
selves, and to paY their own expenses. Surely this was
not placing the parties on any thing like an equal foot.
in;. They bad experience of the effect produced by
this kindof severe and irresponsible privilege, in what
took place under the Grenville Act, which did not at
first require from the Petitioners against returns any
security for the weasel, when it was found that Peti-
tions were sometimes presented from no stronger Rl-
docement than that of securing for the defeated candi-
date the temporary convenience of a seat under the
gallery. But when afterwards security was required,
this abuse ceased. These were his principal objections;
but he thought also that there was a very serious ob-
jection to the House pledging itself to any particular
mode of proceeding. He trusted th t the House
would always be disposed to check offences so dangerous
to the Constitution ; but he could not deem it advis-
able that they should compel themselves to act upon
Petitions merely stating that gross bribery and.cor•
ruption had taken place, which there was too much
reason to fear would be got up, in numerous instances,
for the sake of extorting money—and which, when got
up for this purpose, would often be successful. It could
not be doubted that many men, when threatened with
a petition which, however capable of being, resisted,
would at all events entail upon them a very consider-
able expense, would think it better to buy off the peti-
tion, and would consequently embrace the option of
paying a sum of money to the menacing petitioner.—
The Noble Lord had said,.that there resolutions would
not have the effect of depriving any member of his seat.
In this he could not agree with him, for of course
whenever extensive bribery was proved, the expulsion
of the member, as well as the disfranchisement of the
Borough, was to be the consequence. The greatest
abuses would ensue if these resolutions were adopted as
standing orders of the House. In the course of 18
months who knew•how many petitions might be pre.
sented? If one petition of this nature must be received,
why not many ? Why not a perpetual series of petitions
from the same Borough? Why then, he would ask. not
have every particular case to be dealt with accordihg
to the discretion of the House ? It might be said that
the resolutions were professedly founded upon distrust of
the House ; but if they were founded upon distrust of
the House, then the resolutions themselves were nuga-
tory and inconsistent. The Grenville Act proceeded
upon distrust of the House, and therefore left the. House
no discretionary power. These resolutions, 011 the con.
Crary, provided that the Committee should merely re-
ceive and report upon the evidence, and that the decision
should ultimately rest with the Hou e. He doubted
whether Committees appointed ,for this purpose could
do ample justice—prejudice and passion nould be
excited, and various interests would be set in motion,
and even without these, Gentlemen might fairly differ
as to what constituted general bribery. One Gentle.
man having heard proof of ten cases of bribery. might
infer the existence of a hundred others; whilst ano-
ther might say no, we have had only ten cues
proved, why should we pronounce that a Borough of a
hundred voters is generally corrupt. It would be better
he thought, to give an extension to the Grenville Act, as
the object in view would thereby be nr)re effectually and
unobjectionab'ly attained. If 'any instance had_ been
produced in which the House had shewn prejudice or
partiality, there might have been some reason for the resolutions;
but he did not believe that any such Instance could be produced.—