with a good deal of opposition, he, instead of rejecting the measure from the motives assigned, supported it; and the noble lord having complained of the difficulties he encountered from the want of official information and official aid, and requested him to undertake the measure, he gave no proof of a desire to oppose it, on the ground of its having emanated from the opposition side of the House; for his answer was, that, although unwilling to deprive the noble lord of the credit of the bill, he was quite ready to afford him any assistance in his power for its advancement. Therefore he could not join in the censure conveyed by the noble lord upon those who co-operated with him. But while he contended that it was most unfair and unjust to attribute to him and those whose sentiments he shared, a repugnance against measures brought forward with a view to the reformation of abuses, on account of their having been brought forward by hon. members sitting on the opposition side of the House, it would be equal folly and equal weakness to suppose, that they were bound to admit detailed propositions of which they did not approve, merely because they proceeded from the other side. Although he might agree with the hon. gentlemen opposite as to general principles, he had a right to reserve to himself the liberty of judging whether the means proposed for checking an abuse, or instituting a beneficial alteration were efficacious or proper. So, although no man could be bold enough to stand forward in vindication of bribery or corruption at elections, yet it was but fair that he should be allowed the privilege of examining whether the proposed mode of suppressing it were a proper mode. For his own part, he was convinced that any alteration would be much better carried into effect by means of a specific bill, to regulate the proceedings, than by a resolution to refer such matters to a committee. He considered it would be painful to affirm or to reject any charge of such a nature, against any member of the House, by such a committee; and he would leave the House to judge of that, even upon the statement made by the noble lord (J. Russell), that they were to perform only the office of a grand jury in receiving evidence. But the resolution of the noble mover concluded by saying, "and that the committee do report their opinion thereon to the House." He would then ask, whether the House could come to an unprejudiced decision, when the noble lord proposed that the committee should consist of those members of the House who were most remarkable for "their probity, sagacity, and integrity ?" And he would also ask, whether the naming of any number of persons, as thus distinguished above their equals, would not be an insult both to the constituents of every member not on the committee, and to the elected themselves. Every man in that House, no matter what were the numbers or the power of his constituents, possessed equal rights, and there could be no reason why any particular persons should be presumed to possess a mental superiority. It would be, in fact, to put a particular mark for sagacity and integrity, on certain individuals. He would not submit to have such a mark placed on, or such a power intrusted to, any twenty-one men, But, supposing that such a thing were done, and a selection, the purest that could be made, were resorted to-what would be the consequence? The more pure the selection, the more binding would be their decision; and that decision, made upon what, too? Why, upon ex-parte evidence. But, what kind of sagacity would be exhibited in deputing any number of men for an unlimited time (as was proposed by this resolution), to pronounce opinions and give decisions upon the conduct of all those who were as competent and as fully entitled as themselves, to pronounce upon the conduct of others? He would not so far outrage the grounds of his opinions, as to proceed further upon this point; but, as a comparison of this committee to a grand jury had been made, let the House see how they could be compared. A grand jury no more resembled such a committee than the juries of the court of King's-bench, or of any other court, did. A grand jury was chosen from the people for a short and limited period, and merged almost at once back again amongst them. No one knew, before-hand, who was to be on it. It had no permanent jurisdiction to inquire; and whatever came before it, had been before verified upon oath before the magistrates. But what was to be the limitation of the jurisdiction of the proposed committee? Was every complaint, from every individual, relating to every town, to be received and examined by it? According to the resolution, every case of alleged bribery or corruption was to be submitted to the committee, and without any qualification or restriction. No provision was made with respect to security. Again, he was desirous to know whether it was proposed that the proceedings before this committee should be carried on at the expense of the public or of the party for this point, too, was left unsettled. Nor was any period of liability specified. What! was every member to be exposed, for five years to come, if parliament should last so long, to the accusations of any man who might choose to prefer charges without incurring any responsibility, or subjecting himself to any penalty? There were no recognizances to be entered into by any party who might thus come forward; nor was it stated whether the inquiry was to be made at the public expense. If such a measure was to be adopted, a bill would be the course to be pursued; for, in its progress, all those proper and necessary restrictions would be introduced, and he would, therefore prefer waiting for the bill of the right hon. baronet. He could most sincerely declare that he knew not on which side of the House the hon. members for the borough alluded to by the hon. member for Berkshire sat; but if that hon. member would tell him that there was a borough in which, six months after an election, a man went about the town with 201. notes, to pay electors for their votes, imagining that because the fourteen days prescribed by law had not expired, they could practise these arts with impunity if that hon. member would cite the mayor and corporation of such borough, he would take upon himself to assert the privileges of the House, and, if a prima facie case of corruption should be made out, he would consent that the Miller himself should be brought to the bar of the House, and would institute as rigid an inquiry as was sought for by this resolution, against which he now expressed his determination to vote. Mr. R. Martin said:-In conformity with the vote I gave when the conduct of the borough of Grampound was under consideration, and in consequence of the pledge I then gave, I feel myself bound to give the proposition of the noble lord some degree of support. If I have no other alternative, I will vote for the noble lord's resolution, not because I hold it free from objection, but because it is the only mode of expressing my opinion by my vote upon this subject. At the same time, I hope that some amendment will be brought forward; that some counter resolution will be offered to the House by a member of the king's government, in order that I may give it my support. Under the expectation that some middle course may be adopted, the noble lord will, perhaps, allow me to recommend. him to withdraw his proposition, at least for the present. But I wish, before I sit down, to ask the noble lord why he does not extend his resolution to counties as well as to boroughs? For I contend that more corrupt practices actually exist in counties than are ever discovered in boroughs. I assert, that there is more flagrant, more abominable, more stinking corruption in counties, than was ever yet exposed to the disgust of all honest men, in any borough either of England or Ireland. I know a county (and give me leave to say that the administration and the country have suffered a discredit, if I am not contradicted) into which a Secretary of State, or rather an under Secretary of State, went three days before the election took place, and opened a bank to defray the entire expenses - of whom? Of his nominee, I repeat his nominee, and I repeat it, because he called him "his man." So help me God, I am able to bring positive proof of what I state. I can prove that the under Secretary, out of his own money, paid the whole expenses of his candidate--that he promised places-that he gave bribes: nay more, I will prove that he actually promised a peerage [much laughter.] And there had been no check to these practices, because the press, from one end to the other, is full of the most notorious corruption. With reference to the risibility of the House I am not surprised at it. Such conduct, however, ought rather to excite disgust and indignation. If such practices had been used against even Mr. Cobbett, the affair would soon have got wind. The under Secretary, of whom I complain, did actually apply for places for some of his friends and supporters, during the election; and I appeal to the House whether such a state of things ought to be allowed to exist?-And, as they do, undoubtedly, exist, I ask whether the motion of the noble lord ought not to be extended to counties? The person whom I have alluded to is the marquis of 673 Bribery at Elections. new Clanricarde, under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Yes. I denounce him as the man, and I ought to have denounced him earlier. Within twenty days I shall establish all I have advanced before a committee, and I shall apply for a special report against that individual. I shall be able to prove that the noble marquis has been guilty of abominable practices. The members of the government, in concert with whom I have acted for forty years, have, I conceive, been guilty of as objectionable conduct as the individual of whom I complain. It is immaterial to me, whether one man, or a hundred men, are corrupted or intimidated; it is quite clear that the existing law does not reach particular cases; and, therefore, it is proper that some resolution should be entered into. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said: -If the hon. member for Galway is entitled to accuse ministers of ingratitude after a service of forty years, I do not think the noble mover has much reason to be thankful for the sort of support which his proposition has just received. I apprehend he will be inclined to reject a vote given upon such grounds, and under such circumstances. Regarding the transactions during the election for Galway, I know nothing but I hope the House will do the noble marquis, who is the object of attack, the justice to suspend its judgment. When I mention that the hon. gentleman who has stated his own case against the noble marquis is himself petitioned against by the very individual with regard to whom this corruption is alleged to have taken place, the House will perceive, that it would be most unfair to arrive at any premature decision. Let it be recollected, too, that that petition charges the hon. member for Galway with almost every offence of which it is possible for a candidate to be guilty. : Lord Milton said, that the object of his noble friend's motion, so far from being prejudicial to any party, fairly engaged in an election struggle, would have a very different effect. The object appeared to him to be that of putting the committee in possession of certain information; and it would then be for them to decide whether that information was or was not of sufficient importance to call for the interposition of the House. So far the committee, with reference to the House, were placed precisely in the situation of a grand jury, VOL. XVI. and yet he had heard it asserted, that Mr. W. Wynn said, he did not approve of the form of the resolution then before the House, and he had therefore drawn up another, which, perhaps, he should be allowed to read. In making the present proposition, he was sure the noble lord would feel that he was not actuated by any wish to stifle an effort which had for its object the prevention of corrupt practices; but he feared, if the proposition then before the House was agreed to, that it would give rise to a great many vexatious complaints. He therefore thought that a resolution to the following effect would meet the object of the noble lord, and would steer clear of the difficulties with which the noble lord's proposition was connected: "That all persons who will question any future return of members to serve in parliament, upon any allegation of bribery or corruption, and who shall in their petition specifically allege any payment of money, or other reward, to have been made by any member, or on his account, or with his privity, since the time of such return, in pursuance or in furtherance of such bribery or corruption, may question the same at any time within twenty-eight days after the date of such payment, or if this House be not sitting at the expiration of the said twenty-eight days, then, within fourteen days after the day when the House shall next meet." Lord Milton said, that the proposition of the right hon. gentleman did not go the length of his noble friend's resolution. But, while he admitted that he did not like the resolution of the right hon. gen◄ tleman so well as he did that of his noble friend, he was ready to confess that the former would be a very considerable improvement of the law as it at present stood. Lord J. Russell urged the propriety of passing a general resolution, declaratory of the determination of the House to put an end to bribery and corruption. Lord Milton asked whether, under the resolution of the right hon. gentleman, general corruption might be proved in a borough, or whether it would only go to vacate the seat of a particular member? out pursuing the investigation, to ascertain whether it would be fit to disfranchise the borough for bribery and corruption. Lord Althorp felt called upon to state, that there was a considerable difference between his own resolution and the sug gestion of the right hon. gentleman. His own proposition was intended to have the Mr. W. Wynn said, the only question effect of facilitating the disfranchisement was, whether the cases referred to by the of corrupt boroughs, while the amendment noble lord's resolution, did, or did not, of the right hon. gentleman would by no come within the scope of the present law. means go to that extent. In many cases If they did not, then, he contended, that before election committees, only enough his resolution fully supplied the deficiency, was proved to unseat the particular memMr. Abercromby approved of the sug-ber, and there the inquiry stopped, withgestion of the President of the Board of Control, but contended, that the difference between the two sides of the House really amounted to nothing. All gentle-He did not include counties, because his men seemed unanimous in favour of the proposition of his noble friend. No man disputed, that the case stated by the hon. member for Berkshire ought to be investigated at any period of a parliament, Now, under the Grenville act, it could not be done after the lapse of a certain time; so that the House had only two modes of proceeding either the appointment of a committee, to which the particular complaint might be referred, or the examination of witnesses at the bar. All knew that the latter course was most inconvenient, by delaying the public business of the session. The whole difference, therefore, was simply this-would the House, on an early day of the session, appoint a committee for the investigation of matters of this kind, or would it wait until the particular case occurred requiring investigation? If the former course were taken, no favour could be shewn. If the latter, it was liable to the imputation of partiality, Mr. Baring thought, that the proposition of the noble lord would open the door to vague inquiry, while the resolution of the right hon. gentleman was open to another objection. He had for many years voted in minorities; and, if a charge of bribery were brought against a member of the opposition side of the House, in times when party feeling ran high, he feared he would have but a bad chance of a fair inquiry. Mr. R. Palmer observed, that the reso object was, not to attack the seats of members, but to purify boroughs; and he knew of no means of disfranchising counties. Although he preferred his own resolution, he considered that the change proposed by the right hon. gentleman would be a great improvement of the present election law of the House. Under the circumstances, he would not trouble the House to divide, but could not consent to withdraw his resolution, The resolution was negatived without a divison. On the proposition of Mr. Wynn being put, Lord Althorp said, he was willing to support the resolution, because he felt considerable anxiety for any beneficial alteration of the law on this point. Lord Milton agreed, that, as far as the resolution went, it tended to remove corruption in boroughs. But he must take leave to observe, that the scope and object of the resolution of his noble friend was different from that of the right hon. gen tleman's proposition, His noble friend wished to get rid of the corruption of the elective body, but the right hon. gentleman opposed himself to the person elected. This, he allowed, was a good object but it was different from that which his noble friend had in view. Mr. Secretary Peel concurred in the opinion of the noble lord, that the scope and object of the resolution now before the House was different from that of the proposition which had been rejected; and for that very reason he would support it. It was, in his opinion, an improvement of the Grenville act. Under that act, when no promise in writing was received, when no bond was given, when no sum was paid, but an understanding was entered into between the parties, that, at a certain time after the election, a douceur should be given, then the law might be evaded. But his right hon. friend's resolution provided this further security, that, within a definite time, if a specific fact were stated, the party might have redress: he would support the resolution, because it was a considerable improvement of the existing law. Mr. Abercromby viewed the great question as being, whether a general committee should be appointed, or a committee on each particular case. He was not in clined to attach all the importance to the present resolution, which, on the first blush, some gentlemen might think it deserved. Many petitions were presented under the bribery act; but they all must be aware, that though bribery was mentioned as one of the points on which those petitions were founded, that charge was rarely touched upon. They were not, therefore, he conceived, likely to benefit much from the present resolution. From that of his noble friend he believed much good would have arisen, as it referred to a class of cases quite different from those which the present resolution was intended to meet. it said "in all future returns." In his Lord J. Russell thought, that the reso- Mr. Wynn said, that he wished by this resolution to keep both the electors and the elected pure. The person seeking for a seat, if solicited, would answer, "I cannot bribe you, even though you wish it; because, long after the election is over, if any well-founded impropriety is complained of, I am certain to lose my seat.' He would thus render it imperative on candidates not to transgress the law. Lord Milton had two objections to the resolution. The first was to the word "future;" the other was, that the cor rupt promise mentioned in it only referred to the payment of money: whereas a candidate might bribe a voter by promising him a place in the Customs, or some other situation, and not offend against the resolution. Mr. R. Martin contended that the word "county" ought to be introduced into the resolution. Mr. Hobhouse expressed himself in favour of the resolution, and trusted that Mr. Wynn reminded the hon. member, all opposition to it would be withdrawn. that the resolution included all returns At the same time, he should not be act-whatsoever, as well for counties as for ing fairly, if he led the House to suppose boroughs. that he expected any great benefit from it. He did not think that any material good would be effected by this or any other temporary expedient. At the same time, it would be extremely wrong, when an opportunity occurred, even of attempting good, not to accelerate it as far as he possibly could. Lord Milton said, that he had two amendments to propose: the first was, that the word "future" should be left out of the resolution; the other, that after the word "money," the words "or gift of place, emolument," be inserted. Mr. Ferguson observed, that, as the question did not appear to be clearly unLord Milton thought the resolution ear-derstood, it would be better to adjourn ried with it rather the appearance of a the debate upon it. wish to do something, than contained within itself the prospect of any substantial benefit. Mr. G. Lamb said, it would appear, from the wording of the resolution, that no benefit could be derived from it until the next session of parliament, because Lord Milton's first amendment, as to the omission of the word "future," was then put and negatived. The noble lord's second amendment, as to the insertion of the words "or gift of place, emolument," being put, Mr. Scarlett observed, that, as there |
