§ Mr. Warburtonpresented a petition, signed by 2,500 of the Electors of Bristol, praying that the evidence laid before the Election Committee, which had decided in favour of the return of the sitting Members, should be laid before the House, in order that hon. Members might be a ware of the nature of 34 the practices which were pursued at elections.
Mr. Bailliedeclared that there never was an election in which there had been less corruption than the last at Bristol. The whole expense had not exceeded 900l., although it might be considered to have lasted for three months, since operations had commenced immediately after the passing of the Reform Bill. Out of the three individuals who had signed the Election. Petition against the return, two had signed the requisition for him (Mr. Baillie) to come forward, and the third had wished to sign it, but was not permitted. The petitioners against the return were so much afraid that their petition should be declared frivolous and vexatious, that they entered into an agreement beforehand to pay the expense of the only witness that was brought forward.
Mr. Prymesaid, the hon. member for Bristol spoke as if the question lay only between him and the petitioners; but the question was one of public importance. It was not a private but a public concern to ascertain whether practices of bribery and corruption had existed in any particular case. If such things should continue, the last state of this Reformed House would be worse than the first. It was necessary that such measures should be taken as would secure purity of election.
Mr. Fitzsimonsupported the prayer of the petition; but deprecated the imputation of hostility to the sitting member for Bristol.
§ Lord Althorpknew nothing of the case, but what he had heard in that House. He was averse, however, to the production of the evidence, because it appeared to him to be ex-parie.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, the petition originated in the disappointment of the Radical party at Bristol; and, as it contained libellous and calumnious assertions against individuals, he should move that it be rejected.
§ Mr. Warburtonhad read the whole of the evidence taken before the Election Committee, and he thought that a case of gross corruption, deserving the serious attention of the House, was made out. It appeared that previous to the nomination day extensive treating was carried on; that on the nomination day from 900 to 1,000 electors received bribes of 3s. each; and on the polling-day a box, called the "Bribery-box," was placed in a particular part of the town, into which all the electors 35 who chose put their hands and drew out tickets entitling them to considerable sums of money.
§ Petition laid on the Table.
§ Mr. Warburton moved, that the evidence taken before the Election Committee be laid on the Table and printed.
§ Lord Althorpsaid, that he was of opinion, after hearing the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Warburton), that the case was one which ought to be investigated, and he wished to know whether the hon. Member intended to prosecute the inquiry in the event of the Motion he had just made being carried."
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if no other person took the management of the business, he should feel it his duty to prosecute the inquiry. Whether it could be gone into this Session must, of course, depend on the state of the business before the House.
§ Lord Althorpthought that as many Gentlemen considered the evidence to be partial, it would be as well not to print it at present.
§ Mr. Warburtonhad no objection to accede to the noble Lord's suggestion, and would therefore only move, that the evidence be brought up and laid on the Table.
The House divided—Ayes 42; Noes 8: Majority 34.