§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he would now move the issue of the writ for Cambridge.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Cambridge, in the room of Kenneth Macaulay, esquire, and John Harvey Astell, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he had never, as had been asserted by the hon. Member for Petersfield (Sir W. Jolliffe), on more than one occasion, put forward the ballot as a panacea for bribery and corruption. What he had said was, that the ballot was a perfect remedy for intimidation, but he had never said it was as regarded bribery. On the contrary, he thought that so long as one man was willing to purchase a vote and another man pleased to sell his vote, and so long as they could come to an arrangement between themselves, and could trust each other, there would be no possibility of getting rid of bribery by any known means, He had always said so; but then lie had likewise stated that the ballot would destroy the confidence between the buyer and the seller, which was one way of putting down bribery and corruption. As regarded Mahlon and Barnstaple, the Government had distinctly pledged themselves to increase the constituencies in those boroughs; and he hoped they were not so far lost to all sense of propriety as not in some way or other to redeem that pledge. With an increase of the constituencies he thought that the ballot would prove the best means of repressing bribery which could be adopted. In regard to the borough of Cambridge, he had only to say that wherever there was a University there was intimidation. The intimidation carried on by the University of Oxford was a Palpable, notorious, and crying evil. The same observation applied equally to Cambridge, which was as corrupt a place as any in the kingdom. He should have been delighted to have seen the ballot tried upon Cambridge; but, as it seemed to be the determination of the House that that should not be, it was with the greatest 1544 possible pleasure that he should oppose the issuing of the writ for the borough of Cambridge.
MR. HUMEsaid, he must express his deep regret that the Government had not thought fit to make an experiment of the ballot on this occasion, and he likewise thought they were highly to blame for not coining down to the House to state their reasons for refusing their assent to the proposal of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Buncombe). It was true that the House had heard from the Treasury bench one good speech in favour of the ballot, and one bad speech against it; but the opinion of the Government ought to have been stated upon the present occasion, and he hoped the country would not forget the small majority against the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury. For his own part, if the Government did not fulfil the pledges they had given with respect to measures of reform, he did not know how far he would be able to support them in their present position.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, that hon. Gentlemen opposite might depend upon it that, so long as the franchise was in the hands of men who were in such distressed circumstances that they could not resist a bribe when it was offered to them, it would be impossible by the ballot, or any other means, to put a stop to corrupt practices at elections. The Cambridge Commissioners stated, in their Report, that of the 111 persons who received bribes at the last election, no fewer than 108 were householders who voted upon very low rentals. It appeared that the number of freemen who had been bribed in that borough was 1 in 7; of householders rated at not more than 10l., 1 in 8; at above 10l. and under 15l., 1 in 11; at above 15l. and under 20l., 1 in 16; above 20l. and under 30l., 1 in 30; above 30l. and under 40l., 1 in 55; and above 40l. none. One of the witnesses declared that if the franchise were limited to rentals of 20l., instead of descending to rentals of 10l., it would be entirely useless to attempt to buy the votes of the electors. In these circumstances, he would suggest to hon. Gentlemen opposite whether it would not be better, instead of trying the ballot, to devise some scheme by which the elective franchise might be elevated, or, if kept at its present level, by which there might be something like a graduated scale of voting.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he would also refer to the Report of the Commis- 1545 sioners, who said that the price generally paid for a vote in the borough was 10l., although some of the electors were so dishonest as not to vote at all, notwithstanding they had received the money beforehand.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he begged to explain that he had not stated what had been attributed to him by the hon. Member for Bristol (Mr. H. Berkeley), that secret voting would not protect persons against oppression.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 31: Majority 15.