Lord John Russellpresented a Petition, 627 signed by 255 inhabitants of Evesham, in the County of Worcester, praying for Reform, and complaining, that, of 4,000 persons in that Borough, only about 400 had any share in the return of Members, and no more than 115 of those were resident voters.
§ General Gascoynewished to take that opportunity of asking the noble Lord a question with reference to the measure which he proposed shortly to bring forward. What he was desirous of knowing was, whether it was the noble Lord's intention to propose Resolutions, or to bring in a Bill for Reform. It must be obvious to the noble Lord, that the sooner the House could be made acquainted with the nature of his intended measure the better, and it would be necessary that the House should have some time to consider its bearings after it should be made known.
Lord John Russellsaid, in answer to the gallant General, that the first step be should take would be, to move for leave to bring in a Bill.
The Marquis of Chandosthen rose to make the Motion of which he had given notice relative to this borough. He should be able satisfactorily to prove to the House the corruption which prevailed in Evesham, and to show that the resident voters had participated in the money which had been distributed, not only at the last election, but that in fact, for the last forty years the borough had always been in the market for whoever had bid highest for it. It was impossible for him, feeling strongly, as he did, that when that House could prevent bribery, it was its duty to do so—it was impossible for him to suffer this question to be set aside. It ought to be dealt with as the circumstances of the case merited. By referring to the evidence already before the House, particularly that of a witness of the name of North, the House would see the arrangements which were made before the election—that a number of gentlemen consulted together, and the borough was to be put into the hands of him who should give the highest sum. It would also appear from the evidence of a person of the name of Jacques that he had received 12l., according to the custom of the borough. He should not be satisfied, therefore unless that House acceded to some measure which would forward the ends of justice, and bring the entire history of the borough of Evesham before the House. It might be asked what course he 628 intended to pursue. His intention was, to propose a Resolution similar to that moved on a former occasion by an hon. Gentleman opposite—he meant the Resolution of the hon. member for Bletchingly, with regard to East Retford. If he were allowed to make this Motion, and if it were agreed to, he should then ask leave to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the borough of Evesham, on the ground of the evidence which he should call, and to transfer the franchise to the town of Birmingham. He regretted to hear that his Motion was to be met by an Amendment to postpone the question until after the business of the 1st of March. Now, he knew nothing of the Motion of the 1st of March; but he brought forward a specific grievance—pointed out a specific corruption — and asked for a specific remedy. He should not, therefore, consent to a postponement of it. Whatever might be the remedies to be proposed by his Majesty's Ministers, it would create great disgust and general dissatisfaction, if, when a case of gross bribery was proved, no notice were taken of it by that House. He was prepared to prove a case of corruption against the resident voters, although the evidence on the Table did not contain such proof. He trusted the House would believe that he had not taken up this case from party motives, which he altogether disclaimed. His only motive was, to show the public and the country that that House would do its duty. He should not enter into the general question of Reform; this was not the time for it; but he called upon the House to deal fairly by the question before it. Let them meet it with fairness, with justice, and cool deliberation. Let him produce the evidence, and it would satisfy the House as to the real state of the case. In this, as well as in other instances, he was prepared to do his duty to the country at large, and whatever popularity might attach to the Ministers from their Motion of the 1st of March, men on that side of the House who were anxious to do their duty to their country, should have an opportunity of doing so. Let it not be supposed that the Reform measure of the 1st of March would remedy every grievance, and do away with every complaint. It was clear that the state of the borough of Evesham required consideration, and he wished its franchise to be transferred to Birmingham. He therefore asked per- 629 mission to move a Resolution which he hoped would be supported by the hon. Gentlemen opposite, as it was nearly word for word the same as that formerly proposed by the hon. Member for Bletchingley. He begged leave, therefore, to move a Resolution, "That the corrupt state of the Borough of Evesham required the serious attention of that House."
§ Lord Althorpsaid, the House was aware, as the noble Lord had stated, that there was in the evidence before it no distinct proof that corruption existed amongst the resident voters of the borough of Evesham; but the noble Lord also stated, that he was satisfied such corruption did exist, and that he was able to prove it. For his part, he too was perfectly satisfied that such corruption did exist, and it was possible that evidence of it might be brought forward, although he did not know that the noble Lord would be able to prove notorious bribery. He should have thought it better, undoubtedly, if the question had been postponed until after the motion for Reform should have been disposed of; but the noble Lord was of a different opinion, and certainly he should not object to his Motion. He did not think that the benefit to be gained by it was very great, but if the noble Lord wished to bring the question under the consideration of the House, he should certainly not stand in the way of it. The question resolved itself into two divisions —namely, Parliamentary Reform, upon which it was not desirable at present to offer any opinion; and the exercise of the judicial functions of the House. In this view, the members of his Majesty's Government would not deal with the question in their capacity as belonging to the Government, but merely as Members of that House.
Mr. E. B. Clivewished that the noble Marquis would postpone his Motion. He thought it improbable that the noble Marquis would succeed in what he wished for, and if he would consent to a postponement it would save time. He was happy that the cause of Reform had so zealous an advocate in the noble Marquis. Should the motion of which the noble Lord below him (Lord John Russell) had given notice for the 1st of March, not extend to the circumstances of the Evesham case, he (Mr. Clive) should be very much dissatisfied with it.
§ Sir Robert Peelsaid, the hon. Gentle- 630 man had given no reason why the House should not exercise its judicial functions in this case. The House of Commons knew nothing of the motion which was to be proposed on the 1st of March. There certainly was a notice on the paper relating to the stale of the Representation, but as yet the House had no further knowledge on the subject. It appeared from the report of a Committee, that extensive corruption prevailed, at least amongst the non-resident electors of this borough—and the petition presented by the noble Lord opposite confirmed the fact. In that petition, 2.55 of the inhabitants spoke of the corruption which had broken out in the borough, and they spoke of it in no milder terms than as a leprosy. If this borough were proved to be a delinquent borough, it would be necessary to punish it, whether the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) should succeed in his motion or not, because, even supposing that he did succeed to the fullest extent, still that House ought to signify to all future constituents, that future delinquencies, if such were committed, would be visited with punishment, and that, if they should be justly chargeable with corruption, they would subject themselves to punishment. An hon. Gentleman opposite had paid a compliment to his noble friend on the ground of his zeal for Reform, which compliment, however, had rather the air of a sarcasm. [Mr. Clive said "It was not so intended."] His noble friend said, he had evidence to prove the corruption of the borough, and the noble Lord opposite (Lord Althorp) had acted with his usual candour in the course which he had taken in reference to the question. He (Sir R. Peel) should certainly feel it his duty to support his noble friend's motion.
§ Sir Charles Forbesdefied any one to point out a single one of the 658 places which sent Members to that House where more or less influence of a corrupt nature was not used [cries of "No, no."] He construed that "No, no," merely as a plea of Not Guilty. He should like to know how hon. Gentlemen would feel if called upon to take an oath that they had not bribed their constituents. The borough of Evesham was not more guilty than others. Its misfortune was, that it was found out. This reminded him of the Chinese law. It was no crime to steal in China, and one Chinese would look on and laugh at another picking a pocket, particularly if it 631 was the pocket of a European,—but if he was found out, the Lord have mercy on him. Let them take up the rest of the boroughs, going through the A, B, C, in regular alphabetical progression. They would have Abingdon, Bletchingly, and, at last, would come down to Liverpool. Let the House show strict impartiality, and act upon a general principle. They should not visit this unfortunate borough with punishment at the present moment, even refusing it the short respite of a fortnight. There seemed a determination to hunt down Evesham, and he hoped there would not be quite as much disturbance as there was on the East Retford question. He should assuredly oppose the Motion. He wished some hon. Member would rise in his place and propose that the writ should issue for the return of a member for Eve-sham. That ought not to be delayed; and the House might proceed on any inquiries which were necessary afterwards. With regard to the measure to be brought forward on the 1st of March, he could only say, that we know how we are, but we do not know how we shall be. The present Ministers were the very last men in that House who ought to say that the Parliament, as at present constituted, was not fully competent and desirous to do its duty to the country and itself.
Lord John Russellsaid, he hoped, as the hon. Baronet was not in favour of a partial measure of Reform, that he would at least be in favour of the general measure which he (Lord John Russell) was to bring forward. He inferred, indeed, that he was to have that support from the speech of the hon. Baronet; otherwise, the hon. Baronet would have placed himself in this dilemma, that he thought partial corruption ought not to be reformed, and general corruption ought not to be reformed, and consequently, that it was expedient to encourage and continue bribery and corruption. He understood the hon. Baronet, however, to say, that he would not object to the general measure of Reform, and, therefore, he (Lord John Russell) looked forward to his support. He agreed in much of what the hon. Baronet had said. The misfortune of this borough was, that, like Grampound and East Retford, it was found out. He should be disinclined to inflict any punishment; but the transfer of the franchise to a large town he looked upon, not as a punishment but a reform. He agreed that the petition which he had presented was rather in 632 favour of this Motion, but in other points he differed from the noble Lord and the right hon. Baronet. It would have been a wise plan some years ago to proceed in Reform by transferring the franchise from boroughs to large towns, and so promote that extension of Reform which was expedient; but he thought that the noble Lord was mistaken if he imagined that such a measure as had been formerly proposed would give satisfaction to the people at this time. When hon. Gentlemen opposite resisted the transfer of the franchise from East Retford to Birmingham, and insisted upon its being retained in Nottinghamshire, it gave such a general disgust, that all hope of benefit from gradual measures was given up, and nothing would now satisfy the country but to show that that House meant to do full justice. Agreeing in the object of the noble Lord's motion, as he did most heartily, although he hoped that the investigation would not be carried on at the bar at this period of great business, but would take place in a Committee, yet he considered the remedy not appropriate to give satisfaction to the demand for Reform which pervaded all classes of his Majesty's subjects.
§ Mr. Maberlysaid, the hon. Baronet had asked if the Members of that House could lake an oath that they had not been guilty of bribery; and he had made rather an unlucky selection of the borough of Abingdon. He (Mr. Maberly) could take an oath, that he had never, directly or indirectly given a bribe to any of his constituents. The hon. Member should be cautious before he made these attacks. There were many boroughs perfectly free from all bribery or improper influence; and it was not fair to use the liberty of speech to make such unfounded attacks.
§ Sir C. Forbessaid, he had not intended to insinuate any thing against the hon. Member. He had not made any specific charge, but had spoken generally, and only mentioned Abingdon as being one of the first on the alphabetical list, as it began A, B, (A b.) He might, perhaps, have mentioned Aberdeen, or any other town beginning with the same letter.
§ Sir C. Wetherellsaid, he should trouble the House with but few words on this subject. As he did not come under letter A, he had thought it better if A would rise before B. He was glad the hon. Gentleman opposite had risen, because, as the individual who now addressed the House 633 had stood extremely high for the borough of Abingdon, he who now addressed them as letter B might have had to address them as letter A. He could state, that the constituency of that borough was highly honourable. But, letter A having been disposed of by the Representative of A, he came to letter B. The hon. Baronet asked, if all the Members of that House would take an oath that they had not been guilty of bribery. He had no doubt that letter A would, and he knew that letter B could. His constituency, he could confidently affirm, were honourable, respectable, and independent; and he certainly was one of those who, if necessary, could swear to having forborne bribery, as the hon. Baronet so facetiously proposed. He believed that his hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) might take that oath; he did not know whether the hon. Baronet could. The hon. Baronet said, that this borough had the misfortune to be found out. That was true; and how could it be punished till it was found out? The duty of that House was, to correct a case of bribery and corruption whenever it occurred, without looking to any ulterior measures. He knew nothing of the measure which was to be brought forward on the 1st of next month; and it was quite obvious that it could have nothing to do with the proposition now before the House. If the Cabinet told the House it was their measure, then surely it was the duty of some member of the Cabinet to bring it forward, and not to leave it to a plain Member of Parliament. Upon a question of this nature, the Members of that House were not bound to follow any Government, and much less were they bound to follow the Government's deputy, the noble Paymaster of the Forces (Lord John Russell). The Members of that House did not sit in that House as the mere organs of the Government, much less as the organs of the Government's deputy. They would become mere tools—and he did not intend to use the word tools in an offensive signification—if they suspended this Motion because some other motion, of which they knew nothing, was to be brought forward on a future day by some deputy of the Cabinet. The House would practise a meanness deceiving themselves, and be guilty of a dereliction of duty, if they could for one moment think of abandoning a straight-forward course for every fanciful hypothesis. Nothing was clearer than that, as Members of that House, they could only 634 recognize the noble ray master, in his individual character, as one of themselves. The noble Paymaster, and other parties, might be disgusted, as he saw they were, with what had taken place in certain quarters on the subject of East Retford; but he had no right to suppose, or presume, that the people of England were disgusted.
§ Sir J. Wrottesleymust protest against the assertion that all the Members of that House were returned by corrupt influence, in a more or less degree. He could not remain silent and hear such an imputation cast on the Representatives of the people. He would tell the hon. Baronet who had made the assertion (Sir C. Forbes) that he (Sir J. Wrottesley) was sent to that House by a body of 10,000 or 15,000 individuals, who had not acted under any corrupt influence whatever. He was sorry to see a partial measure of Reform brought forward, being convinced that no practical advantage could result from it.
§ Sir C. Forbeswas prepared, in looking at the manner in which that House was constituted, to take the risk, from the top to the bottom, and would then ask how many Members there were who were not returned by corrupt influence? Exceptions there were, it was very true, else he must condemn himself.
Mr. Wortleysaid, he should support the proposition, for he thought the sooner the question was got rid of the better.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonconsidered, that the question was very fairly met by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He did not see that the noble Marquis could possibly postpone the proposition, and the question was one which could not be affected by any subsequent measure with regard to the state of the Representation.