§ Mr. Roebuckpresented a Petition from a parish in the city of Bristol, complaining of bribery and corruption, and in favour of the ballot. The hon. Member moved that the petition be referred to the Intimidation Committee.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that as there was nothing special in the petition, he had no objection to its being referred to the Intimidation Committee. He had understood, however, from the hon. Member, that he had got a petition from Bristol with something in the way of specific allegations in it. Perhaps the hon. Member would present it now?
§ Mr. Roebuckwould do so with great pleasure. It was a petition from inhabitants of the city of Bristol, complaining that great corruption and intimidation had been practised by certain persons at the last election for that city. It also stated that a society called "The Mechanics' Conservative Society" had been established there, and that the mechanics who became members of it had good meat and provisions sent to them for nothing. Of course the object of this society was to "conserve" the mechanics of Bristol, and to procure their services at future elections. 834 The petitioners complained that the measures adopted by this society amounted to nothing less than bribery and corruption, under the guise of charity. The hon. Member moved that the petition be referred to the Bribery Committee.
§ Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that what was stated in the petition with regard to the formation of the society in question was incorrect. That association was formed in 1831, immediately after the riots. It was called "The Mechanies' Operative Society.—[Mr. Roebuck, "Mechanics' Conservative Society."] Well, "Conservative," if you please. He begged to assure the hon. Gentleman and the House, that at the last election for Bristol there was not a shadow of ground for saying that any bribery had been exercised. If there had been any, why was there not a petition against his return or that of his hon. colleague? There was no such petition at present, though a petition had been presented against him on a former occasion. He perceived, on reading the petition, that the petitioners complained that the members of this society received 14lbs. of prime ox beef, and three quartern loaves each. But surely this afforded no ground for saying that bribery and corruption were practised at the Bristol election. He believed it was the practice every year in Bristol, to give out those provisions to the members of this society, and that it had nothing whatever to do with election affairs. He had no objection to the petition being referred to the Bribery Committee.
Colonel Evanssaid, that he might as well take this opportunity to call the notice of the House to subscriptions which were being raised in the city of Westminster for the same purpose, namely, the corruption of the electors. He had seen in the public prints advertisements calling for such subscriptions, and in which advertisements it was modestly stated, that the object was to send members to Parliament for Westminster, which the advertisers were pleased to say had hitherto been unrepresented. The advertisement also stated that a Westminster Conservative Society had been formed for the purpose, and it specified several noblemen and gentlemen who had subscribed to it. Why should noblemen thus ostentatiously interfere with the freedom of election? He thought that if there was any Member of the Bribery and Intimidation Committee 835 present, they should look into this matter, and he trusted that they would call before them some persons from the city of Westminster to give evidence as to the effects of bribery and intimidation at the last election for Westminster. ["Oh!"] What did the hon. Member for Dover mean by crying "Oh?" Did he know any thing of the matter? His exclamation "Oh!" was no argument. He could aver positively that intimidation, the worst species of corruption, had been practised at the last election for Westminster.
§ Mr. Henry Bulwersaid, that such acts of intimidation had not been confined to Westminster. They had also been resorted to in Marylebone. He would put it to the House whether it was in accordance with the constitution of the country, and more especially with the constitution of that House, that noblemen should take an open and active part with respect to the return of Members to Parliament. To him it appeared that such practices were highly unconstitutional, and called for the interference of the House to protect its rights and privileges.
§ Mr. Fectorsaid, that he for one would wish that there was more of proper influence used at elections. What he considered far worse than any thing hon. Gentlemen could state was the bonâ fide intimidation of broken heads, violence, and outrage, too often resorted to by their supporters. If every species of intimidation at elections were put an end to, the gain would be on that (the Ministerial) and the loss on the other (the Opposition) side of the House. It appeared to him a great inconvenience that the public business should be impeded, and the time of the House taken up with these discussions on petitions. Had the Bristol election any thing to do with the election for Westminster?
§ Mr. Dottinsaid that gentlemen on the other side should not forget the dinners that were given to promote Reform, and the election of Reformers. He recollected many large dinners given for such purposes, and he was certain that many persons subscribed to them who did not go to them. In fact, they were given to promote the Reform Bill.
§ Mr. Roebucksaid, that the hon. Baronet (the Member for Bristol) had said that no bribery had been practised at the Bristol election, and he appealed in proof to the fact that no petition had been preferred against his return, though there had been 836 one after the former election. Now tha argument, if good for any thing, would go to prove that there had been bribery at the former election. Such, indeed, would be the legitimate conclusion to which it tended. With regard to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Southampton, he begged to say, that the persons invited to those dinners in Bristol went there without paying any thing, and that they were obliged to subscribe a Conservative creed before they were admitted to the Conservative banquet. Had there been any Reform dinners given on such terms? He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Dover say that the time of the House was lost in these endeavours to purge and purify the system of election.
The petition was referred to the Bribery Committee.