Commons Sitting of 8 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:ߞChurch Rates Abolition; Metropolis Improvements.ߞRead a second time: ߞBanks of Issue; Debts of Parishes.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Easthope, from a great many places in Worcestershire, Leicestershire, and Northamptonshire, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws,ߞBy Mr. Leader,

1315
Mr. Muntz, Mr. Brotherton, Mr. Hindley, Mr. Villiers, and several other hon. Members, from Yarmouth, Tower Hamlets, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Ashton-under-Lyne, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-Laws.ߞBy Mr. Blount, Lord Stanley, Mr. G. Palmer, Sir Charles Burrell, Mr. Handley, and other hon. Members, from Essex, Gloucester, Monmouth, and a great many other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.ߞBy Mr. A. Sanford, from places in Somersetshire, for the Abolition of Church Rates.ߞBy Mr. T. Duncombe, from certain parties, for Inquiry into Outrages committed at a Public Meeting held at Manchester, for the Release of all Prisoners for Political Offences, and for the adoption of the People's Charter; and from Weymouth, that Clergymen, for the future, be not put upon the Commission of the Peace.ߞ By Lords Clements, and Castlereagh, from Leitrim, and Down, against Lay Patronage in the Church of Scotland.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Mr. Mackinnoninquired whether it was the intention of the noble Lord, the Secretary of the Home Department to found any measure on the report of the commission on turnpike trusts?
Mr. F. Maulehad already explained on a former occasion, that it was the intention of the Government to frame a bill on the report in question, but not to press it beyond a second reading, in order that those interested, and the public generally, might have an opportunity of considering its provisions.

MUNICIPAL ELECTORS.
Mr. Baineswished to call the attention of the Government to the introduction of a bill for he regulation of the registration in municipal corporations. In Leeds and Liverpool recourse was obliged to be had last year to the registration of the preceding year.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, at the present advanced period of the Session, it was not the intention of Government to introduce any measure for the regulation of the registration of electors in municipal corporations. The difficulties that had recently occurred at Leeds and Liverpool had been, in his opinion, the result of accident, and were not likely to occur again.

CORN-LAWSߞCITY PETITION.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. G. Palmer) had, on the preceding day, put to him some questions relative to a petition against the Corn-laws lying for signature at the Excise Office. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had assured the hon. Member that he would make an inquiry into the matter. He had done so, and the result appeared to be this:ߞOn the destruction of the Royal Exchange, the merchants of
1316
London had applied to the commissioners of the Treasury for permission to use one of the great courts of the Excise as a temporary place of business. Permission was of course given, and they dealt with the court in all cases as they had been accustomed to deal with the Royal Exchange. It appeared undoubtedly, that without any knowledge whatever of the commissioners, or any application to the commissioners, there had been a petition lying at the court now employed as the Royal Exchange. He was bound to state, that when the commissioners were applied to some time ago by the Lord Mayor of London, to know whether there was any objection on their part to let a petition relative to the Post-Office lie for signature at the court already alluded to, the answer was, that they had no objection ߞ that the merchants of London should be allowed to use the place in the same manner as accustomed to use the Royal Exchange. On the present occasion he apprehended, that the same course had been pursued as on the former one. He trusted, that this explanation was satisfactory.
Mr. George Palmersaid, that he was one of the members of the Gresham committee, and he thought it possible that the proceedings might have been sanctioned by one of the officers of that committee, and he therefore felt it his duty to ask the man whom he saw, not in the court appropriated to the merchants, but on the stairs at the top of the court, by whose permission he stood there with the petition, and the answer was, by permission of the commissioners of Excise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had not entered into particular details, and it was quite true, that the petition was placed on a desk at the side of the stairs, but then it was a desk at which the merchants were in the habit of doing business. That was the explanation which had been given him by the parties to whom he applied. If, however, the hon. Gentleman should make inquiries, and acquire further information, perhaps he would be good enough to communicate it to the House.

BILLS POSTPONED.
Mr. Pakingtonintimated that it was not his intention to proceed with the County Coroners Bill.

IRISH CHANCERY.
In answer to Mr. Litton,
Viscount Morpethsaid the Attorney-general for Ireland did not intend to proceed with the Irish Chancery Bill, if it appeared likely to be opposed.

MEDICAL PROFESSION.
Mr. Hawessaid he should not proceed with his bill for the regulation of the medical profession.
Lord J. Russellsaid, it was not the intention of the Government to proceed with the following measures:ߞthe Factories Bill; the Silk Factories Bill; the County Courts Bill; the Bankruptcy, Insolvency, and Lunacy Bill; the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Bill; the Boroughs' Improvement Bill; Buildings Regulation Bill; Royal Burghs (Scotland) Bill, and Drainage of Towns Bill. It was, however, intended to proceed with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners Bill; the Bribery at Elections Bill; the New South Wales, &c. Bill; the Western Australia Bill; and the Administration of Justice Bill.

REGISTER OF ELECTORSߞHERTFORDSHIRE.
The Order of the Day was read for the attendance of the clerk of the peace for the county of Hertford.
Mr. Storey,the clerk of the peace of Hertford was called to the Bar. He was asked by the Speaker whether he had a copy of the register of electors for the county of Hertford? He replied that he had a copy, but submitted that he ought not to be called upon to part with it, as it belonged to the magistrates, who had paid for it, and if he gave it up there would be no other copy to furnish to those electors who might apply for it.
The clerk of the peace was then ordered to withdraw, and was retiring carrying off the copy of the register with him. He was stopped, and ordered by the Speaker to deposit the copy at the Bar until the House should decide what should be done with it.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that there could be no doubt that the clerk of the peace was bound to return a copy of the register, according to the words of the Reform Act. He considered, that the House had been trifled with, the return not having been made to the House by the clerk of the peace, conformably to the order served upon him. He recommended the House to leave the clerk of the peace to settle this matter with the magistrates as he
1318
best could. He, as an elector of the county of Hertford, wanted a copy of the register; and it was an infringement of the rights of the electors of that county, that they had not been able to procure it before now. It was for the House to say, whether it would have its order obeyed or not. He should, therefore, move that the copy of the register of the electors of the county of Hertford, deposited at the Bar by the clerk of the peace, should be forthwith laid upon the Table of the House.
Mr. Estcourtwished to offer to the House a few reasons why this copy should not be laid on the Table of the House, and why it should not be taken from the clerk of the peace, in whose custody it was. He was satisfied, that the Order of the House had not been obeyed; but the refusal of the clerk of the peace to obey it arose from a misapprehension of duty on his part. The magistrates of the county of Hertford had decided several times, that the copy of the register should not be printed; and it was, therefore, too much to say, that the clerk of the peace, who was only the servant of the magistrates, should have it printed. If you insist on this copy being laid on the Table, you must take it from the clerk of the peace, and he was bound to have it in his custody in order to supply the electors with a copy of it, either written or printed, at a reasonable price. He would not have objected to the motion had it been that the clerk of the peace should produce another copy of the register within a week, or any other reasonable time; but it was not consistent with the practice of the Mouse to take a legal document from the legal officer in whose custody it legally was. He was not aware of a single instance in which that had ever been done.
Mr. Cowpersaid, he had no personal feeling against the clerk of the peace, but the question was, whether the Commons would support its privileges or not, as there was no doubt, that the conduct of the clerk of the peace was an evasion of its order.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, he did not mean to impute to the individual who had been at the Bar a wilful contravention of the order of the House, but the course which he had taken was certainly not the most consistent with that respect to which the House was entitled. He agreed in

1319
thinking, that it would not be expedient to take this copy from the custody of the person who had been called to the Bar, but he submitted, that the House might call upon that person forthwith to furnish the House with a copy. He was glad, that attention had been called to this subject, for there certainly had been an evasion of the orders of the House, and that under circumstances which might be in the highest degree inconvenient. According to the regulations made by the Reform Act, it was the clear imperative duty of the clerk of the peaceߞso soon as the revised list assumed the character of the register by being returned to the sheriff in a complete and proper formߞto furnish any person who applied with a copy, of course within a reasonable time. These copies might be either printed or written, the object of that regulation being, probably, that where there was not an extensive demand for copies, they might be made at less expense by being written. Now, the individual who had appeared at the Bar, must have known, as an old practitioner, that it was his duty to be in a situation to furnish copies to any person who was willing to pay for them. He said, that he could only furnish the House with a copy of a copy, and yet he kept that very paper for the purpose of furnishing copies from it. From the 28th of March to the 8th of June, that House had been struggling to get a copy, which ought to have been ready at the first demand. Unless they manifested a strong impression on the subject, it was not likely, that they would be able to get a copy until the election takes place. For all the duties performed by the clerk of the peace in carrying into effect the Reform Act, he was to be paid by the treasurer of the county, and any sums he might receive for copies of the register, he was to account for to the county; he had, therefore, no interest in the question, except as regarded the due discharge of his duties. The present case appeared to him (the Solicitor-general) to be clearly an evasion of the Reform Act. The House would observe, that a fund is created to meet the charges which attend the register and the matters connected with it, and every county elector is, for that purpose required to pay a shilling at the time he claims to be registered; and in this case he thought the number of electors amounted to several thousands, and, therefore, the aggregate
1320
of these shillings formed a considerable sum, but it was a little extraordinary, that the fund created by the payment of this shilling was not made applicable to the purpose, and that it was paid to the overseers of parishes, and formed part of the poor-rate fund. As far as the electors were concerned, they paid their contributions towards the expense of furnishing the register by this payment of one shilling; and, inasmuch, as the representation concerned the interest of the country, the expense of preparing the register connected with counties was thrown upon the country. Now, the party who was lately at the Bar of this House had no excuse whatever for not supplying a copy, in respect to payment. It was his duty to make the copies, and though it was also his duty to receive payment from the electors for them, that payment was not on his own account or applicable to his own purposes, but was to be accounted for to the treasurer. And what excuse had he for not now being in possession, if he were not in possession, of the means of furnishing a copy? How could this House ߞthe representative of the peopleߞreceive an answer from a public officer, charged with a matter so important to the representation of this House as the furnishing a copy of the register of electors ߞ a statutable duty, imposed without condition ߞhow could this House, when it called for a copy many months after the period when a copy ought to be ready, receive any excuse for that copy not being furnished. He thought the clerk of the peace must have been acting under a great delusion, when, having provided himself with a copy of the register, the House of Commons required a copy, he sent word, "I have it not, it is in the sheriff's keeping;" and then, when an order was served on the sheriff, the under-sheriff wrote an answer, not disrespectful in its terms it was true, "I want to know who is to pay me for it." [hear.] A Gentleman said "hear," he meant to say it was not a fit principle to lay down, that if this House declared it to be necessary for public purposes to call for a copy of a document, it should receive as an answer, "who is to pay for it?" He hoped the House had too high a sense of justice, when it required a document which put a party to expense in furnishing, to allow that party to suffer any pecuniary loss in doing so. It was the duty of the House

1321
to procure these documents which the public interest required, and he should hope that any public officer who was called on to render a copy of a document would see that the proper course was to obey the call, and to state to the House that, obedient to its order, the act was done, but that the party had incurred certain expenses for which he had had no remuneration. The sheriff of a county was to be paid for the performance of certain duties under the Reform Bill as well as the clerk of the peace, but he did not conceive that his furnishing a copy of the register would be working out the provisions of the Reform Act, or that he would have any claim upon the county treasurer for remuneration. It appeared to him, that the clerk of the peace ought to have furnished the copy, that his omission to do so was at the peril of the displeasure of this House, and that, having had abundant time for the purpose, he should now be required to deliver a copy forthwith. With regard to the expense of supplying copies to the electors, did the House think it was ever intended that 30 l. or 40 l. should be asked for a copy of a register? But it was said the magistrates of the county of Hertford had directed it not to be printed. Why, they had no discretion whatever on the subject. The act of Parliament did not put it in the discretion of magistrates: the act selected the clerk of the peace as a public officer, to furnish written or printed copies. It was true that the printing might occasion an expense that would not be returned by the number of copies that would be sold. But whether that were so or not, he trusted the House would take care to enable the electors of the county of Hertford to obtain a copy of the register, at a reasonable charge. He begged to move as an amendment, that Mr. Storey be directed to furnish this House with a copy of the register of electors for the county of Hertford, on Thursday next.
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid he was quite disposed to concur in the opinion of the learned Solicitor-general. He did not think that the laying a copy of the register on the table of this House would of itself be of much consequence, but he thought it might hold out an inducement to other counties not to comply with the directions of the Reform Act, but to look to the order of the House for supplying a printed copy. With respect to the question that the number of copies to be sold
1322
was not likely to defray the expense of printing, there was scarcely a county in England, with the exception of York, in which the copies sold met the expense of preparing them, and in every county with which he was acquainted there was always a charge for printing the register, and which was regularly allowed by the magistrates in the treasurer's accounts. After the authority of the House had been so far vindicated as to have its order complied with, he thought the most convenient course would be to re-deliver the copy to the clerk of the peace, and that he should be admonished that it was his duty forthwith, with all possible dispatch, to provide himself with a sufficient number of copies to answer the demands of the county.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that he could not concur in what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, because, according to the statement of the party at the bar, the document was not his, and, being the document of others, of the magistrates, it would be clearly unjust to require him to give it up. He hoped that the House would not exercise so arbitrary a power, and particularly as the object intended might be obtained by other means. If the course proposed were taken, the effect would be to relieve the counties of the expense of printing those registries, and throwing the burden on the country generally. He, therefore, should suggest whether it would not be better to order a copy to be delivered by the clerk of the peace within forty-eight hours.
Mr. Williams Wynn,in explanation, denied that the registry was the property of individuals, and said, on the contrary, that it was a matter of record, and should be accessible to those of the public who might require copies.
Mr. C. Woodagreed that they were entitled to have the registry produced laid upon the Table, and it would be setting aside the Reform Act if this record were not accessible to the public.
Sir E. Sugdensaid there could be no doubt that the clerk of the peace should have provided himself with written or printed copies, to be delivered on reasonable terms to the electors applying for them; and sure he was, that when the Reform Act was before the House it was never contemplated that such an amount of charge as was now required should be made for the copy of the registry. He

1323
had no objection to this document being laid on the Table of the House, in order to afford them an opportunity to inform the clerks of the peace generally what was their duty; but with respect to any motion for having it laid on the Table and printed, all he could say was, that he should oppose such a motion. If the course which he pointed out were adopted, the copy would no doubt be forthwith furnished, and the difficulty got rid of.
Sir R. Peelthought the better course for the House to pursue was that which the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-general had pointed out. This was not a case it which it was necessary to vindicate their privileges, and, therefore, what they should do was to call this officer back to the Bar, and tell him that the House insisted on his furnishing the copy required by a given day, and would enforce obedience to their order if it were not ready at the appointed time. This was what he recommended at present; but if any difficulty existed on the subject, the better way would be in the next Session to have a committee of inquiry appointed on the subject.
Mr. T. Duncombeapproved of the amendment of the Solicitor-general, and withdrew his motion.
Mr. Storeywas then called to the Bar, and the Speaker said, "In obedience to the orders of the House, I have to direct you forthwith to cause a copy of the register of electors of the county of Hertford to be made, and to present the same to this House on Thursday next."
Mr. Storeysaid, that he would cause a copy to be made, but he believed it would be quite impossible that it should be presented on Thursday. He thought it would take three weeks.
Sir E. Sugdenasked, whether if a law-stationer divided the copy amongst several persons, it could not be made in a shorter time?
Mr. Storeysaid it would depend upon the number of hands employed.
Witness withdrew.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, he was at first inclined to feel favourable towards the witness; but he thought it was quite evident that he was now acting contumaciously towards the House. No one could doubt that the copy could be prepared within twenty-four hours, or within half that time; and he, therefore, was of opinion, that the House should insist upon the
1324
copy being produced within the time mentioned.
Mr. Estcourtthought it would be more consistent with the dignity of the House to fix the time when the copy should be produced; and not to ask the witness any opinion upon the subject.
The Speakersaid he would direct the clerk to put a copy of the order into the witness's hands, to produce the copy ordered by Thursday next.
Order above made to be enforced.

BRIBERY AT ST. ALBAN'S.
Mr. Williams Wynnrose to move, that the Attorney-general be instructed to prosecute Mr. Richard Webster, for bribery at the last St. Alban's election. He said, that the facts lay in so narrow a compass, that it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House at any length. He did not wish this question to be mixed up with the general subject of the bribery laws, but to stand upon its own merits, and to be decided upon the evidence taken before the committee which had been printed, and was in the hands of Members. He was anxious, that the charge contained in that evidence against Mr. Richard Webster, should be placed in a course of judicial investigation. Two witnesses, of the names of Adams and Stebbings, had sworn, that Mr. Webster, not in the presence of each other, had given them 12 l. each, for their votes in favour of the sitting Member. It might be said, that the testimony of Adams and Stebbings was not to be trusted, but what they had deposed, had been confirmed by a clergyman upon the hustings, who had stated, that Adams came upon the hustings, and put a small paper parcel into the hands of the mayor, which was found to contain two five-pound notes and two sovereigns. Being asked whence he procured it, Adams answered, that it had been given to him to vote for Lord Listowel, by Mr. Webster, who was then standing in the crowd. Adams pointed him out, and Mr. Webster's answer was, "Well, what of that? the other side are just as bad." Upon this evidence he contended, that the House was bound to proceed, unless it was meant to be held out to the world, that although the House passed laws against bribery they might be violated with impunity. It ought to be recollected that the party accused was not a man in the lower rank of life, but one of educa

1325
tion and influence, whose example might be most prejudicial. Mr. Webster had himself brought Lord Listowel down to St. Alban's, and had boasted, that he had procured the return of nine out of ten candidates, whom he had previously introduced and supported. He had, besides, proposed the sitting Member at the hustings, and had subsequently paraded the streets in his company. He wished to avoid all remarks upon the conduct of the committee which had tried the merits of the election; they had decided, that there was no proof of agency, possibly, for the very natural reason, that Mr. Webster was, in fact, the principal, and that the candidate was the agent in his hands. It seemed to him, under all the circumstances, that it was the bounden duty of the House to make this offender an example, if when the opportunity was given him, he was not able to rebut the accusation. Looking at the evidence, he would ask any Member who had read it, whether, if acting as a grand juror, he should not be decidedly of opinion, that the case ought to be tried 1 In answer, it might be said, as indeed he had heard it said, "Why do you not also look at the case of Walsall?" His answer was twofoldߞfirst, that if fifty persons had been guilty at Walsall, it did not show, that Mr. Webster had not been guilty at St. Alban's; and, secondly, that the offence at Walsall, was treating, which rendered an election void, but was not a punishable offence. It had also been urged, that Mr. Webster might be made the object of a private qui tarn action for the penalties; but he thought the House would neglect the part it ought, for the sake of public example, to take, if it passed over this instance of bribery in that manner. He moved, that the Attorney-general be instructed to prosecute Mr. R. Webster, for bribery, at the last election for St. Alban's.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, as the Chairman of the late St. Alban's Election Committee, he would offer a few observations on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, and in doing so, he would not throw any impediment in the way of the motion. He would leave it to the House, and to those who had heard the evidence, to raise that opposition. He would state to the House the impression which the evidence had made upon his mind, and before doing so, he would refer to the fact of the evidence
1326
having been printed, and having been laid upon the Table of the House. He would refer to what took place on the last day of the sitting of the committee. The special report was drawn up by himself, and was in much stronger terms than the report presented, having been afterwards corrected and modified, and it was agreed that the Chairman should be instructed to lay the minutes of the proceedings upon the Table of the House. His (Mr. San-ford's) impression certainly at first was that a further consideration of the evidence should take place, and that after, such charges had been made against Dr. Webster by the two witnesses Adams and Stebbings, the doctor should have an opportunity of rebutting them if he could. With regard to the question brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman, and considering evidence as a juryman, if he (Mr. Sanford) were asked to say whether it proved Dr. Webster to be guilty of bribery, he should reply, that it did not. He would observe to the House, that before instructing the law-officers of the Crown to prosecute a party for bribery, they should be thoroughly convinced, that they could obtain a verdict. He had at first intended not to take any part in this discussion; but, as he considered, that the House would not be acting rightly in attempting to institute a prosecution unless they were satisfied they could carry it to a successful issue, he wished to say, that he did not think the evidence adduced before the committee sufficient to secure a conviction. He trusted the House would give him credit for wishing to carry the investigation to its fullest extentߞto have the whole matter thoroughly sifted. If hon. Gentlemen wished to examine the manner in which his votes had been given in the committee, they would see, that his anxiety was, to carry that investigation to its utmost limits. The question at this moment was, whether there was sufficient evidence given before the committee to justify them in directing the Attorney-general to prosecute. It was not merely to what was written down, but to the manner in which the evidence was given that they should look. He had had an opportunity of seeing the manner in which that evidence was given. He did not like to make use of a strong expression, but he must confess, that it was the manner in which that evidence was given, that led him to doubt whether the House would be justi-

1327
fied in directing this prosecution. He did not like to throw a damper on prosecutions of this nature, but he thought, if they were to prosecute for bribery, they ought also to do something against treating, which was the same as bribery in act, in animus in criminalityߞin short, in everything except the penalties attached to it. He begged pardon of the House for having offered an opinion on a question of this nature, and would again call on them to consider, if Dr. Webster should be acquitted, what would be its moral effect on the character of their proceedings.
Mr. Blackstonehad two objects in view when he moved for the printing of the evidence taken before this committee; one was, that the country might see it, and the public be satisfied with the decision of that committee; and the other was, to test whether the House would permit such scenes, carried on in open day, to be left uninvestigated. He avowed, that his wish would have been to have had a committee appointed to investigate the whole case; but when he saw the state of the public business, and the difficulty there was of obtaining the attendance of Members on the committee, he had given up the idea of moving further in the matter. Yet, as the right hon. Gentleman had made the present motion, he would lend it his support, and he would remind the House, that in the Ipswich case, on which he had sat, there was but one case of bribery distinctly proved, and for that six men, including the most respectable town-clerk, Mr. Sparrow, were sent to Newgate, compared with which a prosecution by the Attorney-general was very slight. He had always deprecated any vindictive course towards any individual, but the present appeared a case that required notice.
Mr. Charles Bullerwould shortly state why he, on very general grounds, objected to the present motion. He would not willingly set up precedents to stop the great ends of justice, and he was so anxious to stop bribery, that he would be willing to hold up individuals, in terrorem, but if the right hon. Gentleman succeeded in his present motion, he would establish a large precedent for the prosecution of bribery, contrary to all the principles of justice. He considered, that if the House of Commons ordered a prosecution, it was a very strong measure, and it was the strongest stigma, that could be cast
1328
on an individual. The House of Commons should only do so on good grounds, it was dangerous for an individual to form an opinion upon what were good grounds. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman before he came into the House whether there were any precedents in which the House of Commons had ordered the prosecution of any individual except on the report of a committee. In those cases in which there had been a report of a committee, the House had ordered the prosecution of certain parties; but it was rather dangerous to trust to individual opinions as to whether the grounds were good. The primâ facie case might appear to the right hon. Gentleman to be strong against Dr. Webster, but that was the mere individual opinion of a Member of that House, and it was against the opinion of the committee. They who had heard the evidence, and who had seen the manner of the witnesses, were of opinion, that there was not a good ground for prosecution, and if any proceedings were to be instituted, the cutting short of the proceedings of the St. Alban's Committee, was an act of monstrous injustice towards Dr. Webster. He was no party to that step. On cross-examination, too, it was proved, that one witness was rather out of his mind, and that the other went by the rather unpleasant name of" Lying Adams." The counsel for the sitting Member had other direct evidence to produce to shake the testimony of these witnesses, and without giving these persons any opportunity of offering any explanation, the House was called upon, on an ex parte case to order a prosecution against the opinion of the committee. If they were to go by the report of a committee, at least let them not go upon the report of a committee, that had only heard one side. The other reasons which the right hon. Gentleman had assigned for his motion, the failure of private remedies for bribery, only led to the conclusion that the general law of bribery ought to be made more effectual. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not do an act of injustice to Dr. Webster, and establish a dangerous precedent.
Mr. Mackenziesaid, that he was at the Verulam Arms during the election, and assured the House, that Adams gave the same testimony there, when he brought the money, as he did afterwards when he was examined before the committee. Stebbings,

1329
too, went to Dr. Webster's house, got the money, and then called at the Verulam Arms, telling the same story. He did not think, that the cross-examination showed any great discrepancy in their evidence; but, at any rate, there had been no contradiction of the clergyman, who heard Dr. Webster on the hustings make what he conceived to be a distinct admission of the fact. Either Dr. Webster had a justification or he had not. If he had a justification, he would only suffer inconvenience for a short time, and if he had no justification, he had been guilty of gross bribery, and ought to be punished.
Mr. Mildmay,as a member of the committee, must say, that not only the manner of the witnesses, but the actual evidence of Stebbing, was against him: there was a contradiction to other witnesses. And with respect to the other witness, making every allowance for him, and admitting that there was nothing in Adams's evidence to shake his testimony, he appeared to be a loose kind of man. There was another circumstance, too, that weighed with him; it was the statement of the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Hildyard, in his opening, that this was an election trick, and that the money was given by one party to catch the other. [Mr. Wynn: The speeches of counsel were not printed.] That was an advantage he had over the right hon. Gentleman; he had heard the speeches and the evidence, and he assured the right hon. Gentleman that the blue book would not afford him half the information that the blue countenance of the man would have given him. Again, he did not think that he would have been perfectly justified in marking any opinion with respect to the evidence, when the person accused had had no opportunity of making a reply; the other party had stopped the proceedings just at the very moment when Dr. Webster could have begun his defence. When, therefore, it became a question as to the propriety of presenting the evidence to the House, he had thought what had Dr. Webster been accused of doing? He was said to be guilty of bribery. Had it been proved? Two witnesses had appeared before the committee and had given evidence. Had Dr. Webster had an opportunity of vindicating himself? Had he done so? No. And why? Because at the very point when the counsel
1330
for the petitioners had raised the evidence to the point he wanted, without giving Dr. Webster any opportuuity of defending himself, the counsel withdrew the case. Dr. Webster could not, therefore, take any steps to vindicate himself; though, if he had had an opportunity, and had not done so, he would have been willing to join the committee. When, therefore, there was a question whether the committee should report the evidence to the House, he had asked himself these questions, and he had also inquired whether the House had usually prosecuted in these cases? He had investigated the journals, and he did not find a single one. There had been cases brought before them in which there had been distinct reports of bribery, in Ludlow and Cambridge. Did the House punish the parties? They had had the whole case before them, and they had not prosecuted; and here they sought to punish when they had only half a case. These were the reasons which induced him not to wish for the success of the present motion. It might be the last act of his political life, and he would not so condemn himself in the eyes of the country as to allow men to escape punishment who were convicted before committees, and to prosecute one who was only accused upon half a case. He would walk out of the House and would not give a vote upon the present motion, because he had been a member of the committee; but he left the case in the hands of the House, in the perfect conviction, that if the House did prosecute upon half a case, they would go before the country as one of the most unjust assemblies that had ever sat.
Colonel Conollysaid, that if this were the last act of his political life, he would vote in favour of the present motion; for he defied the annals of Parliament to find such a case of corruption as the present: and he was glad that the motion had been taken up by a person of such experience as the right hon. Gentleman. He thought, that the character of that House with the country, greatly depended in its punishing guilt in every quarter. The frightful dexterity with which bribery was now carried on, the parties keeping clear of punishment, was a consideration which ought to weigh with the House to induce them to follow with punishment delinquency that was so palpable. The very dexterity ought to be an additional reason for the prose-

1331
cution. He said in the face of an expiring Parliament, that bribery had become a perfect trade. Persons learnt how to bribe without being discovered, and how to destroy the links of evidence between the briber and the candidate; thus defeating Parliament, frustrating justice, and leaving the delinquency unpunished. He called upon the House then, in the face of a staring dissolution, to let the country see who would record his vote in favour of not prosecuting in such a case as this, merely because the whole case had not been proved in all its parts before the Committee. The country would look upon every one who voted against the present motion as an abettor of corruption.
Mr. Mildmayexplained, that it was his intention to have moved, by way of amendment, that the Attorney-general be instructed to prosecute the agents of the hon. Manners Sutton, who had been "proved before a committee of that House to have been guilty" of bribery, and that he be further instructed to prosecute Dr. Webster, who had been accused "of bribery; but he had thought it better as a Member of the committee, not to vote.
Mr. Warburtonthought, that the hon. Member for Winchester, Mr. Mildmay, had sufficiently proved, that they ought not to be guilty of the inconsistency of prosecuting in a case in which there was no special report, when in the cases of Ludlow and Cambridge, in which there had been a special report, they had omitted to prosecute. He recollected, that when the bill of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) was before the House, he had pointed out the omission in not giving the committees power to proceed and sift every case to the bottom, notwithstanding compromises of the parties in order to stop evidence. He (Mr. Warburton) would not be afraid of voting against the present motion, notwithstanding the threat of the vengeance of his constituents held out by the gallant colonel. For what was the object of punishment? To prevent the commission of crime. Now the present law had existed during the whole of this Parliament, and for a long time previously, and yet the gallant colonel admitted, that the practice of bribery was so common, that it had been reduced to a complete system of trade; and that the parties principally concerned, had contrived to escape un-
1332
scathed, whilst the whole of the punishment had fallen on the less culpable agent. Would that prevent crime? Was not the only object of punishment to prevent crime? Yet, with all the means of punishment in their hands, did any one believe, that if they were to prosecute Dr. Webster, they would diminish bribery at any one election that was to take place? It was folly to conduct a prosecution without the legitimate aim and end being answered. If they believed, that bribery would be prevented by such prosecutions, let them be instituted. But they would not have the measure of the ballot, the only effectual means of preventing bribery, nor any other measure that would really tend to carry out that object. ["Laughter."] Hon Members might laugh, but they would preserve small constituencies and open voting, the most certain means of encouraging bribery; while by way of making a parade of purity of election, they would order a few casual prosecutions, knowing they would not have the smallest effect in preventing the practice of bribery. He (Mr. Warburton), objected on principle to any prosecutions of the kind, knowing they would not answer the purpose that was sought to be effected.
Mr.Dugdalewas bound to say, that when he found a witness had sworn he had received a sum of money from Dr. Webster, and when he found that Dr. Webster had openly said, "Never mind, they have done just as bad on the other side," he could come to no other conclusion than that Dr. Webster had been guilty of bribery. It appeared by the evidence before the committee, that Dr. Webster, in his speech introducing the noble candidate, had said he had brought in ten or eleven candidates for the borough, and had carried all with the exception of one. He thought it desirable, that special notice should be taken of the present case, particularly before the general election, in order that the borough of St. Alban's might have the opportunity of wiping out the stain that rested upon it, and he would, therefore, vote for the motion.
Mr. Wardsaid, if this practice had prevailed in the borough of St. Alban's for so long a time as the hon. Member who had just sat down had stated, the advantage had not been confined to one party only, for he believed that he (Mr. Ward) was the first liberal Member who had represented St. Alban's of late years,

1333
It was true that he had been introduced to the electors of that borough by Dr. Webster. According to the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Dugdale) bribery was a very ancient practice in the borough. With respect to the motion he would say, that if a clear case was made out, he would be the last person to vote against it. He knew, that the plague spot of bribery was creeping through the small boroughs, and it was gross hypocrisy on both sides of the House to pretend to condemn it, when at the same time they refused on taking their seats to make a declaration, that they had not by themselves or their agents been guilty of bribery. In all the arrangements for the coming elections, notwithstanding all their condemnation of bribery, hon. Members would not scruple to do the same thing. It was well known, that there was scarcely an election at which, in some shape or other, bribery did not take place. Why, then, should they select this particular place for punishment? They were now making preparations for the coming election, and were they not making preparations to bribe the electors? Why, was it not well known, that money was the thing which they all sought for? But he did not rest his opposition to the motion on this ground, but on the incompleteness of the evidence adduced before the committee, and upon the fact that the inquiry had been interrupted and cut short, without any opportunity having been given to the accused party to defend himself. He also opposed the motion upon the statement made by the hon. Member for Winchester, that in two previous cases where bribery had been proved, and brought home to certain parties, the constitutional zeal of the right hon. Member for Monmouth had not burned so brightly as in the present case, and the guilty parties had been allowed to escape without prosecution. But in this case, where the accused party had had no opportunity of making his defence, the right hon. Baronet called upon the House to assume a prima facie case of guilt, and to direct the Attorney-general to prosecute. They might as well prosecute a man on a newspaper report; and he believed it had been stated by an hon. Member who represented Ipswich, and the statement had been published in a newspaper, that he declined to stand again for that borough on account of the exorbitant demands that were mads upon him by his constituents
1334
after all legitimate claims had been paid Here, then, was a man confirming his own guilt, and would they, in that case, propose to institute a prosecution? There were better modes of protecting the character of the House than by instituting these prosecutions,; they must begin amongst themselves.
Sir R. Inglissaid, they were not going to punish Dr. Webster, to fine, or imprison him; they were going to send him to trial; and he asked the hon. Member, and the hon. and learned Judge, whether they had ever met a grand jury, and heard them charged from the bench. They were told that the question was not whether the parties accused were guilty, but whether there was prima facie evidence of their guilt. The question for the House was whether or not a prima facie case had been made outߞwhether there was sufficient evidence of guilt to justify them in sending the accused party to trial. The resolution before the House did not condemn Dr. Websterߞthere was no question of his guilt or innocence before them. The only question which they were called upon to determine was thisߞdid the blue book then before them afford sufficient evidence to warrant their sending Dr. Webster before the tribunals of the country; Now, he was one of those who entertained the opinion that a prima facie case had been made out. The House would recollect that the cross-examination before the committee had proceeded in that case to an extent rarely exceeded, and that a very large body of evidence had been obtained; nevertheless Dr. Webster had not been placed upon his trialߞhe was not on trial before the committee, neither was he on trial before the House; but the proceedings would still be watched with much anxiety, and, whatever might be the decision of the House, he did not hesitate to say, that he believed, the decision of the country would not be favourable to the purity of Dr. Webster; and he further contended that the power of the Attorney-general could alone impart the proper direction to that opinion. Nothing but an authoritative prosecution by the Attorney-general could insure the attaining the justice of the case. In his opinion no reason against proceeding in the present case could be derived from the circumstance that in other cases, alleged to be similar, no prosecutions had been instituted. There was nothing to prevent these cases being;

1335
brought forward whenever any hon. Member thought proper. Let Ludlow, Cambridge, or Walsall be brought under the consideration of the House, and he took upon himself to say, that the matter would be immediately taken up. Because other Members had neglected their duty, that circumstance formed no reason why the mover of the present resolution should neglect his, now that a specific instance of bribery had been brought forward. The House would not allow such an instance to pass unnoticed, if they wished to maintain their character with the people of England. It appeared to him that they had the duties of grand jurors to discharge, and that on the present occasion especially they ought not to shrink from an effectual fulfilment of it.
Sir C. Greysaid, that everybody was agreed upon the necessity of having a fixed rule on these occasions. Bribery was a crime that might be prosecuted by private individuals. If a prosecution was so brought forward without sufficient grounds, the accused party would have his remedy for a malicious prosecution. But would that be the case when a prosecution was ordered by a branch of the Legislature? In the first place, the House acted without responsibility at law to the party. He could not indict or bring his action against the House for a malicious prosecution; he was without a remedy. In the mean time, the intelligence would go forth to the public, that the Attorney-general had been ordered to prosecute him for bribery, accompanied by all the severe remarks that were made by Members in debate. If the person were a professional man, he might be ruined. He (Sir C. Grey) contended no precedent had been laid before the House for the course proposed to be pursued, and if there were no precedent, it would be unjust to depart from the usual rule for the first time, in a case where the Committee had not made a report against the individual against whom they were now called upon to direct a prosecution. It was a principle of English law, with respect to evidence, that much was to be judged from the demeanour of the witness when giving his testimony, and his conduct under cross-examination. How many of those who would vote upon the present occasion had seen the witness when questioned? With regard to the comparison that had been made relative to a grand
1336
jury, there was this differenceߞthat here there was no finding at all. The evidence was printed and laid before the House, without having been heard by all the hon. Members, and perhaps many of them had not ever read the whole, of it. But had there ever been a case sent down to a petty jury in which the grand jury had not found a true bill? Now some of those who might perhaps in this case be considered in the light of a grand jury were now present, and two of them at least had said there was no case for a prosecution. He would put it to all who had heard the evidence, whether, upon the testimony of one witness, and that a suspicious witness, it would be fair, at the close of a Session, to order this prosecution. If it should end in an acquittal, it would be seen that the House had not proceeded upon sufficient grounds.
Sir R. Inglisexplained, that he had not compared the Committee, but the House, to a grand jury.
Mr. Pringlesaid, that, as a Member of the Committee, he should have thought that Committee would have overstepped the bounds of its duty if it had made a special report with respect to the conduct of Dr. Webster. Still, as a Member of the committee, he did not consider himself precluded from expressing his opinion of the conduct of that individual. They were, in his opinion, in the situation of a grand jury. Strong evidence had been laid before them, which had not been rebutted. In regard to the witness Adams, he must say that he had never heard a witness give his evidence in a more fair and straightforward manner, than that person had done, and the impression on his mind was, that the witness stated the truth. He seemed to believe what he said, and had the appearance of a man who would not be swerved from the truth by any interruption. As the evidence of the witness went to show that Dr. Webster was acting as agent in the election, he must confess that he did not see how bribery could be put down, unless they prosecuted the persons guilty of the practice. He was not aware of any evidence establishing cases of bribery, in either Ludlow or Walsall, but if there was, all he would say was, that if as strong a case as the present were made out against either of those places, he would vote for a motion for the prosecution of the parties. Every case must stand on its own merits, and as the bribery in the present case was

1337
notorious, he would vote for the motion. It might be very well for the hon. Member for Sheffield to say, that the Members of the House knew how general the practice of bribery wasߞit might be very well for him to state that he himself had been first introduced to St. Alban's by this Dr. Webster, but the hon. Member was much mistaken if he supposed that the experience of the House coincided with his own. He would be sorry if such was the case; and as an opportunity now offered itself to him of expressing his detestation of bribery, he should vote for a motion for the prosecution of those who had been guilty of it.
Mr. Huttfelt rather surprised at the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member, because he could not but recollect that, on the part of the committee there had been no expression of opinion, nor had they ever recommended the prosecution of Dr. Webster. What the committee would not have recommended, this House was now called on to recommend, with far less evidence before them than what had been brought before the committee; and, in fact, they were not merely called on to recommend, but to adopt a particular course. If they did adopt such a course, it would be viewed by the country as an act of extraordinary injustice and insanity. He knew that a feeling existed against that committeeߞthat a great deal of pains had been taken to throw odium on that committee by certain persons who seemed to be guided more by their vindictive passions than by due regard to their character and dignity. He felt satisfied if the House expected their proceedings to be regarded with respect by the country, they would not lightly permit imputations to pass unnoticed, which cast a slight on and tended to lower the character of election committees of that House. He would feel exceedingly disappointed should the House adopt the proposition of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. What was the case before them? He did not mean to say that there was no bribery. He fully believed that there was. He fully believed that not only at St. Alban's, but at Walsall, Ludlow, and in all those boroughs where hon. Gentlemen opposite had been so lately triumphant, that notorious bribery had been practised. What case was there against Dr. Webster? What was the evidenceߞwhat did it amount to? That a parliamentary agent had suborned two persons to make out a case of bribery
1338
against him, one of these persons so employed having passed by the name of "Adams the liar." The hon. Member who spoke last, said, that he had never heard a witness speak in a more truthful or straightforward manner. Would the House listen while he read one or two of the answers which this model of candour and propriety gave to the questions put to him? The witness was asked if he would swear, that a fellow-workman of his had not marked up the number of lies which he (the witness) told in a day? The witness's answer was, No, I do not believe he did. Do you swear it? was the second question. His answer was, I do not know it. Do you swear it? Yes, I can swear it. Do you swear it? I cannot remember it. There were many jokes passed, which I never thought would be made public. This, then, was the evidence of a person remarkable for the straightforward manner in which he gave his testimony. But who was the second witness against Dr. Webster? A man who was insane, and who had been confined as a lunatic, who laboured under the delusion that Dr. Webster, was the cause of his confinement, and on whom he had often said, that he would be revenged. This was all the evidence against Dr. Webster which had been laid before the committee of the two witnesses retained to make out a case against him, the one being known by the name of "liar Adams," and the other being a lunatic; yet on such testimony did the right hon. Member opposite propose to the House a prosecution for bribery. His belief was, if evidence of this sort was admitted, that neither the property, the character, nor the life, of any gentleman in that House was safe. He would not pursue the subject further, hut he would not conclude without calling to the recollection of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that there was a time when bribery was not so much the object of theirߞaye, even of the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshireߞhostility as it now was. He remembered, when in 1833 the right hon. Gentleman rose at two o'clock in the morning, and made a speech of two hours' length, in order to protect the elector of Stafford, who had been convicted before the committee of participating in acts of bribery and gross corruption. He had a perfect recollection of it, and the hon. Gentleman, on referring, would find, that what he had stated was correct. He believed, that the strong indignation expressed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, in

1339
regard to the St. Alban's Committee had arisen, not so much from their detestation of bribery, as from the fact, that the election had been carried in opposition to their political party. He believed, that had they succeeded in bringing home acts of bribery to Lord Listowel, it would have been a triumph for their vindictive passionsߞa triumph which would have been very little mitigated by the reflection that that noble Lord was in close connection with the Court, and a personal attendant on the Sovereign,
Mr. Bramstonthought it was very important for the House on this occasion to direct its attention to what had been the conduct of those parties after the transaction. One of the witnesses states that he went and received the money. Now the witness Howey is admitted to be a respectable man by all parties. He states, that, having received the money from the person stated to be the party acting for the successful candidate, he sealed it up separately in bulk. The hon. Member for Sheffield, (Mr. Ward) had said, he could not see that was a case that ought to be singled out to found thereon a prosecution, as all must be aware that bribery was going on at nil elections. He was not prepared to concur in that hon. Member's view of transactions of this nature, because instances of bribery were unfortunately of frequent occurrence. It was his duty as an enemy of unfair practices and of corruption to attempt to convict the person who should be detected bribing any elector. He must confess that had he been called upon to act in this case in the capacity of a magistrate, he should, as an honest man, think there was a good cause of commitment. The question before the House Was strictly this, was there evidence enough produced to induce the House to direct that the Attorney-general should prosecute Dr. Webster for bribery at the St. Alban's election? He thought that there was sufficient evidence to induce the House to adopt that course, and he should, therefore, give his vote in favour of the motion of the right hon. the Member for Montgomeryshire.
Sir T. Cochranesaid, that as some allusion had been made in the course of this discussion to a certain letter which he had written connected with the Ipswich election, lie would admit, that he had written a letter to some of the constituents at Ipswich, from which extracts, by some means or other, got into some of the public papers, and in which he said, that the demands
1340
which were made on him were not just and fair, and therefore he should not be a candidate again for the representation of Ipswich; but there was not a paragraph in that letter which showed that those demands were in any way connected with bribery. He would not only state, that the letter did not say so, but he was ready to declare on his honour that of the demands which that letter alluded to, not one shilling was connected with bribery. The hon. Member for Sheffield had asked, why should not hon. Members come down to the House, and sign a declaration at the table that they had not, either by themselves or by their agents, encouraged or practised bribery. Now, he would tell the hon. Member that he was ready to support a bill for the purpose of calling upon every Member, on taking his seat, to declare that he had not, either directly or indirectly, employed bribery as a means of procuring his return. In the mean time, however, let the hon. Gentleman support the present motion, and then he could bring forward such a bill with a better grace.
The Attorney-Generalhoped the House would not expect him to express any opinion upon the question before the House, or to vote upon the motion of the right hon. Gentleman. He should certainly diligently obey the orders of the House, if they decided that a case for prosecution had been made out. He Would prosecute, and use all fair and proper means to ensure justice being executed upon the guilty party. But it must be obvious, that he should be desirous of not giving any vote upon the motion.
Viscount Ingestrieobserved, that the hon. Member for Halifax had described the chief witness in the case as a lunatic and a liar. He (Viscount Ingestrie), happened to be in the room when that individual communicated the fact that a bribe had been tendered to him immediately after the transaction took place, and the statement which he then made, was precisely the same which he gave before the committee. He had no reason to doubt, that the individual's statement was perfectly true, and thought, that the House would neglect its duty if it did not direct a prosecution to be instituted in a case which had been so clearly proved. There was a bill on the Table of the House, which had been brought in by the noble Lord opposite, for the prevention of bribery at elections; and it would be a perfect farce for the House to adopt that bill while it refused to prosecute

1341
the present case. The hon. Gentleman had made some allusions to the borough of Stafford, in which he was so erroneous, that he would recommend him to apply to the Attorney-general, who would be able to give him some correct information upon that case.
Mr. Huttin explanation, said, he did not state that Adams was a lunatic and a liar; but it was admitted by the evidence of Adams himself before the committee, that he was a liarߞthat he was commonly called a liar.
Mr. Wynn,in reply, expressed himself much surprised at the tone which had been assumed in this debate by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly by the manner in which the hon. Member for Sheffield had treated the subject. He begged to remind the House, that he had not said one word in the nature of a charge against the committee of any impropriety of conduct in their manner of dealing with this case; nor had he attempted at all to introduce any party considerations into the discussion of this subject. On the contrary, he had studiously avoided everything of the kind. He did not even introduce the name of Lord Listowel, and he had protested against bringing into discussion the circumstance of Dr. Webster having gone to the Treasury immediately before the transaction at St. Alban's, because he did not consider it fair to draw any inference from that fact, which, though it had been mentioned before the committee, Was not fully gone into. The right hon. and. learned Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Grey) had objected that this case had not been reported by the committee as one which ought to be prosecuted, and that it would be unjust to order a prosecution upon evidence adduced in the absence of the accused, who, therefore, had no opportunity of defending himself or answering the charges made against him. But that must be the case in almost every instance of the kind, for, with the exception of the candidates themselves, or petitioners against a return, the persons implicated were not before the committee, and were not in a position to instruct counsel or give evidence in defence or explanation. The committee had come to a determination, which the evidence seemed to them to warrant, that agency had not been proved, that Dr. Webster was not the agent of Lord Listowel, and, therefore, they had no case to report to the House. They had determined that there was not sufficient evidence to connect Lord Listowel with Dr.
1342
Webster, and to render him responsible for the acts of Dr. Webster, and, therefore, whatever might have been the conduct of that person, it could not affect Lord Listowel. The committee then very properly said, "We may now retireߞour business is over, for we are not the counsel of Dr. Webster, and we have no reason to go any further." But still the House was entitled to have the evidence laid on the Table, though no special report might be made; and upon that evidence every individual member had a right to found a motion, if he thought fit. Therefore, when he found evidence imputing bribery to an individual, he was justified in bringing the case before the House, and in calling upon the House to carry it into a court of justice. The hon. Member for Sheffield had thought proper to accuse him of being a protector of bribery; his answer to that was that he had been forty-two years in that House, and during the whole of that time such an accusation had never been brought against him before. He remembered no case in' which he had defended persons who had been convicted of bribery. He might have stated his objections to a particular bill, because it might have appeared to him to be defective, but certainly it had never been his practice to protect bribery. With respect to the case of East Retford, and every bill upon the subject of bribery, he had taken an opposite course and supported every proposition for the punishment of bribery, with the exception of a Cornish borough, in which case he thought the evidence was not sufficient to prove the existence of general corruption, and that, therefore, there was no chance of the bill being carried through Parliament. That was the only instance, as far as his recollection served him, of his not supporting a bill to punish bribery. But suppose it had not been so, suppose he had entertained different opinions and pursued a different course; suppose he had been wrong heretofore, would that be any reason why he should not be stopped from recommending a prosecution in a clear and palpable case? He had not been forward in this matter; he had not been anxious to act the part of a public accuser. He had waited in the hope, that the hon. Member who had moved for the production of the evidence, or some other hon. Member, would have taken up the case. But, finding that no one moved in it, he had brought it forward, with a desire to preserve the credit and honour of the House. They

1343
should take care, that the law did not sleep and become a dead letter. If they did not all their debating upon bills relating to bribery would be mere idle talk and waste of time. The hon. Member for Halifax and others had treated this case as if it rested entirely on the evidence of Robert Adams, but it should be borne in mind, that the witness immediately made a communication as to what had taken place upon the hustings, before the mayor, and produced the money which had been given to him, pointing out Dr. Webster as the person who gave it. The statements he then made were precisely the same as he gave in evidence before the committee, and were confirmed by the concurrent testimony of a clergyman, who also pointed out Dr. Webster at the time, and Dr. Webster said, "Well, what of that? the other side have done the same." There could not be a clearer case, and however extensively bribery might be carried on during the approaching elections, even if men walked through the streets holding out bank-notes, and inviting the electors to name their price, the House of Commons could not without the greatest disgrace, notice any such scandalous transactions, if they suffered the present case to go unpunished, because they might be told, "You had a similar case proved before you, and you declined taking any step with a view to prevent a repetition of such transactions." It was, then, for the sake of the people of England, for the sake of the laws of England, and for the sake of common justice, and common honesty, that he called upon the House to agree to his motion.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Wardgave notice, that on Friday, he should call the attention of the House to the bribery, that had taken place at the elections for Cambridge and Ludlow.

PROPOSED PENAL SETTLEMENT.
Sir C. Greyrose, pursuant to notice, to move the appointment of a select Committee, to take into consideration the fitness of her Majesty's territory of Labrador for the purposes of a penal settlement. He would not, in the then state of the House, trespass upon their attention by any lengthened observations. He considered, however, that the coast in question, possessed great geographical and other recommendations in favour of the proposition he had to make. In the first place, then, from its proximity to this country, the expense of transporting felons would be lessened
1344
in proportion to the distance; for Labrador was only about 3,000 miles from England, while our present penal colonies were about 14,000. Then the exports which were made from Labrador were about half a million yearly; and these might be increased by the direction of convict labour. With regard to the health of the colony, notwithstanding its cold, that might be guarded against by the fuel which was provided by the great quantity of dwarf timber which the place supplied. The place, too, might be made a useful colony by encouraging its fisheries, which were abundant both on the coasts and the inland lakes and rivers, and this peculiarity, together with its productions in the various minerals, might be rendered subservient to the constant employment of such convicts as might be sent there. Employment might also be furnished in the manufacture of barilla and potash. Neither could the population of the place, which was scattered all over the country and the coast, suffer demoralisation by contact with the convicts; and the latter, while secured by the climate and the situation of the country from the likelihood of escape, had the advantage of being rendered eligible for being again suffered to mingle with society after having gradually expiated minor offences in their transportation. Under all the circumstances of the case, he thought his proposition was recommended both by humanity and sound policy; and, although he did not mean to press the House to a division on it at the present period of the Session, he hoped that some hon. Member possessing more weight and influence than he did, would draw their attention practically and usefully to the important subject early in the next.
Mr. Hindleythought the labours of the missionaries in this region would not be by any means subverted, if the present motion was carried.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, it must appear to all that it would be inexpedient to go on with a discussion upon that important subject at the present period of the Session; but, at the same time, he was not sorry that the question had been brought before the House. However, he differed from his right hon. Friend as to the principle laid down, that it was a recommendation to the place alluded to, for a penal settlement, to have it so near this country as it had been described. He held it that the proximity of Labrador to England was

1345
one thing that would render it an improper place for the object in question. With regard to the quantity of labour capable of being furnished, too, he considered that the place alluded to, presented difficulties for supplying labour greater than what had been stated. He hoped, in conclusion, that the motion would not be pressed forward on that occasion.
Viscount Mahonsaid, there could be no doubt of the uselessness of having a Committee to inquire into the condition of Labrador in the present state of the House. He would not then go into the consideration of the many topics connected with the immediate question before the House, or describe what he thought to be its unfit-ness for the proposed plan. He would, however, take that opportunity of again appealing to her Majesty's Government on the behalf of the poor convicts at Woolwich, among whom the mortality was daily and hourly increasing to a most alarming degree. In the last week, there were no less than six deaths, all young, and previously hale men. This arose from the crowding together which had taken place on board the hulks in consequence of the recent regulations of Government respecting transportation. The system, in short, now acted on was one of the most frightful that could be conceived, and one of the most destructive possible to human life. In the estimates of last year, provision was made for 3,400 convicts in health, with 200 sick; and although it was resolved by the House on his motion that further increase was inexpedient, the estimates of this year showed no less than 3,750 to be provided for in health, and about 250 in sicknessߞ equal in all to 4,000. It was, therefore, easy to foresee as well as to account for the fatal consequences that have ensued.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, the mortality which existed amongst the convicts, and even the soldiery in the hulks, was owing to an epidemic which prevailed amongst them; and that alone was the cause of the late fatality.
Sir T. Cochranewas understood to express his disapprobation of the coast of Labrador as a penal settlement; and one reason was, because he considered that the safe custody of the convicts could not be secured within any four walls that might be there erected.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he had inferred from what had fallen from the Under-Secretary
1346
of State, that there was some inclination in his mind, as representing the Government that from their experience of the evils attending confinement at home, it would be desirable to turn their attention to the construction of some new penal settlement, avoiding the evils of penal settlements as they exist. He wished to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Government had in view any such new settlement from an experience of its advantages.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that all he had meant to state was, that as the noble Lord had brought this question before the House, he was not sorry his hon. Friend behind him had suggested some point, in order that the public might see the difficulty of 6xing upon a special point for a penal settlement. He begged to say, that the Government were satisfied with the present penal settlements, and the system of the hulks.
Sir R. Peelhad understood the hon. Gentleman to state, that transportation to some of the settlements had been suspended. Could the hon. Gentleman state the number of convicts now sent out?
Mr. F. Maulesaid, that, off hand, he could not. Transportation of convicts sentenced for seven years had been discontinued.
Lord Mahonbelieved he could answer the question for the hon. Gentleman. The exact number of persons sentenced to confinement in the hulks previously to 1829 was 1,800. Subsequently, under the administration of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, the number had been regularly increasing. This year it was 3,650, and under the estimate, a further increase was proposed. Having answered one question for the hon. Gentleman, he hoped he would allow him to ask him one in returnߞnamely, when the returns for which he had moved in March last, relative to coroners' inquests at Woolwich, which had been promised immediately, and to which the recent mortality gave additional importance, would be produced.
Mr. F. Maulesaid, he had done all he could to procure them. A coroner's notes were as much his property as those of a judge of the superior courts, and he had not been able to obtain them. He could do no more than ask for them.
Sir C. Greydid not mean to press his motion, which was negatived.

RAILROADS (IRELAND.)
Viscoun Morpeth,in rising for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of establishing rail roads in Ireland, said, that in the present state of the Session, he should not move for leave to introduce a bill of any importance, with any other design than that of having it printed, so as to give information to the public generally on the subject, more especially to that portion of it more immediately concerned. He would merely then refer to a statement which had been made on the occasion of his bringing forward this motion. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, towards the conclusion of his speech last week, had made a slight and passing allusion to this motion, as if it had been brought forward with a view of propping up the Government on the eve of a general election The fact was, that certain private individuals had come forward and made a proposition on the subject to the Government. He would merely state what that proposition was, and not enter at any length into any of the circumstances connected with it. He was still of opinion that the proposition which he had first brought forward on the subject of the Government undertaking various railways in Ireland, was the most expedient plan. But as when he had brought it forward, he had reason to believe, that it would not meet with the assent of the legislature, he had withdrawn it, and had not attempted again to introduce it, although he believed that persons of all parties had since expressed themselves in its favour. A proposition on that subject had been submitted to the Government on the part of certain individuals of great character, station, and financial ability, and although in making that proposition they had doubtless, imagined that they were not entering upon a hazardous speculation, yet he honestly believed that they had been principally induced to take up the project, because they believed that it would be of advantage to Ireland. Those Gentlemen had adopted as the basis of their calculations, the report of the Railway Commissioners, for which the country was so much indebted to the assiduity and energy of his late excellent and lamented friend, Mr. Drummond. They had proposed to the Government to raise a capital of 1,300,000 l., to be applied in the first instance to the completion of the southern line of railway, that from Dublin to Limerick, which would
1348
go quite across the island, and would unite the two seas; the works to be carried on under the exclusive superintendance of Commissioners to be appointed by the Government, and in order to obviate any jealousy as to the selection of these commissioners by the Government, it was proposed to nominate them in the bill, and they would consist of Sir John Burgoyne, Mr. Rennie, and Mr. Jones, who had been the secretaries to the Irish Railway Commission. The sum was proposed to be raised by means of debentures, and the expenditure to be under the management of a Board of Control consisting of seven Members, and the Government had reason to hope that Gentlemen of all parties would be found willing to give their services as Members of such board gratuitously. The debentures, when signed by two commissioners and by two Members of the Board of Control, to bear an interest of 4 per cent., and in case that should not be made good by the profits of the railway it was guaranteed to be paid by the countries which would benefit by the railway passing through them. In addition to the interest of 4 per cent., the holders of the debentures would be entitled to one-half the surplus profits. The commissioners named in the bill were to have the sole direction of the works. The lands necessary were to be taken in the manner to be provided by the act. The bill contained further powers enabling the directors to extend the line to Cork, and also to enable other parties to make lines in other parts of Ireland at the same time. A deposit of ten per cent, on the capital to be paid up before the act should come into operation. Such were the main features of the proposal which these gentlemen had made to the Government; and as at present it was not his intention to elicit the opinion of the House as to its merits, but merely to lay the bill before the House, in order that it might be considered fully both by the House and by the people of Ireland, he should not enter into any discussion as to the merits of the scheme. In bringing forward the measure of the present time, his only object was to give facilities to the present Government, Of if it should be displaced, to any other that might succeed it, for bringing forward a measure calculated to benefit the population of Ireland.
Mr. Shawseconded the motion. He was happy to be enabled to bear testimony

1349
to the great attention paid to the subject by the noble Lord; and he believed the project was likely to be very successful.
Lord Stanleyinquired whether the proprietors of land through which the line should pass would have the power of resistance to it? Also, whether they were to be remunerated, and how and what were the means to be afforded them for the defence of their rights?
Viscount Morpethsaid, he did not intend to make the assent or dissent of the landlords essential to the carrying the bill; but there were regulations for compensation on the principle adopted by the Shannon Navigation Bill, which he believed was satisfactory to all parties. In answer to a question from Mr. Shaw, the noble Lord added, that it was his intention to give a general power to other parts of Ireland to adopt the principle laid down for this line.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, a railroad might pass along the margin of one county and yet the whole expense might be thrown upon the adjoining county upon whose territory it proceeded. He begged to know if this was to be the case?
Viscount Morpethsaid, that it was intended to give a power of applying the principle of the bill to other parts of Ireland than those named in it; and that the deficiency to be provided for, if any, between the guaranteed interest and the receipts of the line would be made up by an equitable assessment on the respective counties benefitted by it.
Mr. S. O'Brienregretted that the bill of the noble Lord was not as perfect or satisfactory as that proposed by him last Session. He however thanked the noble Lord for the proposition he had just made, and he begged to assure him that it was one of the most popular measures which he could have thought of introducing into Ireland.
Mr. F. Frenchcomplained of the system of bringing forward measures of this kind (which were so well calculated to raise the expectations of the people of Ireland) and then abandoning them. He would take an opportunity, early in the next Session of Parliament, of bringing forward this question, and of reminding the noble Lord of his promise upon the subject, which he thought pledged his noble Friend to exert himself in carrying it through Parliament. He thought, however, that the noble Lord was bound to
1350
bring forward this bill before, when he was conscious of having excited the expectation of the Irish people upon it, of having the approval of this House, and also from his own conviction as to the general approval of the measure. Fie was, however, thankful to the noble Lord for bringing forward this measure even at so late a period, and he (Mr. French) would support the proposition most heartily.
Mr. Lucasthought that this would be a most desirable experiment to try whether English capital could be laid out in Ireland to advantage.
Mr. Littonsaid, that all parties in Ireland had signified their approval of this project.
Leave given.

WEST-INDIA MAIL STATION.
Sir J. Yarde Bullermoved that the Committee on the West-India Mails be instructed to send for and examine the commissioners appointed to inquire respecting the port to be selected for the arrival and departure of steam-vessels conveying the mails to the West-Indies. Those gentlemen were willing to attend, but they did not think they ought to volunteer their evidence; and the Committee did not think they ought to send for them; but it was, in his opinion, highly necessary that those who had inspected the ports and reported thereon, should be called upon to explain that report, but he would not press for the attendance of the Gentleman connected with the Post-office.
Mr. Freshfieldthought that they ought to understand upon what principle such a course was to be adopted, because it would be unusual for the House, having little information on the subject, to control the discretion of a committee, which had full powers to examine witnesses and call for documents.
Captain Pechellthought that the hon. Member for Devonshire had better leave the matter in the hands of the Committee.
Sir T. Cochraneobjected to any interference with the commissioners. It would put those gentlemen who had been appointed, as it were, judges in this matter in an unfair and unfavourable position to call them before the Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad waited for the explanation of the Members of the Committee. He understood that they had decided not to call before them

1351
these parties, whom they ought at the very first to have called. He had opposed the appointment of the committee as inconvenient; and he had been surprised at the course which they had pursued, and he hoped that such an expression of the opinion of the House would be given as would induce the Committee to re-consider their decision. There was no objection on the part of the Government or those gentlemen to their examination, but they properly refused to thrust themselves upon the committee. Not to have called these gentlemen was like omitting the character of Hamlet from the play of Hamletߞ it was the most extraordinary purse that could have been pursued.
Captain Pechellsaid, that the supposition was, that the Government objected to their examination.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould assure the hon. Member that there was no such objection.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, that the feeling of the Committee was, that they ought not to put those gentlemen on their trial before the Committee, but he had not felt that objection; and now, that it appeared that the Government had no objection to their examination, he should renew his motion in the Committee.
Mr. C. Woodhoped the hon. Baronet would not press his motion, but that the Committee would exercise the power they possessed of sending for the commissioners, since they had no objection to be examined.
Sir J. Y. Bullersaid, that, as that was the case, he would withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
Adjourned.