WRIT FOR LEICESTER.

HC Deb 06 July 1848 vol 100 cc153-6

MR. STAFFORD

had to move— That a New Writ should be issued for the Borough of Leicester, for the Election of two Burgesses to serve in this Present Parliament for that Borough, in the room of Sir Joshua Walmsley and C. Gardner, Esq., whose Election had been declared void. He had brought forward a Motion to this effect on a former occasion, but it had been negatived by an overwhelming majority. Since then, the evidence had been printed. The Election Committee made a special report, in which they stated— That it appeared to the Committee that the system of bribery and corruption carried on at the last election for the said borough of Leicester, was such as to demand the attention of the House. The former Motion had been resisted on the ground that the evidence had not been printed; but as he had little hopes that any Member of the Election Committee would take up the subject, he had felt called upon to do so. At the period of the last election for Leicester, 5,387 voters were on the register. At that election, 1,647 electors voted for Sir Joshua Walmsley, 1,602 for Mr. Gardner, and 1,403 for Mr. Parker. It would thus appear that the majority was by no means overwhelming. [The hon. Member quoted the evidence at great length, to show that systematic bribery prevailed in the borough—and then continued.] The Select Committee recommended the House to take the whole circumstances of the case into consideration; but no single step had been taken to do so hitherto. He therefore thought it his duty, some days since, to call attention to it, and to ask whether it was desirable that such a state of things should continue? But when he found that the hon. Member for Montrose had an adjourned debate upon reform of the national representation to be resumed that night, he could not resist the temptation of bringing the case of Leicester under consideration; for in the manifesto put forward by the party of whom the hon. Member was the mouthpiece, amongst other things demanded was, such an immediate extension of the franchise and rearrangement of electoral districts as would effect the enlargement of all electoral districts, especially in small boroughs, such as to insure electoral independence. Now, the borough of Leicester was not a limited or narrow borough, but a borough containing 50,300 Inhabitants, and certainly sufficiently free from any aristocratical influences. He therefore thought it would be giving something of shape to a discussion which was somewhat too abstract, to place this subject before the House, and invite hon. Gentlemen opposite to say how they proposed to deal with it before their grand scheme could be carried out. He wanted to give them an opportunity of dealing with a practical question as practical men, and not as mere theorists. It was not sufficient for them to say that the case of Leicester was not germane to the question of their plan of reform under discussion. If they refused to enter into it—if they said they must not confine themselves to particular cases—if they said the scheme which they advocated was comprehensive, unable as they were to agree amongst themselves as to the amount or the extent at which the suffrage was to he fixed—if they said the case of Leicester should wait—he would reply that he had shown up to them a case from which they shrunk. He had shown them a case of corruption in a borough, the Members who were formerly returned for which were accustomed, one of them to take part in the debates of the House in support of hon. Gentlemen opposite, and the other to hold a most responsible office for them. He had told them of a case of corruption—of bribery—of intimidation; and he had shown them that those whom they called respectable were guilty of jobbing even in their magisterial offices, or at all events that they were not above suspicion. He called upon them, then, to show, before they proceeded to legislate for an empire, that they were prepared to deal with a borough such as that. The hon. Member concluded by submitting his Motion to the House.

MR. SEYMER

, as Chairman of the Select Committee, felt as strongly as any one could, the inconvenience which had arisen by Motions of the kind under consideration. He had come down determined not to oppose the Motion for the issue of the writ; but the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire, in moving for it, had given such a flowing description of the corruption of the borough of Leicester, that he now felt in a position of great difficulty. The want of some comprehensive measure to meet all these cases was felt on all hands. The law was at present in a most unsatisfactory position. If the House was of opinion that the writ should in the present case be issued, he would not oppose it.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

felt they had reached a period of the Session at which it was hardly to be expected that the measure brought forward by the hon. Member for the Flint Boroughs could be carried forward successfully. He would, however, take the question into the hands of the Government, and propose what he should think the fitting course for the House to pursue. Next week he would state what he thought the remedy should be. With regard to the present case, he would say, that he thought the hon. Gentleman who had been Chairman of the Committee had left the House in an unsatisfactory position, because the Committee had reported that the system of bribery at the last election for that borough was such as to demand the attention of the House; but they did not say, whether any portion of the electors ought, in their opinion, to be disfranchised, or whether any other measure ought to be taken, or any further inquiry instituted. He should be unwilling to vote for the issue of a new writ until some proceedings were taken; and he thought that the measure which he intended to propose should be adopted, unless, indeed, he heard from the hon. Gentleman that he had some measure to suggest with regard to the disfranchisement of any portion of the electors. He was of opinion that further inquiry ought to be instituted after the mode which it was his intention to suggest; but for the present he certainly should not vote for the issue of the writ.

After a few words from Mr. SEYMER, Mr. FREWEN, and Mr. STAFFORD, in reply, the Motion was withdrawn.