HC Deb 23 March 1848 vol 97 cc898-911
MR. F. MACKENZIE

moved— That the Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the Election of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the borough of Harwich, in the room of John Attwood, Esq., whose Election had been determined to be void.

MR. BLACKSTONE

felt it to be his duty, on a former occasion, to move that a new writ be not issued for this borough until the evidence taken before the Committee in reference to the last election was printed and submitted to the House. After reading through the whole of that evi- dence, he confessed he did not see any grounds for proposing to subject the borough to any great degree of punishment, such as that of disfranchisement. It was quite apparent, however, from that evidence, that when Mr. Attwood went to canvass the borough, the electors thought it a good time to draw him out and make him open his purse-strings; and that, so far as they were concerned, they were quite prepared to resume their old corrupt practices again. It was evident that it was from no change in them that there was not as much bribery as usual at the last election. He begged to call the attention of the House to the fact that the borough of Harwich seemed to have been always in particular favour with the Government; for when Lord Grey introduced his Reform Bill, it was understood that only those places which had more than 4,000 inhabitants should have two Members, and that where the number of inhabitants was below 4,000, such place should lose one seat. It having been found, however, that the borough of Harwich had only 3,371 inhabitants, the Government added an adjoining parish with 936 inhabitants, thus bringing the number up to 4,307, and saving the borough of Harwich from being placed in Schedule B. At present the number of inhabitants was only 3,829, being a falling-off of 10 per cent. He believed that the neighbourhood of Harwich was populous, and therefore he begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill for extending the limits of the borough of Harwich, with a view to increase the number of electors of the said borough.

MR. HUME

rose for the purpose of suggesting another mode of proceeding. If Harwich had stood alone he would have entirely concurred with the hon. Member; but when he remembered that Great Yarmouth, Kinsale, Lancaster, Carlisle, Lincoln, Dundalk, Aylesbury, Bewdley, Derby, and Horsham, were all in the same position as regarded bribery and treating at the last election, it did appear to him that it was incumbent upon the House to consider whether some measure should not be taken to vindicate its character—to ascertain, if possible, why those cases had occurred—in what way the bribery and treating had been conducted, and also to what extent. It was perfectly well known that when a petition was presented against the return of a Member, and referred to a Committee, that Committee generally con- tented themselves with taking evidence to the extent merely that would invalidate the return; and the House was never informed of the real extent to which the bribery and corruption had been carried. He considered, however, that it would be more consistent with the character of the House were the writs in all these cases suspended, and a Committee appointed to inquire why so much bribery and treating had appeared on the present occasion. The Committee might probably be able to suggest some modification of the existing law; for, if he understood rightly, some of the Committees had decided the cases before them in such a way as, if followed out, would invalidate the return of every Member in that House. It was, indeed, scarcely possible—looking to the decisions of some of these Committees—for any Member, however pure might have been his motives or however careful his conduct, to avoid being made amenable to the law under the existing system. Did not that show the necessity of the House, not only considering the best means of preventing bribery, but also considering whether the existing law on that subject might not be in fault and the cause of great oppression?

MR. F. MACKENZIE

said, that the simple question before the Committee was, whether a new writ should be issued for the borough of Harwich? Now, the hon. Member for Wallingford (Mr. Blackstone) had admitted that, as far as the evidence respecting the last election was concerned, there was no ground for refusing the writ; and the House could hardly refuse it on the ground of the evidence taken before Mr. Roebuck's Committee, seeing that it had been agreed on that occasion that if evidence was tendered in a frank and open manner no penal consequences would ensue. As far as he could make out, there was the greatest possible symptom of improvement in the borough of Harwich; and he had heard nothing whatever to justify the House in suspending the writ. With regard to the proposition of the hon. Member for Montrose, he thought that a more monstrous injustice could not be perpetrated than to hang up this case until all the other controverted elections were decided. He should persevere in his Motion.

SIR B. HALL

entirely differed from the hon. Member for Peebles-shire with regard to the alleged improvement in the borough of Harwich. He thought that, whether as regarded the conduct of the electors or the candidates, there had been a change but not an improvement. If hon. Members would look at the evidence which had been laid before the Committee, they would find that a new system of corruption had grown up at Harwich, in consequence of the proceedings at former elections having been shown up before Mr. Roebuck's Committee, and it being now impossible to give money in direct bribery. If hon. Members would turn to the evidence of Mr. Cottingham, house agent for Mr. Attwood, they would find that it was made a condition in the letting of Mr. Attwood's house property at Harwich that the tenants should vote for him; and that a Mr. Watts, one of the tenants, not having voted for Mr. Attwood, was turned out of his tenement. The evidence taken before the Committee, indeed, afforded the clearest proof that it was the intention of Mr. Attwood to keep his tenants subservient to him. He denied that the constituency had improved in numbers any more than in purity, and expressed his firm conviction that if the House allowed writs to issue to boroughs notorious for corruption, and where new systems of bribery had been introduced to supersede the old, they would get themselves into disrepute, and would soon be under the necessity of introducing new schedules, or passing a new Reform Bill.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

said, that nothing could be harder or more monstrous than some of the recent decisions of the Election Committees; and he trusted the suggestion of the hon. Member for Montrose would be adopted.

MR. HENLEY

saw no reason whatever for suspending the writ for the borough of Harwich, because, whatever might have been the practices in former years, there was no general allegation of bribery at the last election. On the contrary, there was a manifest improvement, both in the number and the conduct of the constituency. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Montrose on the general question, he must say he thought that hon. Member had taken the most extraordinary course, to say the least of it—for, after mentioning seven or eight boroughs where Members had been unseated for bribery, with the view of showing the great amount of bribery in the country, he had immediately added that there had been many decisions given by the Election Committees, which, in his judgment, could hardly be reconciled with strict justice. Now, both those statements could not be correct. Either no inference of general bribery ceuld be drawn from those decisions, or, if so, the decisions could not be considered too stringent. He had predicted, when the existing law was introduced, that the House would find itself in the position it was now in, and that the most trifling matters would be laid hold of to unseat Members where there was really no corruption. The House might depend upon it that the strings were being drawn too tightly, and that a change of system must sooner or later be introduced. He should certainly vote for granting the writ, because he had heard no good reason assigned for its being refused.

SIR DE L. EVANS

concurred with hon. Members in thinking that there was something very remarkable in the decisions of some of the Election Committees. In the first place, he thought the Committees had, in most cases, been exceedingly delicate towards to the candidates in not tracing any acts of bribery directly to them; thus giving them an opportunity of coming forward and representing other constituencies. In the next place, he considered that the Committees had adopted too stringent a rule as to what constituted acts of bribery. According to that rule, if the most trifling acts of bribery could be traced to any individual whatever, although not sanctioned by the candidate, it would be perfectly competent for a Committee to unseat him. He declared solemnly, that although he had been engaged in many contests, he had never been conscious of any acts of bribery; and yet it was quite possible that he or any other hon. Member might be unseated, even now, if any trifling act of bribery was established, although there was no proof to connect it with the candidate. He therefore thought it would be very unfair towards this borough, and not consistent in that House, if they refused the electors of Harwich the exercise of tbeir right in the election of a Member.

DR. BOWRING

said, all that the Committee had had to do was to get evidence enough to unseat the improperly-elected Member; but, if no further inquiry was instituted, a very great mass of corruption would altogether escape. He thought that the whole subject in this case demanded inquiry.

MR. ELLIOT

said, the Committee had sifted the whole of the allegations brought forward as far as they had the power. As a member of that Committee, he thought it right to state to the House exactly how the matter stood. There was no doubt that Mr. Attwood had endeavoured to establish for himself a large influence in Harwich. He had purchased, or rather had taken a lease from the Ordnance department, of a certain number of houses. The allegation against him was, that he had taken those houses at a large rent, and had let them at a small rent to persons likely to vote for him. But when the Committee came to the proof, it turned out to be quite the other way; and it was shown that, on striking the balance, Mr. Attwood had received a larger sum than he paid for the houses. That allegation, therefore, was not proved. It was proved, however, that he had houses in the borough which he chose to give to persons without any condition, but from whom it was expected that they would vote for him. He would, however, ask the House whether it was not generally understood that gentlemen did purchase lands, and let their farms, and made arrangements with a view to strengthen their Parliamentary influence? But, if that were the case, and it was not tangible by the law, then, he said, the position of Mr. Attwood was exactly similar, and he did not believe that any law could prevent such practices.

MR. ELLICE

felt considerable difficulty as to the vote he should give. These accusations against boroughs he considered as important with regard to the character of constituencies. He had known a great deal of this borough, and from that knowledge, and the disclosures that had taken place before the Committee in the present Session with respect to the purchase by Mr. Attwood of property in Harwich, there was great suspicion on the whole transaction; and he thought that, if the House should issue a new writ without further inquiry, the public might be apt to say they were returning to their old system, and that they stopped at the threshold of these matters without making a full inquiry. It was very difficult, however, to say, on the evidence before the Committee, that the House should suspend the writ. It was said before the Committee that Mr. Attwood had spent 10,000l. on a previous election, and that he might spend as much again; and it was notorious that Mr. Attwood had purchased property to create an influence amongst the voters in Harwich. Now, he remembered the case of the borough of Stafford, which he hoped had improved since that time, in which corruption had notoriously existed. He himself considered that notoriety a justification for disfranchising the borough, and brought in a Bill for the purpose. A right hon. Friend of his, of great experience in that House, asked him whether he considered that notoriety a justification for his measure? and although, in the then state of the House, he was able to carry his Bill to the House of Lords, where a Committee was appointed to report on the borough, and that Committee reported that it had been proved to their satisfaction that the most notorious and profligate corruption did exist, yet on the Bill being returned to that House it was unfortunately lost. In the present instance, he thought that some further inquiry ought to be instituted before the writ should be issued. It was not with the individual case of a particular borough that they had to deal, but with a general system; and if the public out of doors once entertained the opinion that in that House they were indifferent to such small acts of corruption, a general inference would be drawn by no means favourable to the character which the House had to sustain. He would feel it to be his duty to vote against the issuing of the writ; but at the same time he was not prepared to suggest any other course. He thought, that if the Government were of opinion that the case was sufficiently important to be brought under the consideration of the House, they ought to interfere with it, and not leave it to be taken up by any individual Member.

MR. S. WORTLEY

, as Chairman of the Committee that was appointed to inquire into this election, might perhaps be allowed to make a few observations. He rejoiced exceedingly that the evidence had been laid before the House, because, on a former occasion, he thought a disposition had been shown to charge the Committee with not having acted on the evidence, and with being unwilling to institute a further inquiry. It had been said, that the country was beginning to suspect that the House were endeavouring to screen these transactions from investigation, and that they were not sufficiently alive to the detection of bribery in general elections. There might be times when there might be truth in that statement; but he thought that the present was a most unhappy moment for it, for if ever there was a time when the House had shown the greatest jealousy of corruption, and a determination to act under that most efficient statute which was introduced by the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and which alone made it unfair to charge the present Government with wishing to screen corruption, it was the present. During this Session the Committees had acted not merely in a manner to save themselves from that charge, but there were many who thought they had acted with extreme rigour, and had carried the law to the utmost extremity. The Committee with which he was connected had done their duty, and no more; and he was rather disposed to agree with the hon. Member for Montrose, that there might be some ground, when all the disputed elections were disposed of, for instituting an inquiry whether the present state of the law did not expose candidates, and persons returned, to acts of oppression; for, if he spoke honestly, he did not believe that amongst the hon. Members returned to that House, if the principle on which the Committees bad acted during the Session were generally carried out, ten would be found who could escape. But he thought it was most unconstitutional to suspend the issuing of the writs of some ten or twelve boroughs, involving some twenty or twenty-four seats, until a more general inquiry could be instituted; and more especially where no direct charge was proved against those boroughs. He was bound also to say, that the statement as to Mr. Attwood's having spent 10,000l. at a previous election, and that he was thrown out that he might spend more money, depended upon the evidence of a witness upon whose evidence alone, if the whole case had depended upon it, the Committee would not have acted. It was said, that Mr. Attwood had let out property in the borough to influence the voters; but he thought, that if the House were going to deal with the disposal of private property in boroughs or counties, they would, he apprehended, find stronger cases than this. He had stated, on a former occasion, that there was no evidence of anything like general corruption. But, from having heard and found on the records of the House that bribery and corruption were proved at the last election, he certainly did expect, as a friend of his observed to him, when they went into the case, that they should have some fun. What, however, he found was, that care had been taken to avoid corruption, and although there was one ease of bribery proved, yet there was nothing like general corruption or bribery proved. It might be supposed, that they had avoided branching into those matters; but the petitioners had to obtain their information from hostile witnesses, and at the end of the third day he stated that they were losing time, and that they had the power, under the statute he had referred to, of going into the whole case. Upon the whole, he was bound conscientiously to say, that he saw no constitutional ground for withholding the issuing of this writ.

The EARL of ARUNDEL and SURREY

said, that it appeared to him, that either great harshness or gross bribery prevailed, and in either case an inquiry ought to take place; but at the same time he thought it would be unjust to deprive boroughs of their representatives by withholding writs for any unnecessarily long period.

VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGH

said, there was no encouragement for Committees of that House to do their duty properly, if, after having to the best of their judgment and with great patience reported upon the several cases submitted to them, they were to meet with such broadsides as those of the hon. Member for Montrose. The Committees were obliged to act on the facts brought before them. He did not mean to say that bribery and treating equal to the practices of former years had been carried on at the last elections, but there had undoubtedly been a great improvement in the law. It was an extremely difficult case to prove bribery and treating, and then to disconnect the sitting Member from the acts of his agents. But, on the other hand, it was within the knowledge of every Member of that House that an over-zealous agent might now, without the knowledge of hon. Members, place both their seats and their honour in jeopardy. The House, he thought, ought to amend its own legislation rather than attack its Committees.

Sir W. MOLESWORTH

approved of everything that had fallen from the Chairman of the Harwich Election Committee (Mr. S. Wortley). Nothing that had occurred ought, in his opinion, to hinder the issuing of the writ. He was strongly of opinion that such small constituencies as that of Harwich were very injurious, and he would willingly support a measure for reforming the Reform Bill, and getting rid of those small constituencies. But he was called upon now to perform a judicial act; and he had to ask himself whether there had been such amount of bribery and corruption at Harwich as would justify the House in refusing a new writ for the bo- rough? He was of opinion that that amount of bribery and corruption had not been proved to exist, and he should, therefore, vote for issuing a new writ for the borough of Harwich.

CAPTAIN HARRIS

begged to remind the House that bribery of voters was a misdemeanor in point of law; and he wished to know whether it was not competent for the Attorney General to direct a prosecution against every person who gave a bribe to another? The effect of the bribe now fell upon the sitting Member alone.

The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 195; Noes 64: Majority 131.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Currie, R.
Adair, H. E. Davie, Sir H. R. F.
Adair, R. A. S. Davies, D. A. S.
Aglionby, H. A. Deedes, W.
Alcock, T. Dodd, G.
Alexander, N. Drumlanrig, Visct.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Drummond, H. H.
Armstrong, R. B. Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Duncombe, hon. O.
Dundas, Adm.
Bagge, W. Dundas, Sir D.
Bagshaw, J. Dundas, G.
Baillie, H. J. Edwards, H.
Baring, H. B. Ellice, rt. hon. E.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Baring, hon. W. B. Fellowes, E.
Barnard, E. G. Fergus, J.
Barron, Sir H. W. Floyer, J.
Bateson, T. Foley, J. H. H.
Bellew, R. M. Forbes, W.
Benbow, J. Fortescue, C.
Bennet, P. Fox, R. M.
Blandford, Marq. of Fuller, A. E.
Bourke, R. S. Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.
Bowles, A. Glyn, G. C.
Boyle, hon. Col. Gordon, A.
Bramston, T. W. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Bremridge, R. Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Bruce, Lord E. Greene, T.
Bruce, C. L. C. Grenfell, C. P.
Buck, L. W. Grenfell, C. W.
Buller, C. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Bunbury, E. H. Guest, Sir J.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Hale, R. B.
Carew, W. H. P. Halford, Sir H.
Carter, J. B. Hamilton, Lord C.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Hawes, B.
Chichester, Lord J. L. Hayes, Sir E.
Childers, J. W. Hayter, W. G.
Christy, S. Heald, J.
Clay, Sir W. Heathcote, Sir W.
Clements, hon. C. S. Henley, J. W.
Clerk, right hon. Sir G. Herries, rt. hon. J. C.
Clifford, H. M. Hildyard, R. C.
Cocks, T. S. Hildyard, T. B. T.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Hill, Lord M.
Courtenay, Lord Hobhouse, T. B.
Cowper, hon. W. S. Hood, Sir A.
Cubitt, W. Hope, Sir J.
Horsman, E. Rawdon, Col.
Houldsworth, T. Rendlesham, Lord
Howard, hon. E. G. G. Repton, G. W. J.
Hudson, G. Ricardo, O.
Hughes, W. B. Rich, H.
Humphery, Ald. Richards, R.
Hutt, W. Rolleston, Col.
Ingestre, Visct. Russell, F. C. H.
Jermyn, Earl Rutherfurd, A.
Jocelyn, Visct. Sandars, G.
Johnstone, Sir J. Scrope, G. P.
King, hon. P. J. L. Seymer, H. K.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Seymour, Lord
Lascelles, hon. E. Shelburne, Earl of
Lascelles, hon. W. S. Sheridan, R. B.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Shirley, E. J.
Lincoln, Earl of Sibthorp, Col.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Sidney, Ald.
Littleton, hon. E. R. Smith, right hon. R. V.
Lockhart, W. Smyth, J. G.
Lowther, H. Smollett, A.
Mackinnon, W. A. Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Macnamara, Major Sotheron, T. H. S.
M'Naghten, Sir E. Spooner, R.
Maitland, T. Stafford, A.
March, Earl of Stanley, hon. E. J.
Martin, J. Stanton, W. H.
Masterman, J. Sturt, H. G.
Maule, rt. hon. F. Tancred, H. W.
Meux, Sir H. Townley, R. G.
Miles, P. W. S. Townshend, Capt.
Mitchell, T. A. Trollope, Sir J.
Molesworth, Sir W. Tufnell, H.
Monsell, W. Verner, Sir W.
Morris, D. Verney, Sir H.
Mulgrave, Earl of Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Neeld, J. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Norreys, Lord Wall, C. B.
O'Connell, M. J. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Oswald, A. Ward, H. G.
Packe, C. W. Watkins, Col. L.
Paget, Lord C. West, F. R.
Palmerston, Visct. Williamson, Sir H.
Parker, J. Wilson, J.
Patten, J. W. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Peel, right hon. Sir R. Wood, W. P.
Pigott, F. Wyvill, M.
Plowden, W. H. C. TELLERS.
Pugh, D. Mackenzie, W. F.
Pusey, P. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
List of the NOES.
Blake, M. J. Fox, W. J.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Gaskell, J. M.
Bowring, Dr. Grace, O. D. J.
Bright, J. Greene, J.
Brotherton, J. Hall, Sir B.
Busfeild, W. Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Clay, J. Hastie, A.
Cobden, R. Hume, J.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Kershaw, J.
Corbally, M. E. Lushington, C.
Cowan, C. M'Gregor, J.
Crawford, W. S. Moffatt, G.
Duncan, G. Mowatt, F.
Duncombe, hon. A. Napier, J.
Duncuft, J. Nugent, Lord
Dunne, F. P. Nugent, Sir P.
Ellice, E. O'Connor, F.
Evans, Sir De L. Pattison, J.
Fagan, W. Pearson, C.
Fordyce, A. D. Pechell, Capt.
Perfect, R. Tenison, E. K.
Pilkington, J. Thicknesse, R. A.
Power, Dr. Thompson, Col.
Raphael, A. Thornely, T.
Reynolds, J. Trelawny, J. S.
Robartes, T. J. A. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Roche, E. B. Wakley, T.
Salwey, Col. Wawn, J. T.
Smith, M. T. Williams, J.
Stansfield, W. R. C. Yorke, H. G. R.
Strickland, Sir G. TELLERS.
Stuart, Lord D. Blackstone, W. S.
Sullivan, M. Osborne, B.

On the question being again put,

MR. HUME

said, the House could now only negative the Motion for issuing the writ.

MR. WAKLEY

said, the House could do something beyond what his hon. Friend suggested—they could still appoint a Committee to institute a searching investigation into the whole case. Why, he would ask, was Mr. Attwood unseated, if no wrong had been done? Who were the wrongdoers? They charged the hon. Gentleman whom they unseated with being guilty of corruption through his agents; but did they not know perfectly well that be had a full knowledge of all that was passing himself? Did they suppose that money had been spent without his knowledge, or that his agents had volunteered to expend their own money for his benefit? In his opinion, what the House ought to do, was to negative the Motion for issuing the writ, and to commence a searching inquiry into all that took place at the last election. Unless that were done, the metropolitan constituencies, who looked to their representatives for a faithful discharge of their duties, had a right to complain that they were treated unjustly by the impunity that was allowed to these small boroughs. They had it in evidence, that at the election of 1841 a sum of 9,000l. had been expended amongst ninety-four electors, exclusively of the sums that had been given for "treating." He admitted that at the last election there was no proof of any general corruption having prevailed; but still he thought that the evidence before the House laid abundant ground for instituting further inquiry.

MR. S. WORTLEY

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury had made an unwarrantable charge against the Committee. He denied that the Committee knew, as the hon. Member had asserted, that the bribery proved to have been committed at Harwich had taken place with the knowledge and consent of the sitting Member. He would ask the hon. Gentleman whether, if some agent of his own had been guilty of bribery, and had taken the greatest pains to keep him from knowing anything about it, would he not think it a hard case if a Committee reported that the bribery took place with his knowledge and consent? Every effort had been made to conceal the bribery from Mr. Attwood; and how was the Committee under these circumstances to report differently from what they had done? He should again express his decided opinion that no general corruption had taken place at the last election for Harwich.

MR. ELLIOT

said, the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) had one speech that he made to the House on all occasions, and he would declare that there was was but one speech that the hon. Member ever made to the House. He had listened to the hon. Member for four years, and had always heard the same speech, until he was almost obliged to conclude that the hon. Member borrowed the speech from somebody. Thus it ran—the old story over and over again—"You are all a set of rogues, and I am the only honest man among you. The people out of doors know you very well, and they know that I, the Member for Finsbury, am the only honest man in the House. I have been brought up in the principles of honour and virtue, while you have no pretensions to anything of the kind." Now, as the hon. Member for Finsbury was so fond of telling the Members of that House what people said of them out of doors, it was but fair to the hon. Member to let him know what people said of him. He (Mr. Elliot) had heard it said a hundred times, that all the speeches of the hon. Member meant one and the same thing; namely, that there was not an honest man in the House of Commons except himself, and that he made all those speeches for the purpose of gratifying the lowest persons in the borough of Finsbury. He had thought it right at least to tell the hon. Member what was said of him, though he hoped the hon. Member was actuated by other motives.

MR. B. OSBORNE

thought it rather a hard case, when an independent Member of Parliament rose in his place—a Member whose seat probably cost him less than any man in that House—and delivered his opinion concerning a gross case of bribery, that he should be liable to such an attack as had just been made upon the hon. Member for Finsbury. But however popular that attack might be within the walls of that House, he would take upon himself to Bay that the cheers here would not be sympathised with or responded to out of the House. Those whom the hon. Member had thought proper to call the lowest classes were the persons who were looking for the franchise, and when they obtained it they would not be found to barter it away. In his opinion the institutions of the country would be much safer, and the House better constituted, if some of those whom the hon. Member designated the lowest persons were admitted to their just privileges.

MR. ELLIOT

explained, that when he had used the expression "lowest classes," his meaning had been the lowest in moral principle.

MR. WAKLEY

wished to know if it was consistent with Parliamentary usage that the hon. Member who had just sat down should impute improper motives to him (Mr. Wakley) in the discharge of his duty?

MR. SPEAKER

I certainly did not understand the hon. Member to impute improper motives.

MR. HUME

was sorry the Speaker had not interfered at first, for if Members began to abuse one another, where would they stop? His hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury had attacked principles, not persons; and when the hon. Member for Roxburghshire thought proper to talk about lower morality, he (Mr. Hume) could tell him he had a strong opinion that there was a lower tone of morality among the higher than among the lower classes.

The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 73: Majority 91.

List of the AYES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Boiling, W.
Adair, H. E. Bourke, R. S.
Adair, R. A. S. Bowles, Adm.
Adare, Visct. Boyle, hon. Col.
Adderley, C. B. Bramston, T. W.
Aglionby, H. A. Bremridge, R.
Alexander, N. Brooke, Lord
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bruce, Lord E.
Armstrong, R. B. Bruce, C. L. C.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of Buck, L. W.
Buller, C.
Bagge, W. Bunbury, E. H.
Bagshaw, J. Campbell, hon. W. F.
Baillie, H. J. Carew, W. H. P.
Baring, H. B. Carter, J. B.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T. Cavendish, hon. G. H.
Baring, hon. W. B. Chichester, Lord J. L.
Barnard, E. G. Childers, J. W.
Bellew, R. M. Christy, S.
Benbow, J. Clay, Sir W.
Bennet, P. Clements, hon. C. S.
Blandford, Marq. of Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cooks, T. S. M'Naughten, Sir E.
Codrington, Sir W. March, Earl of
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Masterman, J.
Courtenay, Lord Maule, rt. hon. F.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Meux, Sir H.
Craig, W. G. Mitchell, T. A.
Davies, D. A. S. Molesworth, Sir W.
Dodd, G. Morpeth, Visct.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Morris, D.
Dundas, Adm. Neeld, J.
Dundas, Sir D. Newdegate, C. N.
Dundas, G. Norreys, Lord
Edwards, H. Ossulston, Lord
Elliot, hon. J. E. Packe, C. W.
Fellowes, E. Paget, Lord A.
Fergus, J. Paget, Lord C.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Palmerston, Visct.
Floyer, J. Parker, J.
Foley, J. H. H. Patten, J. W.
Forbes, W. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Forster, M. Pigott, F.
Fortescue, C. Plowden, W. H. C.
Fox, R. M. Pugh, D.
Fuller, A. E. Pusey, P.
Gaskell, J. M. Rawdon, Col.
Gladstone, rt. hon. W. Redlesham, Lord
Glyn, G. C. Repton, G. W. J.
Gordon, Adm. Ricardo, O.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Rich, H.
Greene, T. Richards, R.
Grenfell, C. P. Rolleston, Col.
Grenfell, C. W. Russell, F. C. H.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Rutherfurd, A.
Hale, R. B. Sandars, G.
Halford, Sir H. Seymer, H. K.
Hawes, B. Seymour, Lord
Hayes, Sir E. Shelburne, Earl of
Hayter, W. G. Sheridan, R. B.
Heathcote, Sir W. Sibthorp, Col.
Henley, J. W. Sidney, Ald.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Smith, rt. hn. Sir R. V.
Hildyard, R. C. Somerville, rt. hon. Sir W.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Spooner, R.
Hill, Lord M. Stafford, A.
Hobhouse, T. B. Stanley, hon. E. J.
Hood, Sir A. Sturt, H. G.
Hope, Sir J. Tancred, H. W.
Hudson, G. Townshend, Capt.
Hughes, W. B. Trollope, Sir J.
Ingestre, Visct. Tufnell, H.
Jermyn, Earl Verner, Sir W.
Jocelyn, Visct. Verney, Sir H.
Keppel, hon. G. T. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Wall, C. B.
Lascelles, hon. E. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Ward, H. G.
Lincoln, Earl of Watkins, Col. L.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Williamson, Sir H.
Lockhart, W. Wilson, J.
Lowther, H. TELLERS.
Mackinnon, W. A. Mackenzie, W. F.
Macnamara, Major Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
List of the NOES.
Blackstone, W. S. Clay, J.
Blake, M. J. Clifford, H. M.
Blewett, R. J. Cobden, R.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Cochrane, A. D. R. W.
Bowring, Dr. Corbally, M. E.
Bright, J. Cowan, C.
Brotherton, J. Crawford, W. S.
Busfeild, W. Currie, R.
Callaghan, D. Drumlanrig, Visct.
Duncan, Visct. Pechell, Capt.
Duncan, G. Perfect, R.
Duncuft, J. Pilkington, J.
Dunne, F. P. Power, Dr.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Raphael, A.
Ellice, E. Reynolds, J.
Evans, Sir De L. Ricardo, J. L.
Fagan, W. Roche, E. B.
Fordyce, A. D. Salwey, Col.
Fox, W. J. Seymour, Sir H.
Grace, O. D. J. Smith, M. T.
Greene, J. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Hall, Sir B. Stanton, W. H.
Hallyburton, Lord J. G. Strickland, Sir G.
Heald, J. Stuart, Lord D.
Hindley, C. Sullivan, M.
Horsman, E. Tenison, E. K.
Humphery, Aldm. Thickncfase, R. A.
Hutt, W. Thompson, Col.
Kershaw, J. Thornely, T.
King, hon. P. J. L. Trelawny, J. S.
Lushington, C. Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
M'Gregor, J. Wawn, J. T.
Mowatt, F. Williams, J.
Napier, J. Wood, W. P.
O'Connor, F. Yorke, H. G. R.
Osborne, R. TELLERS.
Pattison, J. Hume, J.
Pearson, C. Wakley, T.

Writ issued.

Back to