HC Deb 03 May 1848 vol 98 cc596-9

House in Committee on the Yarmouth Freemen Disfranchisement Bill.

On the question that the preamble of the Bill be postponed,

MR. STAFFORD moved that the Chairman report progress.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 16; Noes 107; Majority 91.

List of the AYES.
Bagshaw, J.Hodges, T. L.
Barkly, H.Sturt, H. G.
Berkeley, hon. G. F.Thompson, Col.
Buller, Sir J. Y.Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Clay, J.Willoughby, Sir H.
Clifford, H. M.
Cobbold, J. C.
Colvile, C. R.TELLERS.
Fox, W. J.Stafford, A.
Greene, T.Hume, J.
List of the NOES.
Arkwright, G.Hornby, J.
Armstrong, R. B.Inglis, Sir R. H.
Arundel and Surrey,Jervis, Sir J.
Earl ofKeppel, hon. G. T.
Baines, M. T.Kershaw, J.
Barrington, Visct.Lewis, rt. hn. Sir T. F.
Bentinck, Lord H.Lewis, G. C.
Beresford, W.Lincoln, Earl of
Berkeley, hon. Capt.Lindsay, hon. Col.
Boyle, hon. Col.Littleton, hon. E. R.
Bright, J.Lushington, C.
Brockman, E. D.M'Naghten, Sir E.
Brotherton, J.Mahon, Visct.
Brown, W.Maitland, T.
Bunbury, E. H.Manners, Lord G.
Busfeild, W.Martin, S.
Campbell, hon. W. F.Maule, rt. hon. F.
Cardwell, E.Melgund, Visct.
Carew, W. H. P.Miles, W.
Chichester, Lord J. L.Monsell, W.
Cholmeley, Sir M.Mowatt, F.
Christy, S.Newdegate, C. N.
Cocks, T. S.Ogle, S. C. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T E.Ord, W.
Cripps, W.Palmer, R.
Cubitt, W.Patten, J. W.
Divett, E.Pearson, C.
Duncan, G.Perfect, R.
Duncuft, J.Philips, Sir G. R.
Dundas, Adm.Pinney, W.
Elliot, hon. J. E.Plowden, W. H. C.
Estcourt, J. B. B.Prime, R.
Evans, Sir D. L.Raphael, A.
Fellowes, E.Rawdon, Col.
Fergus, J.Ricardo, O.
Foley, J. H. H.Rice, E. R.
Fordyce, A. D.Romilly, J.
Fortescue, hon. J. W.Russell, Lord J.
French, F.Scrope, G. P.
Fuller, A. E.Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.
Galway, Visct.Shelburne, Earl of
Gaskell, J. M.Somerville,rt. hon. Sir W.
Gibson, rt. hon. T M.Spooner, R.
Granger, T. C.Stuart, H.
Grenfell, C. W.Talfourd, Serj.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.Thornely, T.
Grosvenor, Lord R.Towneley, C.
Hanmer, Sir J.Waddington, H. S.
Hardcastle, J. A.Walmsley, Sir J.
Harris, hon. CaptWilson, M.
Hayes, Sir E.Wood, W. P.
Headlam, T. E.Yorke, H. G. R.
Heald, J.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C.TELLERS.
Hildyard, R. C.Seymer, H. K.
Hill, Lord M.Stuart, J.

On Clause 1 being proposed,

MR. STAFFORD felt it his duty again to assert a principle which no majorities of that House could convince him was unsound. There were two reasons why he objected to this Bill: first, because it punished the innocent for the guilty; and, secondly, because it refused to punish that class of persons whom he maintained to be the most guilty of all. It was stated in the report of the Committee, that the amount of bribery proved to have been committed at the last election in the borough of Great Yarmouth was 46l. 10s.; that the sums given as bribes varied from 7l. to 10s.; and that the number of freemen bribed consisted of thirteen or fourteen persons. The Committee recommended, upon this evidence, that the whole of the freemen should be disfranchised, though they had been unable to find any proof of systematic corruption, except so far as that proof rested upon the testimony of a single witness. He contended that, in accordance with the principles which ordinarily regulated the administration of criminal justice, the promoters of this measure ought to have contented themselves with bringing in a Bill to disfranchise the fourteen persons convicted of having received bribes. He maintained also, that those who offered the temptation, and held out the bribe, were at least as guilty as those who, in their destitution, accepted it. He held that to select a particular borough, and a particular class in that borough, and visit them with political extinction because they were poor and had yielded to the temptation of being bribed, while they avoided all mention of the tempters, appeared to him impolitic and unjust. He held that when they were taking means to punish those who had been bribed, they at the same time ought to take steps to reach those who were infinitely more guilty. They might depend upon it they never could promote purity of election by such a course as that now proposed; and he believed they could only do so by passing a general Act which would make it criminal not only to be bribed, but to offer a bribe to any elector. If they passed such a Bill as the present, they never could convince those who had no votes that they were actuated by a desire to preserve purity of election. If a Bill was brought in for the purpose of disfranchising Mr. Coble, who had been active in bribing, it would be much more to the purpose.

MR. SEYMER had a word or two to say in favour of Mr. Coble and a learned Serjeant, whose name had also been mentioned. He believed that so long as there were persons ready and anxious to be bribed, as was the case at Great Yarmouth, there would always be found persons willing to bribe them; so long as they found people avowedly waiting on for the purpose of being bribed, crowding the stairs of particular houses with that object, and asking for the back arrears of former elections, so long would bribery exist. The evidence given before the Committee clearly proved that many of the electors of Great Yarmouth looked upon bribery as a matter of course, as a custom of the place. The evidence also showed that the freemen were the persons who corrupted both candidates and agents. It would be impossible to avoid corrupt elections so long as persons willing and even claiming to be bribed were found to exist.

MR. PLOWDEN said, printed papers had been sent to him from Great Yarmouth, in which the most unblushing avowal of bribery was put forth. They called it an "ancient custom," a "privilege" to which they were entitled, denounced as their greatest enemies those who had brought these transactions to light, and styled as their dearest friends those who defended them. He trusted steps would be taken by that House to put down such occurrences as had been proved to take place in this borough.

The clauses of the Bill agreed to.

House resumed.