BOROUGH ELECTIONS (No. 2) BILL.

HC Deb 26 May 1848 vol 98 cc1435-52

On the question that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee on the Borough Elections (No. 2) Bill,

COLONEL SIBTHORP regretted that there was not a fuller attendance of hon. Gentlemen who had declared their opposition to this Bill. He objected to the Bill; but, although the hon. Baronet had thought proper to introduce Lincoln among the nine boroughs that were to undergo investigation, if the hon. Baronet would go down there, he would take him in his own carriage; and he would tell the hon. Baronet that he did not fear any inquiry as far as regarded himself, and was sure that the more the hon. Baronet inquired, the more would the borough be gratified as well as himself. He must say, that a more tyrannical, inquisitorial, or unjust Bill than this never had emanated from any hon. Member. It was, in fact, almost a burglarious Bill. Why should they not extend their inquiries to other boroughs besides those against which the Bill was directed? Why not extend it to Hull, where he was sure there was more money spent than had been spent in Lincoln since the time his great-uncle represented that city a century ago? They had heard a great deal about the elections for London—they had heard who had bought and who had sold; why, then, should they not inquire into the merits or demerits of that election? He objected to the Bill both in principle and in detail, and should feel it his duty to oppose it at every stage. The hon. and gallant Colonel concluded by moving, as an Amendment, that the House resolve itself into Committee on the Bill on that day six months.

MR. C. PEARSON regretted that he could not with propriety move at present the instructions to the Committee of which he had given notice. He would, however, take the liberty of briefly sketching out his views respecting the Bill, in order that the House might have an opportunity of considering them before the report was brought up. In his judgment the Bill, though in the right direction, would not be efficient for the purpose for which it was designed. It possessed those defects which marred all other legislative enactments for the same purpose. There was no crime in the criminal code where the penalties were so numerous, various, and stringent, as that of bribery at elections; neither was there any offence within the range of the criminal law of England, where the number of offences detected bore so small a proportion to the number actually committed. It was also predicable of bribery at elections, that there was no crime where the number of offences proved and punished bore so small a proportion to the number of offences discovered. Although it was universally admitted that bribery at elections was an offence of great gravity, whether considered in reference to its social, moral, or political hearings on society; yet still it was increasing, and would continue to increase, until some mode of legislating in reference to it, different from any that had taken place, was adopted. Various laws had from time to time been enacted to prevent and punish bribery, but they had all proved ineffectual. Since the passing of the Reform Bill, bribery, instead of having diminished, had, in many instances, increased. In proof of this he might refer to the reports of several Committees of Inquiry. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in referring to this subject said— I speak it with shame and sorrow; but I verily believe that the extent to which bribery was carried at the last election (1837) has exceeded anything that has ever been stated within these walls. And then the noble Lord gave an explanation, if not an apology for this fact:— I do not wonder at it. Two great political parties were contending for a great prize, and that prize was no less than the government of a great empire. That prize has been won by the party opposite. I will not take upon me to say, whether those corrupt practices were more resorted to by those who attacked or those who defended their position. The evil was then admitted, and the remedy proposed by the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown was the disfranchisement of such boroughs as did not exercise the franchise honestly. He did not think that an adequate remedy. He should give the Bill before the House his support; but he thought it should have embodied in it some such provisions as he had sketched out in the notice which he had given. What he proposed was, that in the schedule to the Act be contained all the towns in the country containing above 10,000 inhabitants. There were sixty-two such towns; and he proposed that when any town was accused of bribery and corruption, the town geographically nearest to it should have a vested interest in the prosecution of the inquiry, and also that those who had an interest in obtaining the franchise possessed by the accused borough, should appoint the parties who were to conduct the inquiry. This plan, he thought, would supply an adequate motive for bringing bribery and corruption to light, and the guilty parties to punishment. This Bill would confer a great boon upon the honest part of the community, while at the same time it would deprive dishonest parties of the power of usurping unjust privileges, to the great detriment of the kingdom at large. That he might illustrate his meaning more particularly, he would take the case of the borough of Horsham, not far from which was the town of Croydon, with 16,000 inhabitants, but with no elective franchise. He would enable Croydon to take part in the election of Horsham, and also entirely to deprive it of the franchise (which should be transferred to Croydon) upon its being distinctly proved to Parliament that Horsham had been guilty of bribery and corruption. To any one who might be disposed to raise the objection that there would be a great difficulty in uniting the franchise of Horsham and Croydon, he would say, "Look to Scotland." They had in that country seventy towns, of which five or six were required to make up a district to be represented by a Member of Parliament. No practical difficulty was found to exist in Scotland; and why should there be any as regarded Horsham and Croydon? Then he would take the case of Derby, which, or a portion of which, had been proved to be guilty of bribery. Some 400 electors of Derby had committed a fault; but was it right that 37,000 individuals should suffer for their misdeeds? Near Derby there was the town of Belper, which he proposed should have a similar interest with regard to the election of Derby as he proposed to give to Croydon with reference to Horsham. It might be said by some, "Oh, but you will be creating a perpetual ill-feeling between the towns which you intend to link together in Parliamentary matters." Supposing that were true, he would ask what the political evil would be? Suppose that Croydon cast a wistful eye upon Horsham, or Horsham suspiciously upon Croydon, which was thirty miles apart; what could be the evil of such a state of things, even if it should exist? It would be so diluted that the practical evil would vanish. But what did they find the practical evil now was, whilst it was centered in some town where there were two parties perpetually contending with each other? Although we had a septennial election, there was scarcely time for the angry feeling to die away before the embers were rekindled, and set father against son, brother against brother, and relation against relation. He would appeal to any man who had read the evidence of Mr. Parkes, in reference to Warwick, whether that was not the fact? Mr. Parkes told them that up to the last election or two all were united and happy; but that such an animosity had been engendered by the late Parliamentary proceedings, that since they had taken place, people who used to sit at the same table would not speak to each other except in language that was most disgraceful and lamentable. That state of things was attributable to the fact of two contending parties being obliged to live together in the same town. Any one acquainted with Parliamentary matters, as he had been, knew very well that the result of an election was like tying a dead carcase to a live body, or compelling the triumphant and victorious to associate with those in whose breasts there rankled feelings of political animosity Which years would not be able to extinguish. But if the course that he was recommending were pursued, he insisted upon it that bribery would cease. At present he would not frighten the House by producing blue books to show what Parliamentary agents had said upon this matter. Those agents stated in evidence that it was usual in many towns for rival parties, prior to the election, to agree with each other that there should be no petition against bribery presented by either of them for corrupt practices carried on by them during the election. They said, too, "We'll have no petition for treating." And they spent thousands upon thousands on both sides, and there was a distinct understanding that "all should be fair at the election." Mr. Parkes stated in evidence that such an agreement was looked upon as an honourable treaty, and that it would be a breach of faith for either party to present a petition against the other. They never could put down bribery, therefore, unless they introduced a new element into the question—some new body that should have a vested interest in the matter. Notwithstanding any compact of the contending parties resident in the borough, if they knew that there was a third party whom they could not trust, "taking notes" of their proceedings, and who would surely "print them," they would feel that their bribery and corruption must soon be punished by him. Bribery and corruption must thus come to an end. That House could not put down bribery without introducing into the Bill some self-acting machinery, winch would put itself in motion without the aid of a common informer, who was odious in the estimation of every person; and unless the House did that, bribery would still continue rife and unextinguishable. No paltry penalty of 500l. was adequate to meet the gross delinquency of corruption in Parliamentary proceedings. He ventured to say, that, if he were to divide the House upon his recommendation, he should look to three sections for support. He should look to the Ministerial side of the House for support, because his suggestion did not wage war against the honourable principle that they contended for. They said that when they brought in the Reform Bill, it would be a final measure, and therefore "finality" was the standard under which they fought and won, and they would not budge from that principle. He should ask for their support on this ground, that the honourable principle of "finality" did not prevent or discourage them from supporting this view of the case; because the principle of his recommendation was sanctioned by them in the case of Grantham at the passing of the Reform Bill. He would ask them, then, for their votes, upon the distinct principle that this was a measure in conformity with the principle of the Reform Bill. He would ask the hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House, with whom he was accidentally placed in contact, for their support; and he would do so upon this ground, that, although he knew that they always stood consistently to their principles; and although he knew that the mantle of those great men that he had referred to had fallen upon them, and was worthily worn by them; and although they did not like Reform Bills in any shape or form, any more than Pitt or Canning; yet, in conformity with the principles which they avowed upon the passing of the Reform Bill, he asked them to grant this little bit-by-bit reform instalment, instead of damming up the public feeling, which was now clamouring for reform in some shape or other. And with regard to the remaining section (the Radical portion), he could promise them that he was prepared to go even further than their leader, the hon. Member for Montrose, had avowed his intention to proceed. The hon. Gentleman concluded by stating, that when this measure reached Committee, he would again press the plan of which he had now given a sketch.

MR. BANKES said, this was universally admitted to be a Bill of very great importance. The hon. Member who had just sat down had said that the only chance of meeting this general cry of bribery was by adopting something that was new. It was perhaps on that principle that the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hanmer) had introduced this measure. He (Mr. Bankes) did not say that it was absolutely new, but there was novelty in the extent to which it was proposed to carry it; and for that reason he thought it was essentially necessary that in this stage they should consider the real bearing and extent of the proposition. The hon. Member for Lambeth, who had just sat down, had said that this Bill was to carry into effect bills of indictment which had been found against particular boroughs by Committees which had sat in judgment, as Election Committees, upon them. He (Mr. Bankes) had been called upon to speak to this part of the question, for one of the places named in the first schedule of this Bill was a place for which he sat on Committee; and he denied that he found any bill of indictment against that borough. He denied the truth of the assertion that the finding of the Committee had estab- lished that it was disgraced by corrupt practices; there was, therefore, a falsehood in the preamble of this Bill. He was not prepared to vote for a Bill into the preamble of which they introduced a false allegation. No proof had been given to establish the charge of corrupt practices at Horsham. The decision to which the Committee came was founded upon evidence of a very slight character. The facts were simply these: That the Member who proposed to stand for Horsham went down to that place some weeks before the writ was issued. A festivity was held in honour of his appearance. There was a sort of banquet, one of no extraordinary expense, as the Committee had been led to believe. There was some brandy and water, and he believed some smoking, for which a party paid who admitted himself to be an agent. Undoubtedly, by the law, as it stood, that amounted to a charge of treating, although it took place so long before the writ was issued, and the seat was legally vacated. But he denied that evidence of this nature established any charge of corrupt practices against that borough. He could not be supposed to speak thus of Horsham because of any political preference; for as far as his Parliamentary experience extended, Horsham had always returned a Whig; and if corrupt practices had prevailed there, it had always been because that borough was under the dominion of the Whig party. But he founded no charge of corruption upon that presumption. No evidence could be more slight than that which was laid before the Committee; yet, notwithstanding the report of the Committee was such as he had described it, the Prime Minister opposed the moving of a writ with regard to this borough. He called upon the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) to explain why he took upon himself to urge the House to suspend that writ—why he undertook to introduce a special measure with reference to this borough—and why, having done so, he abandoned that Bill in order to subject this constituency to a new species of jurisdiction? The hon. Baronet (Sir J. Hanmer) had no right to introduce the name of Horsham in the schedule of this Bill. Why should not that borough, if inquiry were requisite, why should it not be dealt with as other boroughs had been dealt with, by a Committee sitting within the walls of this House; and let that Committee conduct its investigations in the most scrutinising manner? The noble Lord was now supporting a measure which must unquestionably be attended with unjust and harassing restriction of the franchise. He would now make an observation which might expose him to censure, but which could not be traced, so far as himself or the constituency he represented were concerned, to any selfish motives, for no slur had been cast upon the electors of Dorsetshire. His observation was to this effect, that the House was going too far, much too far, in its legislation against what was termed "treating." It was pushing those ideal principles of purity to an extreme; its virtue was outrageous and absurd, and, if carried much further, would only serve to expose those principles to ridicule and contempt. This House, in order to show its love of purity and its detestation of "treating," went so far as even to forbid the reasonable exercise of the fine old English virtue of hospitality. A gentleman used formerly to meet his friends and supporters with impunity before the election at a public dinner. It was considered no crime to entertain them with something better than mere frothy speeches; but now, forsooth, a morsel of food or a glass of liquor will occasion a Member to lose his seat, and cause the disfranchisement of a whole constituency. He must say that Members had during the present Session, in consequence of the prevalence or affectation of this "holy horror" of treating, been deprived of their seats upon very light grounds; and it was distinctly laid down that no Member was to treat a voter and supporter even in the same manner as a witness summoned upon a trial might lawfully be entertained. But there was a still greater evil. Not only was the Member punished for this exhibition of kind and generous feeling, but the innocent members of a constituency who had violated no law—those even who sat quietly at their own firesides, and never participated in any of this treating—they, too, were to be punished for crimes which they never committed, and suffer for benefits they had never received; and were to be deprived of that privilege which an Englishman most valued, merely because a few of their fellow-townsmen had partaken of some refreshment at the expense of a candidate. He thought the advocates of this Bill and of this system were bringing about a state of things full of peril and danger—destroying the distinction which ought to prevail between acts prohibited merely on the ground of convenience, and offences of grave and serious character, which required punishment in vindication of national purity. Such a distinction did exist, and ought ever to exist, between the offence of treating and that of bribery. He objected to the machinery of this Bill; and with respect to the Commissioners, by whomsoever appointed, he saw no reasonable ground for hope that their investigations would be attended with useful or satisfactory results. For these reasons he should give his decided opposition to the Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE said, that he concurred in the observations of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that no case had been made out against the borough of Horsham. The House had just appointed commissioners to inquire into the state of the cesspools, and they now proposed appointing commissioners to inquire into the state of the constituency. It would appear, in fact, that everything was to be done by commissioners. These new commissioners were to have power to act as they pleased, and he saw no means by which the parties interested were to rebut the evidence to be brought before the House against them.

MR. HOBHOUSE said, that it was not his intention to address the House at any length on this occasion. He objected to the Bill as being partial and capricious. In the first place, it was a question of pure chance what were the boroughs that were to be selected for the proposed inquiries. It depended in a great measure on the popularity or unpopularity of the Member, on the strength of his purse, or on the spite or ill feeling of any one individual. He was convinced that it was the conscientious opinion of every Member in that House, that the charges urged against these particular boroughs were of far more general extent, and that it was unfair to make allegations against individual boroughs which were shared by every constituency in the kingdom. When he found that some boroughs were brought forward prominently in this Bill, while others quite as bad were excepted, he felt justified in giving it every opposition in his power. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. Pearson) had indulged in some unfounded charges against the city of Lincoln. He fully concurred in what the hon. Gentleman had said as to the influence which his hon. and gallant Colleague (Colonel Sibthorp) possessed among one portion of the constituency of that city, and the absence of corruption or bribery on his part; but when the hon. Member undertook to say that the other party in Lincoln were less pure, and that they were corrupt, he (Mr. Hobhouse) repelled the charge with indignation. The constituency of Lincoln were as pure as, if not purer, than the constituency of Lambeth; and he was sure that his hon. and gallant Colleague would bear him out when he said that the last election for Lincoln had been contested fairly and honestly on both sides. The hon. Baronet was, no doubt, actuated by pure motives in introducing this Bill; but he (Mr. Hobhouse) should object to his going into any ex post facto legislation, more especially as it was notorious that the abuses for which these particular boroughs were punished, existed in every constituency in the kingdom. ["No, no!"] He would repeat, that it was notorious that the same abuses existed elsewhere; and under such circumstances, was it consistent with justice that some boroughs should be selected to bear all the punishment? He objected, also, that the hon. Baronet had not told them what remedy it was that he intended to propose, in case of any of these boroughs being found guilty of the charges of corruption brought against them. The hon. Member for Lambeth had, however, supplied that defect. The hon. Gentleman was, it appeared, for having one monotonous constituency throughout the kingdom; he was for making the whole country a sort of continuous Lambeth. He (Mr. Hobhouse) thought that one great merit of the English constitution was, that by means of constituencies of various sizes and qualities, it enabled Gentlemen to sit in that House able to take a part in every variety of legislation that could come before them. But he asked the hon. Baronet to look to what had taken place under a system of universal suffrage and vote by ballot in France. Had he not heard of elections by violence, and of large bodies of men entering by force into the National Assembly? He was, therefore, not prepared to say that the remedy which the hon. Baronet proposed, might not produce greater evils than those which he deprecated. So far as he remembered, in other instances of disfranchisement, constituencies had not been aggregated into one mass, varying in degree, formation, numbers, and in all shades of criminality. In this respect, he conceived the general interests of the electoral body were injuriously affected by the measure. But under any circumstances, it was unjust and inexpedient to single out certain constituencies for reproach and obloquy, whilst others, equally guilty, altogether escaped condemnation. For these reasons, he should give his decided opposition to the Bill.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, the only question before the House was whether or not they were sincere in their endeavours to repress bribery and corruption? If they were, then he asked them what other course would they adopt to repress bribery than was pointed out by the present Bill? What did this Bill propose to do? It proposed to inquire into those cases where a Committee of the House, by sworn Members, reported that bribery had been practised, and ought to be inquired into. But the Bill did not stop there. It proposed also to inquire into every similar case that might occur in future, so that the Bill was really of the general and comprehensive nature that the hon. Member wished for. Then it was said that this Bill was a specimen of ex post facto legislation. He denied it. Every case that it proposed to inquire into had been decided in the course of the present Session; and though some of these places had been allowed to have new writs issued, yet that had happened inadvertently, the attention of the House not having been called to them. That, for instance, was the case with regard to Lincoln, which had been so strenuously defended to-night. Of course, after, the report of the Committee, the election that followed it was sure to be pure, otherwise the electors would have subjected themselves to a more severe punishment. But what had the Committee reported of the previous election? That the sitting Member had been, by his agents, guilty of bribery—that he had directly and indirectly provided drink and entertainment, with the view corruptly to influence the electors. That was personal to the late Member; but the Committee further reported that it appeared to them that a system of treating had long prevailed in Lincoln, and that all candidates, including the hon. and gallant Member opposite—[Colonel SIBTHORP: I deny it]—were in the habit of opening public-houses, and providing drink and entertainment, with a view corruptly to influence the electors. Now, he said that was a case for inquiry; and if it had been brought under the attention of the House at the time, his hon. Friend (Mr. Hobhouse) would not have had the opportunity he had so ably availed himself of, of defending his constituents. Then, was it fair to cite the example of France as a parallel? No one could deplore the excesses in France more than he did; but, because acts of violence were wrong, did it follow that acts of bribery were right? He believed, that if this measure were enacted, it would have a most beneficial result in the tacit and silent repression of bribery; and he therefore earnestly hoped that the House would go into Committee and pass the measure in such a manner as would be effectual for the repression of the offence.

MR. JOHN STUART said, that the question before the House was, whether they would punish bribery, and whether bribery had been committed in the cases to which the present measure more particularly referred? He was quite ready to admit that bribery ought to be punished; but that which he objected to was the punishment of bribery in an unconstitutional, tyrannical, and oppressive manner. Upon the subject of this Bill they had heard several speeches, but until the speech of the Solicitor General they had not heard one word of argument in support of the Bill. The measure was inquisitorial, for the Bill was a preliminary to inflicting pains and penalties on the poorer class of voters. The question was, if bribery were committed, was it the right way of proceeding to institute an inquiry by means of Commissioners to be appointed under the present Bill? The true way to punish bribery on principles of justice was to hear both sides; but under the present Bill there was no opportunity afforded to the poor man to defend himself. The Bill was as absurd as it was unjust; and it was most absurd where it professed to act upon judicial principles. He could not help observing, that the only precedent cited by the hon. Baronet who introduced the Bill was that of Sudbury; but let it be remembered that in the case of Sudbury the Commission was not issued until the question had been fairly argued, and the evidence fully gone into. The Bill respecting Sudbury had been allowed to pass the Commons, had gone up to the House of Lords, and had there been judicially inquired into. Now, he wished to put this question—did they propose to disfranchise any one of the nine boroughs named in the Bill? To him it appeared that no case had been made out against any one of those boroughs except that of Great Yarmouth; and therefore he did say that the Bill now before them would be an ex post facto law. From what fell from the noble Lord opposite, it might be inferred that he meant to imply that "treating" was a fit ground for disfranchisement. He observed that at that statement of his opinion the noble Lord shook his head; then it was not the ground upon which it was proposed that the Bill should rest; but, if not, on what ground was the measure founded? The preamble was not proved; and he must say that, in a case like that, they had a right to expect that the preamble should be proved. Perhaps the hon. Member for Montrose, whose name was on this Bill, would tell the House what was really meant. Was it intended to disfranchise the freemen of Great Yarmouth or not? The object of the Bill, as originally introduced, was to be purity of election; but now it seemed from the Solicitor General that it was not the object of the Bill to inflict penalties upon all who were guilty of bribery. The hon. Member for Montrose had said that he supported the Bill, because he did not expect to get that larger measure of reform of which he had given notice; but if he meant to punish bribery by this Bill, he would signally fail.

MR. HUME said: The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. J. Stuart) called this an ex post facto proceeding; why, what was every trial but an ex post facto proceeding? A number of Committees of that House had reported that certain practices contrary to law had existed at different elections; and what was the great crime about to be committed? To inquire; to ascertain the extent of the corrupt practices; and it would then be for the House to decide whether it was fit that they should be punished. The hon. and learned Member talked of the House being about to punish without trial; why, would he punish the Yarmouth freemen without inquiry? [Mr. J. STUART: They have been convicted after a fair trial before the constitutional tribunal, namely, by the Committee.] All these boroughs had been reported upon.

MR. HENLEY was surprised that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), instead of answering the question whether he meant by this Bill to disfranchise the freemen of Yarmouth, had endeavoured to mystify the House with an extraordinary notion about ex post facto legislation. He seemed to have no conception of the difference between trying a man by a law previously in existence, and making a law on purpose to try him. The Bill was objectionable because it mixed together a number of boroughs whose cases all differed. It was objectionable, because it used the word "corrupt," without any interpretation or definition. The Bill was so framed that every case which ought to be decided judicially must be brought into the arena of the House, subjecting matters to party feeling; and what two men would agree as to what was "corrupt?" Some great purist might say that it was "corrupt" if a man had a glass of beer; others, if a Member of the Government went down to canvass a dockyard borough; the knowledge of a candidate's having a great many good things to give away might be thought by some to be "corruption." There really might be danger, when parties were nicely balanced, in this Star Chamber inquisition, with the public purse at the back of it; people would know that if they could get up a pretty good case, they would be well paid, and there would be no after proceeding. Surely the best course was, to inquire separately and in a proper way into each instance, where a Committee reported that further proceedings ought to be taken. As for this Bill, it would get into another place, and just have the effect of hanging up inquiry where it ought to be prosecuted, though it might not be convenient to some parties to have it take place.

MR. COCKBURN would give his cordial support to this Bill. Without going the length of those who said that all the borough constituencies of England were tainted with bribery and corruption, he would not deny that the result of some experience had led him to the conclusion that a very large proportion indeed of them were tainted; and it was the bounden duty of the House not to flinch from inquiry, where it saw grounds for instituting it. He apprehended that as these cases had been brought before the House on reports from their own Committees, they were bound to give implicit credence to them. The House already had the power in its own hands, which it could, if it pleased, exercise. The Legislature could interpose and institute an inquiry; the existing laws being stringent enough if the House only had the courage to apply them, and that without the necessity of passing any general measure. They were told that the Bill was inquisitorial, and that the parties whom it was sought to affect and punish would have no means of making their cases heard before the Commissioners of Inquiry. As to that he apprehended that no Commissioners would dream of reporting against any electors without previously giving them the most ample opportunity of detailing their case, and urging arguments before them. If there existed any doubt on that point, it admitted of being most easily remedied, for it would only be necessary to introduce a clause into the Bill which should make that course compulsory upon the Commissioners, but which he believed they would at once adopt, as the only proper line of their duty, even as the Bill now stood. He apprehended that although the Committees which were making these special reports had not called upon the House to institute any special inquiry into the various cases, still they had directed the attention of the House to the circumstances of each borough, not for the purpose of allowing their reports to remain a dead letter, but in order to submit to the consideration of the House whether they ought not to institute a further investigation into each particular case. He considered that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, who had spoken against the Bill, had most strangely misconceived its real character. He had treated the Bill as a measure for disfranchising these boroughs. It had no such object. The object of the Bill was simply to send Commissioners to examine witnesses on oath, and to make their reports for the consideration of the House. It would then be for the House to deal with each case as in their wisdom they should deem fit. There was nothing, therefore, in the Bill of an inquisitorial or ex post facto nature. He trusted the House would not be satisfied with making a mere vague and empty declaration of a wish to put down bribery and corruption; but that they would apply a corrective of the severest description to those most heinous offences, and show that they were determined to put them down by all means in their power.

Mr. AGLIONBY said, the hon. Member for Oxfordshire had asked two questions: first, he asked what was corruption; whether it was corruption for any person to give a voter a glass of beer to induce him to vote in a certain way; or for a Government officer to promise a voter an appointment to induce him to give his vote a certain way? Now he would answer the hon. Gentleman by saying that these were both most infamous acts of corruption, and ought to be put down by the Legislature.

The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 166; Noes 78: Majority 88.

Abdy, T. N.	Grey, R. W.
Acland, Sir T. D.	Guest, Sir J.
Adair, R. A. S.	Hall, Sir B.
Adderley, C. B.	Hallyburton, Lord J. F.
Aglionby, H. A.	Hastie, A.
Alcock, T.	Hawes, B.
Armstrong, Sir A.	Hayter, W. G.
Armstrong, R. B	Heald, J.
Arundel and Surrey, Earl of	Heneage, G. H. W.
Earl of	Heneage, E.
Bagshaw, J.	Heywood, J.
Bellew, R. M.	Hill, Lord M.
Berkeley, hon. H. F.	Hindley, C.
Bernal, R.	Hodges, T. T.
Blackstone, W. S.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Blakemore, R.	Howard, Sir R.
Bouveric, hon. E. P.	Hume, J.
Bowring, Dr.	Humphery, Ald.
Boyle, hon. Col.	Jackson, W.
Brand, T.	Jocelyn, Visct.
Bright, J.	Kershaw, J.
Brockman, E. D.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Brotherton, J.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Brown, W.	Lemon, Sir C.
Bunbury, E. H.	Lewis, G. C.
Buxton, Sir E. N.	Lindsay, hon. Col.
Campbell, hon. W. F.	Locke, J.
Carew, W. H. P.	Lushington, C.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Macnaghten, Sir E.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Macnamara, Maj.
Childers, J. W.	Mahon, The O'Gorman
Clay, J.	Maitland, T.
Clements, hon. C. S.	Mangles, R. D.
Cobden, R.	Marshall, J. G.
Cockburn, A. J. E.	Marshall, W.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Matheson, Col.
Corbally, M. E.	Maule, rt. hon. F.
Courtenay, Lord	Melgund, Visct.
Craig, W. G.	Mitchell, T. A.
Crawford, W. S.	Monsell, W.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Morgan, H. K. G.
Dawson, hon. T. V.	Morris, D.
Denison, W. J.	Mostyn, bon, E. M. L.
Devereux, J. T.	Mowatt, F.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. T.	Mulgrave, Earl of
Duff, G. S.	Norreys, Lord
Duncan, G.	Nugent, Sir P.
Duncuft, J.	O'Brien, T.
Dundas, Adm.	O'Connell, M.
Ebrington, Visct.	Paget, Lord C.
Elliot, hon. J. E.	Paget, Lord G.
Estcourt, J. B. B.	Palmer, R.
Evans, J.	Palmerston, Visct.
Ewart, W.	Parker, J.
Fagan, W.	Pearson, C.
Ferguson, Sir R. A.	Perfect, R.
Fordyce, A. D.	Peto, S. M.
Fox, R. M.	Pigott, F.
Fox, W. J.	Pilkington, J.
Freestun, Col.	Power, Dr.
Glyn, G. C.	Price, Sir R.
Grace, O. D. J.	Pugh, D.
Greenall, G.	Raphael, A.
Greene, J.	Rawdon, Col.
Greene, T.	Reynolds, J.
Grenfell, C. P.	Ricardo, O.
Grenfell, C. W.	Robartes, T. J. A.

Romilly, Sir J.	Townshend, Capt.
Russell, Lord J.	Trelawny, J. S.
Rutherford, A.	Tufnell, H.
Salwey, Col.	Turner, E.
Sandars, G.	Tynte, Col.
Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.	Villiers, hon. C.
Smith, J. B.	Walmsley, Sir J.
Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.	Ward, H. G.
Spearman, H. J.	Wawn, J. T.
Stansfield, W. R. C.	Williams, J.
Stanton, W. H.	Williamson, Sir H.
Stuart, Lord D.	Wilson, J.
Sullivan, M.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Talbot, C. R. M.	Wyld, J.
Talfourd, Serj.	Wyvill, M.
Tenison, E. K.
Thicknesse, R. A.	TELLERS.
Thompson, Col.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Thornely, T.	Baines, M. T.

Anstey, T. C.	Hildyard, R. C.
Archdall, Capt. M.	Hildyard, T. B. T.
Baldock, E. H.	Hill, Lord E.
Bankes, G.	Hobhouse, T. B.
Baring, T.	Hodgson, W. N.
Barrington, Visct.	Hood, Sir A.
Bateson, T.	Hope, Sir J.
Benbow, J.	Hornby, J.
Bennet, P.	Ingestre, Visct.
Beresford, W.	Inglis, Sir R. H.
Blackall, S. W.	Keogh, W.
Bourke, R. S.	Lascelles, hon. E.
Bowles, Adm.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Bremridge, R.	Magan, W. H.
Brisco, M.	Meux, Sir H.
Bunbury, W. M.	Napier, J.
Burke, Sir T. J.	Newdegate, C. N.
Chichester, Lord J. L.	O'Brien, Sir L.
Christy, S.	Reid, Col.
Clive, H. B.	Repton, G. W. J.
Cobbold, J. C.	Rushout, Capt.
Cole, hon. H. A.	Seaham, Visct.
Coles, H. B.	Smyth, Sir H.
Compton, H. C.	Smyth, J. G.
Cubitt, W.	Spooner, R.
Dick, Q.	Stanley, E.
Dod, J. W.	Stuart, H.
Dundas, G.	Stuart, J.
Du Pre, C. G.	Sturt, H. G.
East, Sir J. B.	Thompson, Ald.
Edwards, H.	Trollope, Sir J.
Farrer, J.	Turner, G. J.
Forbes, W.	Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Fuller, A. E.	Verner, Sir W.
Galway, Visct.	Williams, T. P.
Godson, R.	Willoughby, Sir H.
Grogan, E.
Gwyn, H.	TELLERS.
Halsey, T. P.	Sibthorp, Col.
Henley, J. W.	Arkwright, G.

Main question again put.

MR. BANKES stated, that as a member of the Horsham Election Committee, he had been a party to the report which that Committee had made to that House, but he denied that that report had found the borough guilty of corruption, though the Committee found that treating had prevailed at the election. He wished to know whether the hon. Member for the Flint boroughs considered treating as corruption? He had asked him that question before, but had not received an answer to it.

SIR J. HANMER hoped the hon. Gentleman would not attribute to any want of courtesy his not having answered that question. He must say, however, that he was a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman had occasion to put it, because he had stated several times what was the nature of the Bill, and why the boroughs named in the schedule were included in it. He found the borough of Horsham among those places which, upon the report of a Select Committee, were stated to have made a void election on account of corrupt practices. [Cries of "No!"] He begged pardon of hon. Members opposite; but why was it that the writ for Horsham was now suspended? Surely it could not lie in the mouth of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, of all men in the world, to say that corrupt practices did not prevail at Horsham, when he was member of the Committee which reported that corrupt treating had taken place, and declared that the sitting Member's election was void. If treating was corrupt, the Gentleman elected lost his seat; but if, in the opinion of the Committee, the treating was not corrupt, he retained it. He had answered the question put by the hon. Member, and he could not avoid expressing his astonishment that it should have been asked.

VISCOUNT COURTENAY, having been Chairman of the Horsham Election Committee, begged to say that that Committee did not enter into an inquiry as to general corruption, because the Committee did not think it was within their province to do so. The Committee did enter into an inquiry with the view of ascertaining whether the withdrawal of the charges was the result of any corrupt compromise; and the Committee was of opinion that there were circumstances connected with that proceeding which justified it in making a special report. Though the Committee expressed no opinion on the general question of bribery, there were, undoubtedly, grave circumstances connected with the case, for the Committee obtained evidence of corrupt treating, and the sitting Member was unseated on that ground.

House in Committee, and resumed.

Committee to sit again.

House adjourned at a quarter to One o'clock.