HC Deb 05 May 1853 vol 126 cc1218-20

Order read, for resuming adjourned Debate on Question [2nd May],"That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Baron to serve in this present Parliament for the Town and Port of Rye, in the room of William Alexander Mackinnon, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. BASS

presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Rye, which stated, that, as it was proved before the Committee, which sat lately to inquire into the election proceedings at Rye, some sixty of the electors were under the immediate control of one Jeremiah Smith, by means of lending them various sums of money, they begged the House would not issue the writ for a new election for Rye without further inquiry, and praying the House to provide some remedy for this corrupt state of things. He also begged to move the adjournment of the debate.

MR. TUFNELL

said, he bad been entrusted with another petition on the same subject, with a different prayer. For himself, he cared not which way the House decided the matter, but he thought they must adopt a decision for inquiry.

MR. WALPOLE

said, it was true the Committee had made a Report on the subject, but as the evidence was in the hands of the House, they had no means of knowing on what grounds the Report was made, nor the circumstances of the borough, except from what took place during the last discussion in that House. Now in that discussion it appeared that no less than 15,000l. had been lent out in loans at the election of 1847 for that small borough; and at the last election there had been something like 6,000l. lent—or at least a very considerable sum. A question had been raised whether loans of money in that way did not come within the meaning of the last Act as well as bribery. Now, without giving an opinion as to whether the writ should be suspended, or a Commission issued, he thought, upon the statements made in the late debate, it was important that the House should have the whole of the evidence before them.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He found that, in the case of the borough of Lyme Regis, similar corrupt practices prevailed. He understood from the Chairman of the Committee in this case that the reason for not issuing a Commission was, that all the corruption which could be proved before it had been already ascertained by the Committee. If that was a good reason for not issuing a Commission, it was also a strong reason for postponing the issue of the writ. He (Lord J. Russell) had his doubts whether, in fact, any writ should again issue for the borough of Rye.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

asked whether it was possible for a Commission to issue where no Report had been made of excessive bribery having taken place. What had been gained by the postponement of this writ? He understood, that, with regard to Berwick, the House had decided to issue a writ without waiting for the evidence taken before the Committee. The House agreed to the issue of the writ on the mere statement by the Chairman of the Committee that they were in favour of the issue. He (Sir J. Shelley) understood that the Rye Committee had taken a similar view of that case. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was under the impression that the Chairman of the Rye Committee had said that he was in favour of the issue of a writ. ["Yes!"]

MR. KNOX

The Committee had given no opinion upon the question of the issue of the writ.

SIR JOHN SHELLEY

But the House had.

The LORD ADVOCATE

Whatever decision the House might come to, it was desirable, in so peculiar a case as this, that the evidence should be printed. One of the peculiarities of the case was this, that the corrupt loans, upon which the investigation proceeded, and upon which the Report turned, were absolutely made as far back as 1832.

MR. TUFNELL

thought it was too late to proceed with this discussion.

Debate further adjourned.