HC Deb 11 August 1854 vol 135 cc1545-7
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFE

said, he would next move that the writ be issued for the election of two Members to serve in Parliament for the borough of Barnstaple.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a New Writ for the electing of two Burgesses to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Barnstaple, in the room of Sir William Augustus Fraser, baronet, and of Richard Bromridge, esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void.

MR. T. DUNCOMBE

said, he thought it was time that he should ask where had all the subordinate Members of Her Majesty's Government been during the last two divisions? He could not see his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty nor his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General. Where, too, was the right hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), who had described the denial of these writs as the panacea both for bribery and intimidation. The noble Lord the President of the Council had been attending Her Majesty in Council, and therefore his non-attendance at an earlier period was excusable. Now that he had arrived, he (Mr. Duncombe) would like to hear his opinion upon the question of issuing the writ for Barnstaple. The noble Lord had presented a petition from certain voters of that place, in which they complained of the mal-practices at previous elections, and said that, rather than such things should be renewed, they would desire to remain unrepresented. Did the noble Lord think that the measure which had recently been passed would prevent a recurrence of such mal-practices? The noble Lord, when he moved, on the 2nd of June, that seven days' notice should be given of any Motion for issuing these writs, stated that Barnstaple was a very bad case, and that at once to issue the writs without taking any notice would be almost a direct inducement to bribery. The noble Lord then went on to declare that, in his opinion, the only way to deal with the matter was to disfranchise those voters who had been guilty of receiving bribes. This, said the noble Lord, was better than a system of pecuniary penalties. But he (Mr. Duncombe) would now remind the noble Lord, that the measure which had lately been passed only imposed a system of penalties. Hence he hoped—whatever might have been the decision of the House as to the other writs—that hon. Members would unite in opposing the issue of a writ for Barnstaple.

MR. H. BERKELEY

said, he also hoped the House would not issue writs for a borough which was so utterly profligate and lost to all sense of what was right.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

said, he regretted that he had not been present at an earlier period of the discussion, but he had been obliged to attend Her Majesty in Council. With respect to the question before the House, he much regretted that the Bills which had been brought in by his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) to disfranchise electors of these boroughs who had accepted bribes, owing to the objection that some pledge of immunity had been given by the Commissioners, could not be proceeded with. He had felt that it was a matter of some difficulty to decide whether the writs should issue or not, but as they had passed a Bill with respect to bribery and treating, he thought it was desirable that they should not any longer keep these places from exercising their legal right of returning Members to Parliament. It was very true that that Bill had been passed only for a limited period; still it contained a clause that the names of persons who had been convicted of bribery might be sent to the revising barrister, who could strike them out of the list of voters. They would be placed in separate lists, so that every one might see that they had the stigma of bribery affixed to them. He conceived that this would be a considerable discouragement to bribery, and it would likewise be necessary for a candidate to give an account of all his expenses, and, if any of them had been Unduly incurred, investigation would take place. He conceived, therefore, that a good deal had been done to check bribery, and he should be glad to see whether bribery would take place on future occasions at Barnstaple and other places to the same extent as formerly. The Select Committee upon Controverted Elections would be again appointed next year, and that question would be fully gone into.

SIR FITZROY KELLY

said, he must beg to express his great satisfaction at hearing that the noble Lord intended to introduce next Session a Bill for the amendment of the law for the trial of controverted elections. He was disappointed at the declaration clause having been thrown out of the Bribery Bill; but it must not be forgotten that a candidate might be called upon to answer upon oath, on the trial of an election petition, as to all the matters which were the subject of the declaration.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 31: Majority 16.