SECOND READING. (Hansard, 25 April 1870)

§ MR. F. WALPOLE
said, that after the lengthened discussion on a kindred subject, he would content himself with moving, which he did with a view to justice being done to certain parties included in the Schedule, that the Bill be road a second time upon this day three months.

MR. REED, in seconding the Amendmen,
said, he wished to direct the at- 1807 tention to four Petitions which, he had presented to Parliament, complaining of the un-English plan of condemning persons who had no opportunity of defending themselves. One of those Petitions was from a Mr. Orlando Dennis Bay, one of the Liberal agents, who stated that it was thought advisable on consultation with the Liberal candidates and three or four sub-agents of the party to purchase the show of hands, a matter which it was estimated would cost about £40. He might here remark that the Guildhall at Norwich, where the nomination was held, was so small that, in order to prevent a row, it was just as well that it should be filled by the adherents of one party. At all events, that had been the practice at Norwich. It so happened that volunteers were furnished in considerable numbers from a factory, so that the securing the show of hands cost £8 instead of £40; but he contended that if Mr. Ray were scheduled for this payment, the Liberal candidates, and those who concurred in the expenditure, ought to be scheduled with Mm. There were others who complained that they were scheduled, although they were innocent of treating, and were neither directly nor indirectly concerned in spending money to procure votes. The Bill he regarded as being framed in a very unsatisfactory and slovenly manner, for it referred to certain Schedules in the Reports of the Commissioners, marked A, B, and 0. In common fairness, one would expect the names referred to to be found in the Bill; but they could only be ascertained by a reference to an entirely distinct document. The names, too, of the voters so scheduled were frequently very vague. He saw, for instance, that "John Brown" was scheduled. The name was not an uncommon one, and he himself knew three John Browns in Norwich; while he was also personally acquainted with two men called John Abel, another name that occurred in the list. He should, he hoped, have another opportunity of referring to the conduct of the Commissioners; but he desired to say a word or two in vindication of the course he had purpursued on a previous occasion. On that occasion he had stated that he was positive that the amount of bribery at Norwich would be found to be particularly and peculiarly small. The Attor- 1808 ney General, in his statement to the House, said that the bribery had been of a very extensive character; but the Report of the Commissioners stated expressly that corruption did not extensively prevail in the borough. It was shown that out of 13,300 electors, only 119 were proved to have been bribed, and 20 to have been guilty of illegal practices. Again, the Attorney General said that if the Commission were granted care would be taken to give effect to the expressed wishes of the Mayor and the magistrates, and that a Petition on the subject would be presented by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. That Petition, however, when presented, bore the signatures of only two gentlemen, both Dissenting ministers. When the hon. Gentleman said that he was not aware of the presentation of any Petition complaining of the conduct of the Commissioners, he would remind the hon. Gentleman that on the 5th of April he had presented a Petition of that character, signed by 1,269 electors, and that the first three signatures were the signatures of magistrates of that city. He trusted that he had, at all events, said enough to induce the House to give those gentlemen who had petitioned Parliament an opportunity of vindicating their characters, and of showing that their names ought to be exluded from these lists.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
moved that the debate be now adjourned.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
said, he could not understand the Motion for Adjournment, and he trusted that the House would not agree to it. The practice of referring to the Schedules containing the names of those found guilty of bribery and corrupt practices had been always adopted, and this Bill, in that respect, furnished no deviation from the usual plan. He contended that if an appeal were allowed from the Commissioners to the House they would never be able to make any progress with Public Business, and independently of the fact that it would occupy the House till August if such appeals were admitted, what was the use of appointing 1809 Commissioners if their decisions were not to be upheld? They were impartially selected, and the Norwich Commission was presided over by a distinguished Conservative, Mr. Dowdeswell. When the Commissioners reported that the prevalence of bribery was not so extensive as there had been reason to believe, he could only say that he was glad that they were able to make such a Report.

MR. STAVELEY HILL
said, trusting that an opportunity would be afforded for bringing forward, when the Bill was in Committee, the cases of those who alleged that they had been improperly scheduled, he would withdraw his opposition.