SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 May 1870)

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
presented Petitions from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Beverley, and from the Electors of Bridgwater, in public meeting assembled, against the Bill.

LORD DE MAULEY
hoped their Lordships would pause before they gave their assent to a measure so important as the disfranchisement of these boroughs. He knew the ground they trod on was somewhat delicate, for the election of a Member to sit in the other House of Parliament, only indirectly affected their Lordships; but the constitutional question, whether or not a large body of men were to be deprived of electoral rights, was one which certainly ought to be approached with caution and forbearance. Now, no forbearance had been shown to the electors of Bridgwater, either by the Government or their agents. A Commission was sent down, if one might judge from the language held in its Court, straight from the Old Bailey. Accusations were levelled against individuals as free from the 1492 taint of bribery as they were themselves, and one gentleman, who, stung by unmerited reproach, asserted his innocence, was silenced by the infliction of a fine. It was no individual case he wished to bring before their Lordships; but the broad principle whether an electoral body was to be deprived of the franchise, because a few of its members had abused their privileges. They might deal with those members as they pleased; they might exclude them from the exercise of political and municipal rights, but they ought not to include in the same punishment the innocent with the guilty. A town like Bridgwater, with its varied and extensive interests, was to be unrepresented in Parliament, because a Government thought it might deal with corruption as with the cattle plague, and stamp it out of society. Every facility had been offered to the Commission in the exercise of its duties, which had certainly not been repaid by courtesy. All the electors got in return was a punishment so sweeping as to be opposed to every principle of justice and common sense.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR,
in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, their Lordships would see in one moment that the objections to it would not stand even on the Report of the Commission. The Report had been made after a very anxious and painful inquiry. The learned Judges, in the first instance, reported that bribery had extensively prevailed at Beverley and at Bridgwater, and it was on the foundation of their Report that the Commission had been issued; and what had been the result? He would content himself with reading one sentence from each Report. The Report of the Bridgwater Commissioners stated— We find that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last election and at every preceding election for the borough of Bridgwater into which we have inquired, up to and inclusive of the earliest in date, that is to say, the General Election of the 30th of April to the 3rd of May, 1831. The Schedules containing the names of persons implicated in corrupt practices extended to eight or 10 closely printed folio pages, and the facts mentioned fully justified the statements made in the Report. Then, with regard to Beverley, the Report stated that corrupt practices prevailed in Beverley at the 1493 election of March, 1857; that corrupt practices extensively prevailed in Beverley at the election of August, 1857; at the election of 1859, at the election of 1860, at the election of 1865, and at the election of 1868, and the persons named in the Schedule to the Report annexed were guilty of bribery, either in giving or receiving money at the elections therein indicated. That Schedule of names also extended to eight or nine closely printed folio pages. If the corrupt practices which were reported to have so extensively prevailed in these two boroughs were not followed by disfranchisement, he was at a loss to know what extent of corrupt practices would be necessary to justify such a measure.

§ LORD COLCHESTER
contended that in Bridgwater there was a great improvement at the last election, and gross injustice would be inflicted on that constituency if this Bill were passed. He thought that such a Bill as this ought not to pass without a full, fair, and impartial inquiry, conducted in a proper judicial spirit, whereas the conduct of Mr. Anstey was calculated to bring the judicial office into contempt. It was impossible to look into the Report without being convinced that the inquiry by the Commissioners had been conducted with manifest unfairness.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR
did not think it necessary to take up the time of the House in defending the gentlemen who had undertaken the office of Commissioners of Inquiry at Bridgwater, because never was there a case so bad and so black as that of Bridgwater.