Sitting of 7 October 1841

MINUTES.
New Members. John Young, Esq. Cavan, (Co.) Viscount Somerton, for Wilton.
New Writ. For Linlithgowshire, in the room of the hon. C. Hope, Commissioner of Greenwich Hospital.
Petitions presented. By Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Cobbet Club, for Universal Suffrage; and from Proprietors of Norfolk and Norwich Monitor Magazine, complaining of proceedings under the Stamp Acts.—By Mr. Stanton, from Stroud, for the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir Robert Peel, from Banff for Protection to voters.

INTIMIDATION OF ELECTORS.
Mr. T. Duncombepresented a petition from eight electors in Chippenham, complaining of what was not only a breach of privilege of that House, but also an infringement in the freedom of election. He had only received the petition that morning, and had not been able to show it to either of the Members for Chippenham; but it appeared from the petition that the petitioners were tenants at will of one of those hon. Members, and that they had declined to support him at the last general election, inasmuch as they had voted for the Liberal Member. This conduct it appeared, had not satisfied Mr. Neeld, and they had received notice to quit their holdings, in consequence of the vote which they had given. The petitioners complained that this was not only a positive infringement of the liberties of the House, but also a direct violation of the freedom of election. He was afraid that this was not a solitary instance, and that Mr. Neeld was not more to blame than many others. [Cries of "Order, order."] This was a question which he thought required immediate redress, and, therefore, they had a right to discuss, it. He was about to say, that he did not think Mr. Neeld was more to blame than many other landlords.
The Speakersaid, that the petition was not one which prayed for immediate redress, and, therefore, the hon. Member was irregular.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he would in that case read the prayer of the petition, which was to the effect, that some measures might be adopted, in order better to secure the freedom of election, or, if such steps were not adopted, to take away from them the right of voting. The petitioners stated they were ready to prove the facts alleged, and besought the House to give such protection to the voter, in the free exercise of his vote, as to the House might

1157
seem fit. He moved that the petition be printed with the votes.
The Speakersaid, it was necessary to give notice of such a motion.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, that his reasons for having the petition printed, were, because it complained of the conduct of certain Members in violating the privileges of the House, by interfering in the free election of Members of Parliament. It was his intention to call the attention of the House to this subject next Session, and he, therefore, thought that the petition ought to be printed. In connection with this question, he might take that opportunity of stating, that he was sorry to hear the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, declare, while he admitted the extent of the bribery and corruption, that he was not prepared, and that he did not intend to bring forward any bill for the purpose of putting an end to so disgraceful a system. A noble Lord, a Member of that House, last Session had given notice of his intention to bring in a bill on the subject, but such a measure, he thought, ought to come from a Minister of the Crown; and that noble Lord would have some cause to complain if the right hon. Baronet, while occupying the seat which that noble Lord occupied some months ago, threw on him the duty, while the right hon. Baronet pocketed what had been called the fee.
Sir R. Inglisrose to order. However amusing this might be, yet while they were waiting for certain knocks, he thought it was contrary.
Mr. T. Duncombewas surprised, that so old a Member as the right hon. Baronet should call him to order when he was so disorderly himself. He was not presumed to know anything about the knocks which the right hon. Baronet anticipated. He was merely arguing that the petition which he had presented should be printed, to which course he hoped there would be no objection.
Sir R. Peeldid not say that he would not bring forward any bill on the subject referred to by the hon. Member for Fins-bury, because he had determined not to make any promise which various circumstances might prevent him from fulfilling; all that he had said on the subject was, that he hoped the hon. Gentleman would
1158
not press him to enter into any engagement to bring in a bill for the prevention of treating and bribery. With respect to the medical allusions of the hon. Member, he ought to be aware that there were certain delicacies in professional practice, which forbade him to interfere until the patient was formally given op. The noble Lord, the Member for London, lad paid great attention to the subject—had not expressed any wish 10 be relieved of his duties in this respect—and was perfectly entitled to introduce any measure which he thought calculated to put an end to the evils complained of. All that he had said, was, that he was unwilling to give a positive pledge on the subject.
Mr. T. Duncombedid not see why it ought to be left in the hands of the noble Lord. In his opinion, it ought to be a Government measure.
Petition laid on the Table.

TAMWORTH MEMORIAL.
Mr. Yorkesaid, he wished to know, in regard to the Tamworth petition, whether the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, would have any objection to lay before the House the information on which he acted, and the sources from whence it was obtained.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that under the circumstances, he must decline producing the information sought for, inasmuch as the hon. Member for Sheffield had given notice of a motion on this subject for next Session. Notwithstanding this, he should have hesitated complying with the wish of the hon. Member for "York, but since such a notice had been given, he would postpone, till that motion came before the House, any further explanation that might be called for.
Subject at an end

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
The House was summoned to attend the Lords Commissioners appointed to prorogue the Parliament. The Speaker, accompanied by the Members present, went to the House of Lords, from whence he returned in about twenty minutes, and having read the Royal Speech to the Members present, the House immediately separated.

MINUTES
Bills. Received the Royal Assent:— Exchequer Bills Funding; Exchequer Bills Appropriation; Poor-law Commission; Population Payments.
Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from British and Foreign Anti-slavery Society for the abolition of Slavery. — By Lord Foley, from Bristol, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.— By Lord Brougham, from W. H. Inglis, relating to Coinage; and from J. Quail, M. D., for Remuneration for Services.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord Broughampresented a petition to which he begged to call the particular attention of their Lordships, from a respectable member of the Society of Friends, Edwin Swan Rickman, complaining of the dreadful excitement, intimidation, and corruption which he had witnessed at the late election for the place of his residence, and states, that in many of the places in the three kingdoms, where he had since been, the same scenes were said, by all he saw, to have been exhibited; and praying for the prevention of canvassing. Whatever he might think of the remedy, he (Lord Brougham) thought the subject of the petition deserv-
1152
ing of the most attentive consideration. He now called their Lordships' attention to it, with the view of inducing them, during the recess, to apply their minds to the question, and in the hope that they might be led to support a proposition which would be made to them either by him, if he were spared, or by some one else, to enter into an inquiry on the subject. He wished the feeling were strong and universal of the moral guilt involved in bribery. He wished it was everywhere felt that a man taking a bribe was morally guilty of perjury, as completely as a man having planned and resolved to commit a murder, morally incurred the guilt of blood, though by accident blood might not be shed. A man taking a bribe was morally guilty of perjury, because he was ready to take the bribery oath. He held candidates and their friends to be persons chiefly guilty. When a man was about to contest a place, his first question—at least, the first after asking whether he were likely to succeed—was "How much will it cost?" If he were answered three or four hundred pounds, it was all very well, because the lawful cost might amount to so much. But if he were informed that it would take three or four thousand pounds, and went to the contest on such terms, he was morally guilty of the bribery that ensued, because he must know that since Lord Grey's Reform Bill, the legal expenses could not be more than the smaller sum, and that the larger one could only be required for bribery. Since the Bill, then, and in consequence of it, no candidate could pretend ignorance of the bribery his money went to support. It was lamentable to think, that bribery and intimidation had been more rife of late than in former times, though there were some brilliant exceptions. He knew of one case in which a person lost his election by a single vote, and refused to be a party to undue means of bringing back the voter who determined it, and who had been drawn over by his adversaries. He preferred to lose his seat, which he did lose, to being a party to such a proceeding. Another instance was that of his noble Friend, the son of the author of the Reform Bill. Lord Howick was engaged in two contested elections, and on both occasions took effectual means for preventing unlawful interference. He had come forward and said, he would neither allow his influence to be used, nor thank any friend of his who should use that influence; and he also freed all those over whom he or his family had any influence from all obligation to

1153
vote for him. Such conduct was most honourable; but it was also most fitting, and most worthy of that distinguished family, and the Great Statesman at its head; for what could be more appropriate, than that they who had been the first to make the possession of the elective franchise extensive, should also be the most strenuous to keep the exercise of it pure? He knew others, some filling and adorning the highest ranks in that House, who regarded bribery with such abhorrence, that they refused to contribute anything to what were called election funds, because they could not feel secure that their money would not be spent in bribing the electors; and yet these noble persons were as zealous in devotion to their principles, as anxious to further the progress of those principles, by promoting the election of men, agreeing with them in opinion, and were as generous, as munificent in the disposal of their money for all lawful purposes, as any individuals in or out of that House. With regard to intimidation at elections, he should observe that in his opinion it was all but as bad as bribery. He held, that any person whatever, whether priest, peer, or prince, or the coadjutor of a priest, the agent of a peer, or the servant of a prince, who interfered to prevent a man from the free exercise of the franchise, by threats, forced that voter's conscience, and did a criminal act. He said so, because the law declared that elections should be free; and also commanded every one so to use his own property, as not to injure his neighbour. In his belief, it was an offence by the laws of England to threaten a voter either with a loss of his tenement, or any other loss, if he did not vote in a particular way; and if in the opinion of any one it was not an offence indictable by the law, as it now stood, he hoped that another Session would not pass without its being made indictable. But until he heard the contrary from the judges of the land, he should continue to hold it an offence punishable, either for a priest to threaten a voter with a refusal of the rites of religion, or for a landlord to threaten a voter with the loss of his tenement, or for a Court-lord to threaten a voter with the loss of Court custom. There could be no doubt, that a public officer who so acted, was guilty of an offence for which he was impeachable; hut he had yet to learn, that in any one it was not indictable; and he did not expect to learn this, either from the first civil, nor certainly from the first criminal judge in the country.
1154
He would close his observations on this subject by giving another instance of a refusal on the part of a candidate unduly to influence constituents. It was recorded in the history of the Court of George 3rd, that a noble person, being a candidate for the borough of Windsor, at a very early period of his life, refused to allow the Court tradesmen to be spoken to by any of the officers of the household, and thus risked the loss of their votes. A complaint having been made to the King upon the subject by one of those over-zealous and officious persons who are always to be found at Court as elsewhere, his Majesty sent for that noble person and said to him, "You did quite right; it was much better that you should lose a few votes, than that my tradesmen should be influenced by the officers of my household." The case he referred to, derived an additional interest from considering who the noble candidate was. That candidate was the brother of his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Wellington), then Lord Mornington, now Marquess Wellesley; and such was the auspicious dawn of a public life which had since shone forth with so surpassing a lustre.
Petition to be laid on the Table of the House.

PROROGATION OF PARLIAMENT.
The Commissioners for proroguing Parliament — namely, the Lord Chancellor, the Duke of Wellington, the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Lord Wharncliffe, having taken their seats, and
The Speaker, with several Members, having appeared at the bar, the commission for giving the royal assent to several bills was read, and the royal assent was given with the usual formalities.
The Lord Chancellorread the speech as follows:—
" My Lords and Gentlemen,
" We are commanded by her Majesty to acquaint you that it appears advisable to her Majesty to bring to a close the present Session of Parliament.
" In conformity with the advice of her Parliament, and in pursuance of the declared intentions of her Majesty, her Majesty has taken the re-

1155
quisite measures for the formation of a new Administration, and the arrangements for that purpose have been completed by her Majesty.
" Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
" We have it in command from her Majesty to thank you for the supplies which you have granted to her Majesty for those branches of the public service for which complete provision had not been made by the late Parliament.
" My Lords and Gentlemen,
" The measures which it will be expedient to adopt for the purpose of equalizing the public income and the annual expenditure, and other important objects connected with the trade and commerce of the country, will necessarily occupy your attention at an early period after the recess.
" Her Majesty has commanded us to repeat the expression of her deep concern at the distress which has prevailed for a considerable period in some of the principal manufacturing districts, and to assure you that you may rely upon the cordial concurrence of her Majesty in all such measures as shall appear, after mature consideration, best calculated to prevent the recurrence of that distress, and to promote the great object of all her Majesty's wishes—the happiness and contentment of her people."
The commission for the prorogation of Parliament was read; after which
The Lord Chancellordeclared, it was her Majesty's command that the Parliament should be prorogued to Thursday, the 11th of November next. Parliament accordingly prorogued to the 11th day of November next.
Their Lordships separated.