Sitting of 27 May 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—2°Tithes Commutation.
Private.—1° Argyll Roads (No. 2).
2° Leicester Small Debts; Bromyard Roads; Surrey and Sussex Roads; Dean Forest Poor; Dean Forest Ecclesiastical Districts; St. Briavel's Small Debts.
Reported.—Ross and Cromarty Court Houses; Clerken-well Improvement; Buildings' Regulation {No. 2); Wick-low Harbour.
3° and passed:—Boston Harbour (No. 3); Market Harborough and Brampton Road; Stockton and Hartlepool Railway; Dundalk and Banbridge Road; Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal; Indemnity Mutual Marine Insurance Company (No- 2); Yate Inclosure; Glegg's Divorce; York Cathedral; Bates' Naturalization; Toxteth Park Paving and Sewerage.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Long, from Bath, against the Reduction of the Duty on Foreign Stone.—By Colonel Acton, from Wicklow, for Alteration of the present System of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. O'Connell, from Roman Catholics at Hammersmith, Kensington, Fulham, and Tynemouth, for Equality of Civil Rights.—By Mr. Miles, from the Guardians of Frome, and Belgrave Unions, for Alterations in the Poor-law Amendment Bill. —By Mr. Dennison, from Dewsbury, and Golear, for a further Limitation of the Hours of Labour of Young

885
Persons in Factories.—By Lord Ashley, Sir R. Inglis, and Viscount Jocelyn, from Walton, Islington, and Camden Town, against the Employment of Females in Mines. —By Mr. Halford, and Lord R. Grosvenor, from Market Harborough, Cambridge, Berks, and Chester, for the Prevention of Railway Travelling on Sundays.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Cork Cutters of Great Britain and Ireland, against the Reduction of the Duty on Corks.— From Attornies at Blackburn, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duties on their Certificates.—From the Society of Attorneys, and Solicitors (Ireland), for the Repeal of Act 4 and 5 Will. 4, for Facilitating the Loan of Money on Landed Securities in Ireland.—From Brighton, against the Importation of Cattle and Meat.—By Lord Eliot, Altarnum, against any further Grant to Maynooth College From the Coffee-House Keepers of Lambeth, and the Metropolis, for the Reduction of the Duty on Coffee. —From Ashby-dc-la-Zouch, Burton-upon-Trent, Tutbury and Taunton, against the Turnpike Roads Bill.—From Captain Manby, relative to Shipwrecks.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND — NON-INTRUSION.
Sir A. L. Haysaid, it would be recollected that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for Argyll proposed to proceed with his bill, the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department said, that overtures had been made by the Government to prevent the disunion which was now existing in Scotland, and that these overtures were of such a nature as to make it probable that her Majesty's Ministers would introduce a bill upon the subject. He would now ask whether it were their intention to bring forward any measure for the purpose of settling these unfortunate and disgraceful disputes?
Sir James Grahammight be allowed to observe, that the question was somewhat premature. The general assembly of the Church of Scotland was now sitting, the business before them was of great importance, and whilst they were sitting it would be premature to make any declaration as to those proceedings. There would be time enough before the day on which the hon. Member had given notice to proceed with his bill (June 2), to state whether it should be considered desirable for her Majesty's Government to make themselves responsible for a measure to heal those divisions in the Church of Scotland, which he, in common with the gallant Officer, deplored.

DISTRESS AT PAISLEY.
Mr. Humehad heard that commissioners had been sent down to Paisley by her Majesty's Government, to distribute public money, and that in consequence the local subscription had been abandoned—he wished to know whether there was any foundation for that report?
Sir R. Peelasked what the particular question was? Did the hon. Member mean to ask whether the Government had stopped the local subscription?
Mr. Humesaid, that there had been a committee at Paisley, to raise and distribute subscriptions; and a paper he held in his hands stated that, in consequence of the orders of the Government, a commissioner had taken upon himself to give public money, and the subscription had been stopped. He asked whether a commissioner had been sent down by the Government, to supersede the committee in giving relief, and what was the nature of his instructions?
Sir R. Peelreplied, that there had been constant communications between the Government and the local authorities, during the whole period of the distress prevailing at Paisley and its neighbourhood—distress which he regretted to say was exceedingly severe, but which had been borne with great and commendable patience by the people. The Government had given every assistance to that committee, but they had not interfered with the subscriptions, till the local charity was altogether exhausted: and till they apprehended that the distribution of the local funds had not been conducted on the best possible principle. They thought it possible to give some assistance to the local authorities, by sending down a person who had watched the mode of relief as given to the poor in this country. For instance; one of the modes in which relief was granted, was by giving an order on the retail dealers in the town for provisions. It was clear that such a mode was very open to abuse, because it tended to make the retail dealers defer the period when relief should be no longer necessary. He thought it better that all the provisions distributed should be purchased by the committee. He had no hesitation in saying, that the person who had been sent down, and who had been connected with the commissariat department, had been enabled to make numerous economical suggestions, and to aid the local exertions. An appeal would shortly be made in the Church of Scotland similar to that which would be made in this country. He would take the opportunity of earnestly recommending the object of the subscription. The purport of it was to afford relief to the distress which prevailed in this country and in Scotland—a country

887
in which the provisions for the relief of the poor were very defective. In Burnley, Paisley, and other parts of the country the smallest contributions would tend to diminish the distress which unhappily prevailed to such an extent; and he could not but express a hope that the call of her Majesty would be generously responded to by all classes. With regard to the subscriptions for the sufferers by the late fire at Hamburg, he trusted that the natural, just, and honourable sympathy for foreigners in distress would not be checked, but at the same time he hoped that the contributions to that fund would not prevent parties from contributing also largely and liberally to the alleviation of the misery which existed in our own country. When her Majesty's Government had interfered, it was solely with the view of affording relief in the most economical and best manner.
Mr. Humewould then move for an account of any sums sent down to Paisley, for the relief of the poor in that town, and also for a copy of the instructions sent down.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he hoped the House would not accede to such a motion Some temporary advances in consequence of the exhaustion of local funds had been made in favour of the inhabitants of Paisley, but the public would not suffer from such advances; they would be repaid out of the public subscription. He trusted that the House would not call upon the Government to make disclosures which could be productive of no benefit, and which could only uselessly interfere with the object which the Government had in view.
Mr. Humewould on Monday bring the matter under the consideration of the House. In the mean time he begged to move that a humble Address be presented to her Majesty, praying for a copy of a letter addressed, by her command, on the 11th of May last, to the archbishop of Canterbury, recommending that collections should be made in the different churches throughout the country.
Sir R. Peelcould have no objection to such a motion.
Colonel Conollydisapproved of any interference on the part of that House with the course pursued by the Government. The subscription was of a private nature, and he could not see what the House had to do with it.
Mr. Gibsonasked whether any sums of money had been sent to any other places besides Paisley, and whether there was any objection to give an account of the places to which they had been sent, and the amounts?
Sir R. Peelcould not call to mind any other places to which sums had been sent. Nothing could produce a greater evil than the advance of public money, save in cases of extreme emergency. He could not admit that there should be any relief from the public funds; but if the funds of a place were in a state of extreme exhaustion, and a temporary advance was made, he should look for a repayment. He did not recollect that there was any other case where there had been any advance to a town except to Paisley, where the circumstances were very peculiar, and owing partly to the cessation of demand for the particular article of manufacture.
Mr. F. T. Baringtrusted that the House would not press for the return; but where there was an advance of sixpence from the public funds, the House had a right to know what became of it; it was a matter of discretion whether they would call for it, but they had a perfect right to every information.
Address for a copy of the Queen's letter agreed to.

CUSTOMS ACTS — THE TARIFF— SPIRITS (IRELAND).
On the question that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Customs Duties Acts,
Mr. O'Connellwas desirous of making a short statement as to that part of the public revenue which was received from Ireland. The right hon. Baronet had informed the House that the effect of the temperance movement had been diminished to a considerable extent, and therefore that he expected to receive more revenue from that country than he had hitherto done. He wished to lay before the House a statement to show that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. Since the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the revenue returns had been printed, and he was happy to say that the amount received for spirit licenses, from malt, and from spirits had considerably diminished during the last three years. The revenue of Ireland, indeed, had been augmented during the last year by 90,823 l., notwithstanding the diminution in the produce of excisable articles. The new movement

889
did not take place till after the year 1838,1 and he would therefore begin from that year. In the year ending 5th January, 1838, the produce from licenses was 123,739 l.; in the year ending 5th January, 1839, the produce was 128,494 l being an increase on the year of 4,755 l.; in the year ending 5th January, 1840, the produce was 122,705 l, being a decrease on the year of 5,789 l.; in the year ending 5th January, 1841, the produce was 106,436 l., being a further decrease of 16,269 l.; and in the year ending 5th January, 1842,the produce was only 95,980 l., being a still further decrease on the year of 10,456 l. making a decrease on spirits in three years of 32,514 l. In the produce of the duty on malt there had been also a great decrease. In the year ending 5th January, 1838, the amount received for the tax on malt, was 282,393 l.; in the year ending 5th January, 1839, the amount was 289,869 l., being an increase on the year of 7,476 l.; but in the year ending 5th January. 1840 the amount was only 242,561 l.,being a decrease on the year of 47,308 l.; in the year ending 5th January, 1841, the amount received was 200,108 l., being a further decrease on the year, of 42,453 l.; and in the year ending 5th January, 1842, the amount received was 165,153 l., showing a still further decrease of 34,955 l. on the year, making a total decrease in three years of 124,716 l. With regard to spirits, the revenue from this source, for the year ending 5th January, 1838, was 1,374,429 l.; that amount increased in the year ending 5th January, 1839, to 1,510,092 l., being an increase of 135,663 l.; but in the year ending 5th January, 1840, it began to decrease, the amount was only 1,402,130 l., being a decrease of 107,962 l.; in the year ending 5th January, 1841, it fell to 1,032,582 l., making a further decrease of 369,548.; and in the year ending 5th January, 1842, the amount received was 964,711 l, making a decrease on the year of 67,871 l. But this sum of 964,711 l. represented a much smaller consumption of spirits, for 93,066 l. was the amount calculated by Mr. Baring as the additional produce of the Ad. a gallon laid on by him last year. The total decrease on the actual produce of the spirit duties during the three years was 545,381 l., to which, if the 93,066 l. additional duty were added, the real decrease would be 638,447 l. The whole decrease in the revenue from
890
spirit licenses, malt, and spirits, during the last three years, was therefore 795,677 l. And yet the whole revenue from Ireland was increased, notwithstanding this temperance movement, from the increased produce of other excise-able articles. The revenue of 1841 was 4,107,866 l., and it was increased in 1842 to 4,198,689 l., showing an increase of 90,823 l. The revenue on tobacco and snuff, in the last year alone, had increased in Ireland by 33,601 l.; and the revenue on tea in Ireland had increased, during the year, 80,639 l. So that while there was an increase on other articles, there was a diminution of revenue to the amount of nearly 800,000 l. in spirits and malt, and as the revenue was made up from other sources, there could be no regret, in the minds of other persons, that this result should have occurred. This great diminution of revenue from spirits was distinctly to be traced to the effects of increased habits of temperance amongst the people of Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas not prepared with any figures to give an answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but the statement which he had made was perfectly reconcileable with that which was made by his right hon. Friend. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of a yearly decrease, while his right hon. Friend spoke of an increase in the quarter. No person could be more rejoiced than he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was at the increase of temperance which took place in Ireland; and he agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, that no greater advantage could have happened to the morality of the country than the increased habits of temperance now practised by the people.
Mr. O 'Connellsaid, it should be remembered there was an additional duty of 4d. which would account for the quarter's increase.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he had alluded merely to a small increase in this quarter's revenue, as showing a faint symptom of change. With regard to the revenue, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would point out to them from what other sources they were to obtain 200,000 l.
Mr. O'Connellthought that they had had more than enough already.
House in committee on the Customs Acts.,

891
Several items were agreed to.
On the item that the duty on train oil and blubber, of foreign fishing, shall be 6l.; and the duty on spermaceti oil, of foreign fishing, 15/. the tun, and on the question that the duly shall take effect from and after the 5th day of July, 1843,
Mr. Lyallrose to propose that the duty should take effect only from and after the 5th day of July, 1844. The hon. Member quoted the opinion of Mr. Huskisson, that whenever the interests of commerce and those of navigation could not be reconciled, the interests of commerce ought to give way to those of navigation. Navigation had been excepted from the principles of free-trade by all the great statesmen of this country; and by the founder of political economy, Adam Smith, who was in favour of making the navigation laws even more strict than they were at present. The hon Member concluded by moving the insertion of the words, "5th day of July, 1844," instead of "5th day of July, 1843."
Mr. G. Palmersaid, that he had no chance of being called a monopolist in supporting this amendment, for it was in favour of the country generally. Ever since the Navigation Act, the fisheries had been considered a paramount object to this country. The home fisheries had been considered as the first nursery of seamen, and the distant fisheries as perfecting their character. What was the situation of the country at this moment as to this particular trade? At the end of the last war this country thought it of so much importance to encourage the fisheries, that we gave a bounty of 39 l. per tun on all ships engaged in the fisheries, whether the train or spermaceti oil fisheries. That bounty was taken off in 1823. In the year previous to that the number of British ships engaged in the fishery was 322, and the number of seamen 12,788, every one of whom was made a perfect seaman, in fact, seamen capable of manning the largest fleet that ever went to sea. We were now reduced to eighty-five ships. To what had it been owing? Entirely owing to the want of encouragement given to these fisheries—to the withdrawal of the bounty in the first instance, and the gradual decrease of trade from that time. In 1821 the ships engaged in the trade were 322, with 12,788 seamen; at this moment there were eighty-five ships with only 3,008 seamen—-a diminution in three years of
892
9,000 perfect seamen. This was a matter which concerned the Ministers. It did not belong to him as an individual, however much he might feel for the character and credit of the country, but Ministers were answerable. As far as his duty was concerned, he had nothing to do but to state that it was a most mischievous thing to reduce the protective duty on the fisheries. The withdrawal of this protection from the fisheries would, of itself, do a serious injury to the country. As far as individuals were concerned, he asked for time to enable them to complete the engagements which they had entered into on the faith of the existing law. The southern fisheries were different in their character from those commercial undertakings in which shipowners were generally engaged. A fishing voyage was a speculation in which all parties were concerned from the owners to the very seamen. Each man had a share, whether one-tenth or one-hundredth. They went out, knowing that they received a certain protection in their trade, they received 8l. or 10 l. as an outfit, and their families had an allowance whilst they were away. They would be engaged in the fishery for three years, and after they had been absent one year ships might arrive at the same port from England the next year. They would naturally inquire the news, they would hear of the reduction of the duty, and find that instead of receiving 100 l. they were in debt. They would, therefore, most likely be induced to leave the ship and look for employment somewhere else abroad. What was the case as to America? When we had 322 ships, America had only sixty sail engaged in the fishery. America had now 634 ships manned by 17,000 seamen, whilst ours were reduced to eighty-five ships, manned by 3,000 seamen. As ships engaged in the fishery were not out less than three years some allowance should be made to those which had already sailed without intimation of the tariff.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that though he trusted that the House would not support the motion of the hon. Gentleman, yet he could assure him that he was much mistaken if he thought that there was any disposition on the part of the Government not adequately to protect British fisheries. They fully admitted the value of the principle which the hon. Gentleman had laid down, but the only difference between his proposal and the proposal of the Govern-

893
ment was a question as to time. The Government proposed that the duty should commence in 1843. The voyage generally lasted three years, and the spring season was the period for departure. So the vessels which set sail this spring would go with a notice of what was intended. The vessels which sailed next year would know likewise, and so the vessels which sailed last year were the only vessels that were entitled to consideration. With respect to the adventures of this single year, if the change proposed was likely to produce a fundamental revolution in the markets, he would admit that they would have strong claims for pecuniary compensation. But he would contend, that there was no shadow of reason for maintaining that the price of sperm oil would be a bit less profitable than it had been, or than it ought to be. The average price for the last eleven years was 79 l. 10 s., and, according to the opinion of Mr. Henderby, the price in America was about 60 l. The cost of transport was 4l., and when it arrived in this country a duty of 15 per cent. was levied, making the price 79 l. 16 s. So the average price in England was 79 l. 10 s., and the price of American oil would be in the English market 79 l. 16 s. There was no danger, therefore, of competition unless the price of American oil was under 60 l What were the facts? In 1840 the price was 72 l. and at that price 1,500 tuns had been brought in. In $1841 the price was 63 l d then only 520 tuns came in. He, therefore, asked, when the Government took the price at 60 l., how could the British fisheries be injuriously affected? What was the real danger to the trade? The fact was notorious, that in every oil shop at the west end of the town there was advertised a substitute for sperm oil, arising —as it was sure to arise—from the excessive prices which were caused by the excessive duties. From 1831 to 1835 the average price was 67 l, and the supply was 4,700 tuns. From 1836 to 1841 the price was 89 l. 13 s. 4d. and the supply had fallen to 3,300 tuns. The excessive duties had led to all sorts of substitutes—those substitutes caused a diminution of price, and that diminished price oppressed the market. The market wanted relief, and he said, that that relief would be afforded by the change which the Government proposed. It was right that the committee should know the present state of the market. In 1831 the number of ships entered inwards from the whale fishery
894
was 111, and the price of oil was 76 l. per tun.

Number of Ships.

Price.

In 1832

94

£71

1837

71

83

1839

63

95

1840

44

104

and in 1841 the number of ships entered inwards was forty, and only thirty out-wards, and in that year the price was 95 l. Under these circumstances, there was a call for something to be done, and taking into consideration all the features of the case, he believed that the proposition of the Government was perfectly fair and equitable.
Sir C. Napieragreed with the hon. Member for Essex that sufficient attention was not paid to the fisheries of England. They were the nursery of our seamen, and every regard ought to be paid to them. What were our seamen now? Sailors from steam-vessels, and nothing else. It was an extraordinary thing that, according to the last account, there was not a single British ship trading between Liverpool and America. The shipping of this country was declining, and something ought to be done to assist and maintain it. He should, therefore, vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Essex.
Mr. Hawessaid, the question was not whether the duty should be continued at its present amount, or at the rate proposed by the tariff, but whether the lessened rate should be imposed then or twelve months' hence. That was the real question before the committee, and he wished to know whether any special grounds had been stated for the alteration. He wished that a sufficient time might be allowed to elapse before the proposed change took place, in order to enable the British trader to compete with the American, who now in consequence of the cheapness of his outfit, and of other favourable circumstances, had essential advantages over the traders in this country.
Sir R. Peelwished to say a few words respecting the apprehensions expressed by the gallant Commodore opposite of a decline in the maritime interests of this country. A reference to the paper which contained the most recent evidence of the state of our commercial marine would put an end to all such apprehensions at once. That paper gave the following statement of

895
shipping employed in the trade of the United Kingdom, separating British from French vessels, during the years 1840 and 1841. Of ships entered inwards that were employed in the trade of the United Kingdom in 1840 there were 17,883; in 1841, there were 18,525; the amount of tonnage in 1840 was 3,197,000; in 1841 it was 3,361,000; and the number of British seamen employed in 1840 was 172,000, while in 1841 it was 178,000. That was a very great advance in one year. Now let them look to the foreign commercial marine, in respect to which the gallant Commodore thought there was such an increase compared with the British commercial marine. The paper he was referring to showed the very reverse. It showed that in 1840 the number of ships entered inwards in the foreign commercial marine was 10,198, but that in 1841 it was only 9,527; it showed that in the tonnage there was a falling off in these years from 1,460,000 to 1,290,000; and in the number of seamen, from 81,000 to 73,000. That proved that the apprehensions of the hon. and gallant Gentleman were unfounded, and that the mercantile marine of this country suffered nothing in a comparison with other countries. With regard to the question of time he begged to observe, that Mr. Huskisson had reduced the duty on foreign oil immediately and without giving time. That reduction, however, did not produce any diminution of price in the home market. When the trade was said to be comparatively flourishing what was the price per tun of spermaceti oil? In the years 1823, 1824, 1825, and 1826; the prices were respectively 54 l.48 l, 57 l.and 55 l.a ton. Here were four consecutive years in which spermaceti oil did not exceed on the average 52 l.per ton at a time when there was a considerable consumption and not much competition. But what was the price during the last four years ending with 1842? Why 95 l., 104 l., 98 l., and 75 l. per ton respectively, the consequence of which was, that concurrently with those prices there was a falling off in the number of ships employed in the trade, because those high prices gave a premium upon the introduction of vegetable oil. The article of oil being essentially necessary in the working of machinery, and the manufacturer being unwilling or unable to afford to pay the high price for the spermaceti oil, resorted
896
to vegetable oil, and thereby encouraged the consumption of that oil. If for three years, as was the fact, the price of spermaceti oil ruled at the rate of 100 l. per tun, while ten years before it was only 52 l., was not the consequence exactly what the hon. Gentleman opposite apprehended, namely, that spermaceti oil was driven from the market? He was afraid that no interference on their part would have the effect of encouraging the marine while such causes of decay as that existed. Nothing could be more painful to him than inflicting injury on individual interests; but if every interest were to claim time there would be a virtual postponement of the measure. They must take the disadvantages with the advantages, and consider whether there might not be a prospect of reducing the expense of the vessels in the new competition. On the whole, then, he trusted that the House would affirm the reduction of duty, which he felt to be a wise reduction, even for those interests that appeared to be affected by it.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that a high protecting duty, and a diminishing consumption of the foreign article in the market, induced the Government to propose a considerable reduction of the duty. On the general principles stated by the right hon. Baronet and the President of the Board of Trade, he agreed in the propriety of a considerable reduction. But the question arose whether this change should be made immediately, some time hence, or according to the amendment. The President of the Board of Trade said, that the British whale fisheries had nothing to fear from this reduction—that the price of American oil, with the addition of the new duty, would be such that British oil had nothing to fear from the competition. If that were the case, why propose any extension of time at all? If the right hon. Gentleman's argument was good, the change might be made now as well as at a future time; but he conceived that his argument upon that point failed. He thought that there ought to be a competition in the article, that would enable the American to sell oil here whenever it rose to a high price, higher perhaps than it was at present. The statement was that three years and upwards were employed in the trade before there was a return of capital, and that the proposed change would therefore operate disadvan-

897
tageously towards some. He thought it a fair question whether they should not make some allowance with reference to such cases. A ship that went out in 1841 would not return until 1844, and it was rather a hard thing to insist upon altering the position of persons who had taken advantage of existing arrangements by bringing a lower scale of duty into operation in 1843. As for the competition, he really could not understand why we should not successfully compete with the Americans. In the German markets he believed the Americans at present undersold us, but if we had a better system, if our merchants were allowed to provision their ships at a cheaper rate, he could see no cause why we should not successfully compete with any nation in the world. Provided, too, such an arrangement could be made without any sacrifice of principle, it was, he thought, very desirable that our seamen employed in this branch of commerce should be protected and encouraged. Upon the whole, he considered the statements made of the importance of this fishery, and the peculiar facts of the case, rendered the proposition for extending the time not unworthy the consideration of the Government and the attention of the House.
Captain Fitzroyexpressed much alarm at the competition on the part of the Americans. They had at the present time no less than 653 vessels engaged in whaling, and so great was their success that many of our own merchants were intending to give up this branch of their business. Several of them, he knew, had in view the entire abolition of the South Sea whalery. Indeed, an eminent merchant had stated to him only a few hours back, that it was his object and desire to withdraw from all connection with the fishery as soon as possible. He attached great importance to this trade, on account of the nursery it afforded for our seamen. He believed that with the exception of our north coasting trade, it was the best nursery for seamen we possessed, and we ought to be more especially careful not to discourage it, as many of our sailors had already left us for service in the American whalers.
Sir C. Napieralso urged the importance of attending to the interests of our marine. He wished the House would open their eyes to the position of our seamen.
Mr. Divetthad at first considered that
898
some allowance should be made as to the time when the new duty should come into operation, so as to exempt from injury those whose vesssels were now out, and he had come down to the House under that impression, but what he had since heard had altered his opinion.
Sir R. Peelsaid, they should bear in mind, that under the high duties, was said, that the American trade h increased. The American sailors, as his hon. and gallant Friend behind him had shown, were not sufficient for the supply without the aid of English sailors, and the consequence was, that unless an alteration took place, those engaged in the South Sea fisheries must abandon that trade. Such was the state of things under the existing low duty; and what was the price of spermaceti oil? Why, it was not less than 100 l. the tun. If, then, they subjected the consumer to a rise of from 60 to 70 per cent. the merchants must be ruined. By the new tariff" it would be impossible that American oil could be sold in this country at less than 75 l. the tun, and he could only say, that if they were to keep the price at 100 l. the tun, his belief was, that the high duty would be found a fatal gift, because it would lead to a system that would rapidly exterminate the trade altogether.
Mr. G. Palmersaid, it should be recollected, that the ships engaged in this trade, were double the expense of other ships, and that the insurance, being obliged to be paid for the whole voyage, was 12 per cent., while other vessels were insured at 2 or 3 per cent.
The committee divided on the original question, that the words, "from and after July 5," be inserted:—Ayes 108; Noes 41: Majority 67.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Browne, R. D.

Aldam, W.

Browne, hon. W.

Allix, J. P.

Buckley, E.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Busfeild, W.

Arkwright, G.

Charteris, hon. F.

Baillie, Col.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bernard, Visct.

Cobden, R.

Blakemore, R.

Cochrane, A.

Bodkin W. H.

Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G.

Boldero, H. G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Botfield, B.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Bowring, Dr.

Cripps, W.

Brotherton, J.

Damer, hon. Col,

899

Darby, G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Denison, E. B.

Owen, Sir J.

Dennistoun, J.

Patten, J, W.

Divett, E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Philips, M.

Escott, B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Fielden, J.

Polhill, F.

Flower, Sir J.

Pollock, Sir F.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Praed, W. T.

Fuller, A. E.

Pringle, A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Rice, E. R.

Gill, T.

Richards, R.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Scott, hon. F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Smith, B.

Greenall, P.

Somers, J. P.

Grogan, E.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hampden, R.

Stanley, Lord

Harcourt, G. G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hardy, J.

Stanton, W. H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Stewart, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Stuart, W. V.

Howard, hon. H.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hume, J.

Tennent, J. E.

Jackson, J. D.

Thesiger, F.

Jermyn, Earl

Thornely, T.

Johnson, W. G.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Johnstone, H.

Turner, E.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Vane, Lord H.

Verner, Col.

Langton, W. G.

Villiers, hon. C.

Lincoln, Earl of

Vivian, J. E.

Lockhart, W.

Wakley, T.

Long, W.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Lowther, J. H.

Wood. B.

Manners, Lord J.

Yorke, R.H.

Marsland, H.

Young, J.

Marton, G.

TELLERS.

Mitchell, T. A.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Morrison, J.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mangles, R. D.

Antrobus, E.

Martin, J.

Bannerman, A.

Masterman, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Morris, D.

Buller, C.

Napier, Sir C.

Cayley, E. S.

Neeld, J.

Chapman, A.

O'Brien, J.

Clay, Sir W.

O'Brien, W. S.

Colborne, hn. W.N.R.

Plumridge, Capt.

Douglas, Sir H.

Pusey. P.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Dundas, Admiral

Sandon, Visct.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Smith, J. A.

Grimsditch, T.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Hawes, B.

Trotter, J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Tufnell, H.

Henley, J. W.

Wawn, J. T.

Hill, Lord M.

Williams, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Wood, G.W.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Humphrey, Alderman

Palmer, G.

James, Sir W. C.

Lyall, G.

On the first article in schedule 10,
900
relating to "timber and wood not otherwise charged,"
Mr. Hawes,in adverting to the mode of measuring timber proposed, complimented the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, for the consideration he had bestowed on this subject, and the readiness he showed to pay a courteous attention to any representations made to him. He suggested, that a different mode of measuring the timber from that proposed by the schedule should be adopted. It was proposed by the Government, that the pieces of timber should be separately measured; but this would produce great delay, and consequent inconvenience to the merchant. It was almost impracticable, and there was no doubt, that a more expeditious manner of taking the admeasurement ought to be adopted, such as by the contents in cubic feet. The parties who were most interested, wished to have a different mode of measuring the timber adopted from that which the Government proposed. The subordinate officers of the Government were also opposed to the new system, from the operation of which, they anticipated great difficulty; but they did not state their opinions to the Government, as they feared, that if they did so, they might be in danger of losing their appointments, inasmuch as they might be superseded by others, who would urge no objections to the proposed plan of measuring. Those who objected to the proposed mode of ascertaining the quantity of timber, did so, not with any view of embarrassing the Government, but in consequence of the delay and inconvenience it was calculated to cause. He wished to know, if there were any grounds for such a change as that proposed?
Mr. A. Chapmansaid, that he had had an experience of fifty years, and that he might say, that he possessed a general knowledge of the timber trade. So far as his experience went, he was anxious to equalise the duties on timber, whether it came from the East or the West, so that the consumer should have it in his power to supply himself with the article that best suited his purposes. He was sorry that he could not agree to the measure proposed by her Majesty's Government with respect to the timber duties, and be must say, that he would prefer the measure which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had last year proposed with respect to this subject.

901
When he stated it as his opinion that it was necessary to equalise the timber duties, he said at the same time that they must bear in mind, in regulating those duties, the distance from which timber was brought, and the additional freight when it was brought from the colonies. It was also to be considered, that 2,648 ships were employed in the carriage of timber from the British colonies to this country. The preference for Baltic timber was so great, that it would cause the consumer logo to that market, and this would have the effect of changing the course of the timber trade from the British colonies to the Baltic. It was said that this measure was a benefit to the shipowners. If that was so, those shipowners were the most ungrateful people in the world, for they repudiated this benefit. They looked upon it as a measure that would be injurious to them, and would send them to compete with ships more cheaply built and more cheaply manned. The ships of this country were better and more expensively built. They were manned by sailors who were paid 50 s. a month, whilst the foreigner with whom the British shipowner would have to compete paid his sailors only 25 s. a month, besides which the British sailor was better fed and better provided. Besides this, our trade would be driven from our colonies, which took everything they wanted from us to countries which took nothing from us. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would take the subject into consideration, and would not persist in pressing the proposed duties.
Mr. Gladstone,said, in replying to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth, he felt bound to thank the hon. Member for the manner in which he had given the Board of Trade credit for the attention they had bestowed on this subject. He felt that when Gentlemen came to the Board of Trade to give them the advantage of their intelligence and experience, it was his duty to pay them every attention, and he only regretted that the duty had not been better performed. With respect to the request of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. A. Chapman), he regretted that he could not hold out to him any hope that he would abandon the present measure. The hon. Member for Lambeth had asked were there any grounds for abandoning the present system of collecting the duties? and he, in reply to that, would state that
902
the grounds on which it were abandoned were, first, its injustice; and, secondly, its complexity. The question of its injustice belonged to the larger aspects of the question, and upon that he would not now touch. But, with respect to its complexity, those who were acquainted with the timber trade would admit, that it required immense labour to become acquainted with the operation of the timber duties. The committee of 1828, recommended an alteration of this system. He admitted, that he did not suppose that it was the intention of the committee to go the length of the present change. But he did think that it was the intention of the committee to make a considerable approach to the pre-sent proposition. It had been said, that the delaying of merchandise was a kind of barren and unproductive taxation, but the measure of the Government would have the effect of simplifying the working of the system. The timber imported from the colonies formed two-thirds of the whole importation of the country, and the duty on colonial timber was to be merely nominal. There could be no doubt, that when they would have had a little experience, that modes would be discovered of calculating the duty with less expence of time and labour than was the case under the present law. He could not pretend, with respect to the Baltic timber, that it would not be necessary to have minute accounts of the dimensions, but he thought, even in this case, that the difficulties had been exaggerated. He would admit the indefinite number of sizes at which timber might be brought, but he did not anticipate any inconvenience on this account. The inconvenience of stowage would require that the parcels of timber should, for the most part, be of uniform length and size, as otherwise, loss and inconvenience would be occasioned in their stowage. He lamented the inconvenience that would attend the change, but still he did not believe that the inconvenience would be so great as had been represented. The hon. Member had stated that he had heard that the customs department had expressed their opinions on this subject. Now, he (Mr. Gladstone) had not the slightest hesitation in saying, that if the customs department entertained objections to his proposition they would have forced them on the Government, and it would have been their duty to do so. [Mr. Howes: " I spoke of the subordinate officers."'] There was no foundation whatever for the statement, It was as far from

903
the fact as possible, for this proposition met with the full concurrence of the Board of Customs, as well as of those officers on whose opinion the Board had most reason to rely. The opinion of those individuals was, that this change of system could be carried into effect without any disadvantage either to the revenue or the commerce of the country. The Government had encouraged every communication on the subject; and he (Mr. Gladstone) could see no reason which should induce the committee to withhold their assent from the proposition of the Government. It was a change from a bad to a good system; and though it was impossible that it might not be attended with intermediate inconvenience, its effect would be to remove many existing evils.
Sir W, James:From the deep interest which his constituents took in this question, felt bound to urge on the attention of the Government the opinions of practical men engaged in the timber trade, and who entertained great doubts whether the measure of the Government would be successful or not. Much, no doubt, might be said on both sides; but it was the opinion of practical men connected with the borough which he represented, and they all agreed, that in the port of Hull the measure would be altogether impracticable. When a plan of this kind was submitted, a few years ago, to the consideration of the late Mr. Deacon Hume, he understood that that gentleman, having given attention to the subject, had expressed his opinion that the plan might be introduced into all the ports of the kingdom with the exception of Gloucester and Hull. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider this part of the subject.
Mr F. T. Baringsaid, it was generally allowed that there was no principle in the present system of admeasurement, and the question was, not whether a system admitted to be a bad one should not be altered, but whether the course adopted by the right hon. Gentleman perfectly just in principle, would not be found in practice exceedingly inconvenient, if not impracticable. The committee that sat upon the subject had not recommended the mode proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and he had reason to know that the opinion of the trade and practical men who had no interest except in a fair working system, was against the proposed course. Had the opinion of the trade and of experienced Custom-house officers been in favour of it
904
he should bow to the opinion of those persons; but having been last year in communication with them on the subject, and being himself strongly disposed to the right hon. Gentleman's plan which he thought by far the best on principle, he had abandoned in consequence of information he had received from his communications with custom-house officers, and other experienced persons. If they had since altered their opinion, he should be glad of it, but when he found the opinions of well-informed practical men agreeing with those of the trade, against the plan, he thought they should be cautious how they adopted it.
Mr. Mitchellbelieved, that the wood-merchants universally objected to the plan, and he hoped the matter would not be pressed until further time for discussion was given. The effect of the plan would be, that the deals imported would be cut in Norway and Sweden, thereby throwing the manual labour of this country out of employment. The labour of sawyers was cheaper in Norway than in any country in Europe, and the consequence would be, that the whole monopoly of supplying deals would be thrown into the hands of that country and Sweden; and Russia would be thrown out of the market, when Norway and Sweden might charge any price they pleased. Another point to be considered was, that Norwegian and Swedish timber came in the ships of those countries, whereas the imports from Russia were in British bottoms. The timber, too, should be landed for measurement, and this would involve an additional expence of 22½ per cent, to be paid by the consumer.
Sir R. Peel:I understand that we are only discussing a point in detail, connected with measurement; and I will remark, that the Government can have no object but that of facilitating transactions, of preventing fraud, and getting as much revenue as possible under the system adopted. Now, having put ourselves in communication with one of the most intelligent and experienced officers of customs, he has no apprehension of any difficulty arising from the proposed plan. Intending to adhere to the manner of effecting the reduction in duty, I should say, that as to the mere mode of levying it, there is no reason why further consideration and communication should take place. To that I have no objection. But I beg the House to remember the observation of the hon.

905
Gentleman who spoke last, and who says the plan proposed will give facilities to Norway and Sweden. Now, I hope sincerely, the measure may have that effect. He says we are going to injure Russia and benefit Norway and Sweden, but the truth is, that we are going to redress a great injustice, which, for a long period, has operated most injuriously on the two latter countries, and the more effectually the mode proposed produces that effect, the stronger will be the arguments in its favour. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mitchell) says, that sawyer's labour is cheaper in Norway and Sweden than in other countries. Will not that circumstance tend to reduce the price to the consumer here? [Mr. Mitchell: But it will throw overboard the sawyers of this country.] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is not one single article included in the tariff to which an objection of this kind is not made in some quarter. He says, that the plan proposed will give some peculiar advantages in sawing timber to Norway and Sweden, by which they will be able to monopolise the trade; that Russia will in consequence be driven out of it, and that Norway and Sweden will then charge what they please. Now this is what is always said; but, if Norway and Sweden do this, will not trade revive? If they so increase prices, surely Russia will be able to come into the market again. I hope the hon. Gentlemen will not meet me with the argument that the timber trade of Russia will be so entirely destroyed that it will be quite impossible for her again to come into competition with Norway and Sweden. But, surely, the immense quantities of forest timber possessed by Russia would be a check upon the other countries, and they will not venture to avail themselves of these privileges in so improper a manner as to exact undue and unfair prices. Do hon. Gentlemen object to the principle of the measure? It is said, I am aware, that the reduction should be made at once, and that we ought not to make one reduction this year and the other next year. It was with a view to protect vested interests that this was done. I wish, for my own part, that the trade had said the first fall of duty should come into operation on the 6th of July instead of in October. I believe that had the trade done so, it would have been for their benefit, and that the suspension in the demand for limber will, on the whole, operate very injuriously on them. I therefore repeat freely that as
906
to this point I wish the trade had approached Government with an application that July, instead of October, should be the period at which the alteration should begin to operate. Having made an announcement of the course to be pursued, we cannot in justice give way, unless to an universal application from those concerned. But if an objection be felt to the operation of the new duty from year to year—if there be no objection to making the lower amount of duty leviable the first year—if I am approached by a general application from the trade to that effect, I can only say, that I shall at once give way.
Mr. Humesaid, it would be a boon to the working-classes if the lower duties commenced their operations on the 5th of July. If this course were not adopted, a number of carpenters and others would be thrown out of employment.
Hodgson Hindesaid, that in consequence of the turn the discussion had taken, he must observe that many of his constituents had laid in large stocks of timber, and paid the duty thereon, and it would operate most unjustly and most injuriously on them to accelerate the period at which the reduction of duty was to take place.
Viscount Sandonmust protest against the doctrine that a more speedy reduction of the duty would be a boon to the working-classes. The boon would be not to reduce it till next year, and not to allow it to go below 30 s. a load. He had that morning placed in the hands of his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government memorials from the importers of and dealers in timber in every port of the kingdom, including London, praying that only one change might be made in the timber duties, and that that change should be to 30 s not 25 s. With a duty of 30 s. they thought the western ports of England might be able to balance the competition between the colonies and the Baltic, but not the eastern; but if the duty were below 30 s., even the western ports would not be able to balance the competition. It should not, therefore, be said that it would be agreeable to any I large class of the community to agree to the proposition so warmly recommended from the other side.
Mr. Alderman Humpheryobserved that as other timber, including deals of four inches in thickness, were regulated as to

907
duty by cubic admeasurement, there was no difficulty in measuring in the same manner three-inch and two-and-a-half-inch deals. Every officer in the Customs must be competent to the task.
Viscount Jocelynsaid, the constituency which he had the honour to represent would not be satisfied with the proposition laid down by the hon. Member for Montrose. They would be better pleased with a delay of twelve months, in order to have time to get rid of their stocks. The trade of Lynn, was chiefly in Baltic timber. Many of his constituents had laid in quantities of timber, and paid the duties, and the consequence of a sudden alteration would be, that they would lose the difference between the duly paid by them and that imposed by the present measure.
Sir H. Douglasfelt that a speedy settlement of the duty was most important, and felt further, that 30 s not 25 s, was the point at which that settlement ought to rest. He, therefore, gave notice that on the next occasion when the subject was discussed, he should propose that the duty rest at 70 s., and not go as low as 25 s
Sir R. Peel:And I beg also to give notice that I mean steadily to adhere to my proposition. As I before stated, 1 think it quite fair that matters of detail in the mode of collecting the duty should, if desired, be reconsidered with the custom-house officers. But even here I must say that a good deal of experience has shown me that even in the most plausible objections against details, one can nearly always find lurking at the bottom some proposition to affect protecting duties. It is, I think, fair to leave details to be reconsidered. Having given public notice of the mode in which the duty is to operate—that it is not to be less than 30 s. the first year, and to go down to 25 s. the second, I shall make no alteration in this, except in deference to a great and universal expression of opinion from those engaged in the trade. But as to any proposition to keep the duty permanently at 30 s., and not let it go down to 25 s., that shall certainly have my decided opposition.
Mr. Hawesbegged most emphatically to disclaim having any object in the observations he had made, except the practical one as to which he had called the right hon. Baronet's attention.
Mr. C. Bullerrose to draw the atten-
908
tion of the House to the motion of which he had given notice on the subject of the Bridport election. Ten o'clock was now come, and he saw no chance of the present discussion coming to a close, unless it were interrupted, as new topics were every instant started.
Sir R. Peel:If we are not to have a division on the timber duties to-night it is of no use to go on further with them. In reference to the observations of the hon. Member, I wish to say one word. The hon. Member says, that to reconsider, when spoken by a Minister of the Crown, meant to be favourably disposed to the subject. Now, Sir, in reply to that construction of the words, I beg to say, that I am at present in favour of the proposal before the House; but I am not biassed in any way on the subject, and I shall hear the most intelligent Custom-house officers in reference to it, and then act according to the best of my judgment.
The House resumed.
The Chairman reported progress.
Committee to sit again.

BRIDPORT ELECTION.
Mr. C. Bullerthen said, Sir, I can assure the House that it is not my intention on the present occasion to occupy much of its time. The House, will, 1 believe, do me justice when I assure it, that it is with great reluctance that I bring forward any motion involving considerations of so personal a nature as the present, which, whatever may be its particular object, must necessarily give rise to some amount of unpleasant personal controversy. I must confess that I have been induced very much to bring this motion forward by feelings of a personal nature, I confess that in the outset. My regard for purity of election does not induce me to bring it forward. Had it not been on account of the unfair and hard position in which I think recent events have placed a Friend of mine for whom I have the greatest regard, I should not now have called the attention of the House to the subject. That gentleman's conduct in vacating his seat in this House, has been the subject of much and general comment. It has been commented upon as he states in his petition, by a right hon. Member of the Government, and although I feel bound to state that I see nothing in that comment but good humour and fairness, still it is an unpleasant thing that such high authority should hold out as having violated the laws of Parliamentary

909
purity a person who had always been an advocate for Parliamentary Reform. But it is not by reason of what has been stated out of the House, that I bring forward this motion, because I have stated that one of the causes which compelled me to the course, was a late speech of the hon. Member for Radnorshire. When the late motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bath was carried, the hon. Member for Radnorshire rose and asked if the House was going to institute this inquiry into five or six boroughs without taking into its consideration that borough in which a compromise had first occurred during the present Parliament; and I then felt myself called on, as a friend of the party who was pointed at, to say that he would challenge inquiry, and I hoped that as the House was bound in consistency to extend the inquiry into the matter alluded to, that it would do so. Now I should have very little difficulty in satisfying the House as to the propriety of my motion, which is, that the circumstances relating to the recent election for Bridport shall be inquired into by the same committee as that appointed to consider the election proceedings in the cases of Reading, Falmouth, Harwich, and Lewes. I cannot see how the House after adopting the motion for that committee, can consistently refuse mine. The House will recollect the grounds on which my hon. Friend the Member for Bath moved for the committee, and the grounds on which the House then acted. The reasons upon which my hon. Friend asked for his committee were, that rumours of bribery and corruption were abroad. My hon. Friend stated that there were very general rumours, that there had been great bribery at the elections he alluded to. He then stated that the subject of these elections having been brought before the House in a legitimate manner, by means of election petitions, the inquiry had been put a stop to by a withdrawal of these petitions, that they were not withdrawn because the petitioners became satisfied that they had no case, but that it was a matter of rumour that they were withdrawn in order to upset the decision of the committee, and thus vacate the seat which the committee had declared to be filled. Now what is the case which I bring forward? I do not come with rumours of bribery, but with positive allegations, founded on the petition presented by a gentleman who, though he is not at present a member of this House, will not I am
910
sure be called by those with whom he sat the less worthy of confidence on that ground. I come not with rumours of compromise, but with a statement from one of the parties who says that he was connected with that compromise, and who states the part which he and others took in it, and now calls for inquiry. He asserts in the fullest manner the corrupt practices which have prevailed in the borough with which he was connected. He states that one of the Members who sits for that borough went down there in 1839, and knowing the weakness of his chance, determined to carry his election by means of systematic corruption. I merely state the allegations of another. if the House thinks that I am exceeding these allegations, I will read from the petition itself—
" That, from a correspondence which (with the exception of one letter) your petitioner had, for the first time, the opportunity of reading in February last, your petitioner believes, that there existed on the part of a person in London, herinafter named, at that time in direct communication with Mr. Mitchell, a deliberate intention of carrying Mr. Mitchell's election by force of money. That your petitioner is confident that if the select committee of inquiry be granted, such fact will be proved."
He further goes on to say that the election was carried by means of bribery—that it has come to his own knowledge that—
"Your petitioner's London agent discovered that in about nine cases the canvasser whom Mr. Mitchell had borrowed of your petitioner's Bridport agent had been directed by Mr. Mitchell's agents to offer bribes for votes to be given to your petitioner as well as Mr. Mitchell; and that in nine other cases, or thereabouts, the said canvasser had been employed to offer bribes for votes to be given to Mr. Mitchell alone."
The petitioner goes on still further to state his belief of the extensive system of bribery committed in Bridport, and thus refers to the cost of the last contest—
"That your petitioner believes that the gross cost of the said last contest for the borough of Bridport, in June, 1841, exceeded that of all former election contests since the Reform Act; and that the said Thomas Alexander Mitchell expended 3,200 l. or thereabouts."
And I understand that this is a moderate calculation, that, in fact, the sum was at least a third larger. The petitioner goes on to state that
" The said Alexander Dundas Bailey Coch-

911
rane also expended a considerable sum, in amount unknown to your petitioner."
Indeed, by the way", to discover that amount is one of the objects of my motion; and the petition then states that
"Further considerable sums of money have been paid for legal proceedings, and for compromise of actions and indictments by the said Messrs. Cochrane and Mitchell."
Now these allegations do not rest on my testimony—I call your attention to the facts stated in this petition as affording a stronger case than that brought forward by the hon. Member for Bath, because his case rested on very general but vague rumours; this case rests on the petition of a gentleman of honour and credibility, who comes forward and stakes his character on the correctness of his assertions. The second ground for my hon. and learned Friend's committee is, that a compromise had taken place, notwithstanding the nominal return of a committee. Now, strong as the circumstances of compromise mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend were, they are nothing in comparison with the circumstances of the present case. It was alleged in the former instances, that a transfer of the seat had been stipulated for. That has taken place in the present instance. It rests on no rumour. We know, as matter of fact, that a seat had been transferred; that the petitioner has accepted the Chiltern hundreds, and that the hon. Gentleman opposite has been returned. In the present case, too, the circumstances of it particularly invite the attention of the House to the commission of bribery at elections; and not only do the allegations in the petition bear upon a compromise as to the right to a seat, but they refer to actions for bribery which were likewise compromised as the condition of the transfer. In February last there were no less than fifty-one actions brought against Mr. Flight, the agent of Mr. Mitchell (to whose betrayal of what occurred at the election, and the whole of the proceedings which have taken place are owing), for penalties amounting (as we understood) to 25,500 l. These were allegations of bribery, not resting on a petition—not resting on rumour, but founded on the fifty-one actions brought in courts of justice for penalties which it was hoped might be recovered by the parties who instituted them. There is a paper in the west of England called the Western Times, against which it was thought proper to bring an
912
action by Mr. Mitchell, for a libel contained in one of its paragraphs. The proprietor justified; and in doing so he mentioned the names of seventy-one persons, who he said were bribed on behalf of Mr. Mitchell. All the fifty-one actions (and I believe there were some also against the other candidate) were compromised. And the grave matter in the present case is, that not only has the dignity of this House been trifled with by such a settlement of a question brought under its judicial cognizance, but the same truckling and transfer have been made the means of interfering with the ordinary administration of justice, and taking from the purview of the courts of law those actions for bribery which were really brought before them. The result I arrive at then, is, that in the first place, you have here better evidence than that formerly adduced. You are not asked to act on hearsay. You are proceeding on facts which the petitioner alleges there are ample grounds of proving. In the second place, there is this distinction made, affecting the present case, as distinguished from those which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bath has alluded to, and that is, that you were there merely called on to prevent a compromise which was about to take place, whereas here the compromise has actually been made and carried into effect. The facts of this case show that the petition has been withdrawn, the inquiry totally suppressed, and the effect of all those arrangements is, that the seat held by Mr. Warburton has been quietly transferred to the hon. Gentleman I see opposite. There is one objection urged against the course I propose, which I do not think will have much weight, and that is, that the committee which my hon. and learned Friend has moved for being appointed, it will be inconvenient and troublesome to add to their labours by bringing this case under their cognizance. I have spoken to my hon. and learned Friend, and he thinks Bridport may, with advantage, be joined to the other boroughs where bribery is alleged to have prevailed. Another objection I have heard stated proceeds on a very obvious fallacy, and is concealed by a kind of error of language which ought to be at once cleared up. It is this—that the present differs from other cases because it has not occurred in the present Session. There is not the slightest validity in such an objection. This petition refers to the same class of allegations as those referred

913
to by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and whether the compromises were effected in the last Session or in the present, they occurred in consequence of the same election, which took place in June. And it is shielding from a committee of this House transactions of the same nature as those you have already determined to inquire into, if you do not put Bridport on the same footing with the towns already inculpated. I cannot conceive how Bridport can be excluded in the opinion of any one who is anxious to investigate, and expose, and root out bribery from our constituencies. I cannot conceive any argument which can be raised for granting a committee in five cases, and denying the investigation in another, in which the offence and notoriety were equally clear. I shall not further answer any argument that may be brought forward, resting on the justice of the case which I have alleged, until I hear some answer to it. But there is an observation which I think it but fair to the sitting members to make, that the petitioner abstains from any direct personal imputation on their conduct; but I should be acting very unfairly, and in a spirit in which I should not like to be dealt by, if I did not say that the statements were such as any man against whom they were made should be most anxious to meet. There were no harsh terms used; but, I must candidly admit, that the charges brought forward must convey an unfavourable imputation, unless those against whom they were alleged succeeded in rebutting them. Now the charge against the hon, Member near me (Mr. Mitchell) is, that he came to Bridport as a second candidate in the same political interest as Mr. Warburton. Mr. Warburton always carried the election by a large majority, and never found it necessary to have recourse to bribery. [Cheers.] I was quite prepared, from the exceeding purity of the hon. Gentlemen opposite, to hear that cheer. It is delightful to me to hear it, because I am sure it was intended to convey the impression that not one of those who joined in it ever paid head money, or spent a farthing in treating. I was going to qualify what I said by alleging that Mr. Warburton had been obliged to conform to the practice of the borough by spending sums which I must say were unjustifiably large in treating; but as to what is called bribery, by which I understand the payment of particular sums to particular persons for obtaining
914
their votes, not a shadow of such a charge has been brought against him. It is alleged, on the other hand, that Mr. Mitchell had recourse to the most odious forms of bribery, and that its discovery was owing altogether to his quarrel with his agent. He must, then, bear the imputation of having bribery carried on for his benefit, and of having left to another to bear the brunt of a forfeiture which was incurred through his misconduct. The statement I have to make against the other hon. Gentleman is much more difficult to allege in precise terms. I shall give it in the words of the petition:—
"That the conditions which Mr. Cochrane entered into and stipulated with regard to your petitioner, were, that no petition should be presented against his (your petitioner's) return; that his letter of application for the Chiltern Hundreds should not be made known or used before the expiration of the fourteen days allowed for presenting election petitions, and should be returned to him in case Mr. Mitchell should, within that time, agree to vacate his seat, by making a similar application; that the petition against Mr. Mitchell's return, which Mr. Cochrane declared he would not abandon, should be prosecuted in such a way as to save the legal liabilities and reputation of your petitioner's friends; that on this matter your petitioner was informed by Mr. Cochrane and his agent that reliance must be placed on their honour. That on the 7th of September, the day before your petitioner resigned his seat, on his expressing his doubts to Mr. Cochrane and his agent, whether they would be able to comply with the last stated condition; Mr. Cochrane's agent stated, that of evidence to prove Mr. Mitchell's bribery he had such an "embarrass de richesses," that he would have no difficulty in proving the bribery, and at the same time saving the reputation of your petitioner's friends. That, from the beginning of February in the present year, to the middle of March, various applications were made by Mr. Cochrane's agent, to your petitioner's agent to furnish evidence in support of the petition against Mr. Mitchell, on the allegation that the evidence of bribery, in the possession of Mr. Cochrane's agent, was insufficient for the purpose of rendering the opposition to that petition frivolous and vexatious; and ultimately a letter was received from Mr. Cochrane's agent by your petitioner's agent, stating that if the evidence required was not supplied by a given day, Mr. Cochrane would abandon the petition. That your petitioner's agent doubting the intention of Mr. Cochrane's agent to prosecute the petition, but not choosing that he should have the plea of abandoning it for want of evidence, promised to furnish the proofs required, and did furnish them by the appointed day; but the day before that appointed for delivering the

915
proofs, which latter was the 21st March, your petitioner was informed by a letter from Mr. Cochrane that he had abandoned the petition, and on the same day, viz., the said 21st of March, the petition against Mr. Mitchell's return, and the petition against Mr. Cochrane's return, were both withdrawn, and the proofs furnished by your petitioner's agent were returned unopened. That in the course of obtaining the said proofs, your petitioner's London agent discovered circumstances which were not communicated to your petitioner until the 25th of March; and which, if your petitioner had known at the time of his said compromise with Mr. Cochrane, would have induced your petitioner not to enter into such a compromise."
I state these bare facts without the least exaggeration, and I should be justly thought wanting in due consideration for others, if I brought forward a charge, involving not only matter of public importance, but affecting private character, without giving the precise allegations of the petition. And I must say, that it is an additional ground why the system of bribery at elections should be extinguished, that the compromises to which it leads do give rise, justly or unjustly, to incidental charges of a personal nature. I beg to move
" That an inquiry be made into certain corrupt compromises alleged to have been entered into for the purpose of avoiding investigation into gross bribery which had been alleged to have been practised at the election for the borough of Bridport in June last, and also whether such bribery has taken place in the aforesaid town."
Mr. Cochranerose with more than ordinary anxiety, because he felt, that he was going to trespass on the time of the House upon no question of public importance, but one which related personally to himself only. On the other hand, however, he felt that the House would consider it as of some importance that no suspicion should attach to the character of any Member of that House; and also that any Gentleman presenting a petition of this nature to the House should be able to substantiate every statement he put forth. Therefore, he trusted the House would listen to him with indulgence, and he would endeavour to be as brief as possible. The hon. Member for Liskeard had truly stated, that no direct charge had been made against him, but that the inference was, that he had entered into compromise and arrangement with Mr. Warburton, which he evaded upon obtaining his seat. He would, therefore, state the facts of the case, and happy he
916
was to have an opportunity of doing so, not only on account of the statement that had appeared in the petition, and as it had been made in the House, but because prior to this inquiry in the House, his conduct was the subject of much comment out of doors. The first paragraph in the petition which referred to him was in page 4—
" Your petitioner ascertained that Mr. Cochrane was principally minded to unseat Mr. Mitchell."
But he would not read the whole, it was unnecessary. The inference to be drawn from that was, the hon. and learned Member said, that he sought out Mr. Warburton and gave him the information. Now, on the 24th of May, he thought it was, prior to the first date mentioned by Mr. Warburton in his petition, the day that the election petition was to have been presented, Mr. Warburton sent his agent to his (Mr. Cochrane's) agent to request a delay of twenty-four hours, in order that certain negotiations might take place which were to give him the seat, and he objected to any such negotiations in toto, and declared that he intended to present the petition. But he afterwards gave way, and the next day another delay of twenty-four hours was asked, and then Mr. Warburton's agent said—
" If Mr. Mitchell does not accept the Chiltern Hundreds in this time, Mr. Warburton will."
But that was not stated in the petition. On the morning of the 26th we stood in this position, said the hon. Member, I expected on that morning that either Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Warburton would take the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. Warburton requested an interview that evening, and said—
"I shall not take the Chiltern Hundreds. I did not know that you had alleged anything against my personal character—that I had committed bribery."
And then he said—
"I have Mr. Cochrane, a high character for purity to support."
"And," he added, "I cannot shrink from this investigation." I told him 1 thought it extraordinary that he should seek that interview at that late period, and that I had never sought any delay in presenting the petition; and that, under' the circumstances, I certainly should present it. A long conversation ensued, and Mr. Warburton said he would accept the Chiltern Hundreds; and there was an

917
established understanding between my agent and Mr. Warburton's agent, that a petition was to be carried against Mr. Mitchell so as to obtain the seat ultimately for Mr. Warburton against Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Warburton at that time held out as an inducement to me to proceed with the petition, that the result would be, I should obtain my seat.
"That," said he, "is your object; and we shall have our seats, one and one. It will be a snug borough for both of us."
After fourteen days had elapsed, we expected that Mr. Mitchell would vacate his seat. Mr. Warburton has printed in his petition a letter in reference to this point which was kept under lock and key. Mr. Warburton had stated to me—
" The seat will be vacated by my Colleague taking the Chiltern Hundreds."
I wrote down to Bridport that Mr. Warburton's conduct was most honourable and straightforward. [" Hear, hear."] Yes— straightforward. I do not wish to retract a word of what I said. But I think it a little ungenerous that Mr. Warburton should publish my agent's letters, and forget his own. There is a letter of his dated the 9th September, in which he says—
" The more weight you can throw into my scale, by stating, that throughout the whole negotiation I have been actuated by honourable feelings, and by a desire to save my friends and the borough from disgrace, the greater will be my influence in leading my party to attend to reason."
Although there was to be no opposition, upon my arrival at Bridport I found such opposition threatened; and I must call the attention of the House particularly to this, because it may be considered as affecting my character. From both of those Gentlemen whose neutrality had been assured to me before I left London, I found opposition, and upon that occasion Mr. Warburton's agent, who had been present at every conference in London said,—
"I give you full and entire leave to withdraw the petition against Mr. Mitchell, if you choose to do so, in order to avoid this opposition."
My answer was, that—
" I did not consider I should be acting right in taking advantage of that casual circumstance, because I thought that the petition would induce Mr. Mitchell to resign his seat before February, and therefore out of a feeling of regard for Mr. Warburton I would not avail myself of that opportunity of avoiding the opposition."
918
I knew there was an implied understanding that there should be no opposition. But afterwards a special arrangement was obliged to be entered into to avoid that opposition against which I had a previous. guarantee. There was also a second article of agreement, that the petition was to be prosecuted only upon such documentary evidence as would not implicate any other person, and if it proved insufficient, the petition was to be abandoned. J hope the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard was not aware of this arrangement, which was subsequent to that entered into in London, which it therefore superseded; and it was most unjust, if he was aware of that fact, not to put it into the petition, because that completely changes the whole subject. And how did he carry out that article? I thought I had obtained, by Mr. Warburton's own confession, a compromise of two years. But he was not satisfied. 1 went to very great expense; and I remember, that Mr. Warburton said, he would leave the expense an open question. 1 don't know what he meant by an open question, but the only result is, that I have paid all the expenses. From time to time, it was proposed, that the petition should be with-drawn, but what was the course which Mr. Warburton took? He did not say, go on with the petition, but always "postpone it, put it off until February." And what does he say in the letter I will now read to the House, of which letter there is only a garbled extract in the petition? Here is an extract from a letter from Mr. Warburton to Mr. Leman:—
" Calm reflection upon the state of my case, and your own sense of what is just and honourable, will, I feel confident, lead you and Mr. Cochrane to a right determination, in the mean time there can be no occasion for any hasty or precipitate judgment on your part. I must request you to confer with Mr. Parkes on the matter, to whom I have only said, that in my judgment I stand in that position that no appeal made to me as to what Mr. Cochrane shall or ought to do, can with propriety be answered by me. If I advise one course, my friends will consider me as abandoning them, and as sanctioning the most monstrous injustice; if I advise another course, it may be imputed to me that I have conspired to turn Mr. Mitchell out of his seat. That to Mr. Cochrane and his advisers, therefore, I must leave undivided the responsibility of determining on their course of action."
The time drew nigh, and the open question of expense still remained unsettled, and I found it necessary to proceed, and the opinion of my counsel was:

919
" Under the circumstances, strongly advise you to spare no pains in ascertaining the nature of Messrs. Nicholetts and Cornish's evidence, but especially the latter, as a point of essential importance to the success of the petition, and especially with reference to the costs."
I did not have the benefit of the evidence I expected, so that we could not carry out our object. At last, some documentary evidence was supplied, but under a protest against its being made use of. About twenty-six days before, notice was received that actions had been commenced against our friends in the borough of Bridport, and that they were to be tried in the next week at the Somersetshire assizes, in about eight days' time. Pardon me, now, for just recapitulating the points of the case thus far: Mr. Warburton had promised to take the Chiltern Hundreds; he evaded that, and then came an implied arrangement for withdrawing the petition, and this was subverted by a partial arrangement entered into at Bridport; and we endeavoured to carry out—I can say with great expense and anxiety — the spirit of that arrangement, until we found that we could not carry it out without implicating all parties, which would have been contrary to the second article of the agreement. Why, surely that was right? Mr. Warburton does not want to be implicated; for had the expected evidence been forthcoming, would it not have been proved that he had bribed eleven persons. [Mr. C. Buller: No, he does not say so.] However, I will say, that if that evidence had been gone into, Mr. Warburton would never have been able to show his face in Bridport again. I say it openly. The time was pressing, and I sent Mr. Warburton this letter:—
" London, March 20, 1842.
" My dear Sir,—I learn with much regret from Mr. Leman, that due notice was given on Friday last, in the cases of bribery brought against two of my friends at Bridport, and that they will be tried at the next Somersetshire assizes, on the 28th inst.
"I think you will do me the justice to admit, that no effort has been wanting on my part to obtain Mr. Mitchell's resignation of his seat, and that I have never attempted to avail myself of the frequent opportunities afforded me by yourself and your agent, Mr. Nicholetts, for abandoning the petition, notwithstanding all the harassment and anxiety to which I have been subjected for the last six months; for I was resolved, contrary to the expressed opinions of my friends and advisers, contrary also to my own deeper convictions, to
920
submit patiently to every inconvenience, so long as it should only affect myself, in the vain hope of ultimately succeeding in carrying out our object.
" But as it is now quite clear, from the course which Mr. Mitchell is pursuing, that there is no longer the least probability of inducing him to yield, and as my friends at Bridport, in addition to much annoyance and expense, may be subjected to very heavy penalties—-while, moreover, it is impossible, in the altered state of parties, to conduct the petition in the terms of the arrangement entered into by your agent, Mr. Nicholetts, with any prospect of success—I feel it would be wrong in me any longer to act as if my own interests were alone concerned, and that it is my duty to take into consideration the feelings and opinions of others.
"Upon these grounds, after due deliberation, and acting under advice, I have resolved to allow the petitioners to act as they may judge best, in the full conviction that this is the course which I ought to have adopted long since, and which can alone rescue the borough from disfranchisement, and your friends from, disgrace.
" I am, my dear Sir, your's truly,
" ALEXANDER COCHRANE."
" Henry Warburton, Esq."
I have endeavoured to put the case, with respect to the conduct of Mr. Warburton, as clearly as I can, though I wish to touch as lightly upon it as possible. At the same time, I should be wanting, not only in duty to myself, but to the House, if I did not, after such a petition has been presented, give every information in my power, and read every paper that can throw any light upon it. I have read nothing that was private and confidential; but, on the contrary, the whole of the letters published in his petition were private and confidential. I give Mr. Warburton the advantage of that. But I am sure the House will be astounded at what I am about to state. While I was carrying on the matter to endeavour to obtain Mr. Warburton his seat, it came to my knowledge, that he was endeavouring to undermine me, and stating at Bridport that he never wished the petition against Mr. Mitchell to go on, and that I was trying to get the borough disfranchised, and acting in decided opposition to his wishes. In proof of this, I will bring forward some evidence. During the month of September, my agent told me that he had received a request from Mr. Warburton's agent, that he would write a letter stating, that he did not wish the petition against Mr. Mitchell to be proceeded with; and though it was not then clear for what purpose such a letter

921
could be required, my agent did write the following: —
Bridport, Sept. 13, 1841.
My dear Sir,—I have no hesitation in saying, that at my first interview with Mr. Warburton and yourself, Mr. Warburton said, that although for the sake of his friends in this borough, he had determined to resign his seat, yet that he wished no farther proceedings should be taken on the petition against Mr. Mitchell; and I may add, that when some unexpected difficulties, in carrying out our arrangements made in London, presented themselves, on my arrival here on Friday last, you at once, in order to remove some of those, proposed on the part of Mr. Warburton, that the petition against Mr. Mitchell should be withdrawn; but to this, as unfair to Mr. Warburton, some of the Gentlemen of the Liberal committee decidedly objected."
The meaning of this proceeding soon became obvious, for a handbill was published containing the spirit of this letter, as a proof that Mr. Warburton had nothing to do with the petition against Mr. Mitchell's return, so that if anything happened Mr. Warburton would be able to say, that Mr. Cochrane had caused the disgrace and disfranchisement of the borough, in spite of the entreaties of Mr. Warburton. But there was a most singular letter which Mr. Warburton sent down to the borough of Bridport, addressed to a friend, I believe his agent, which 1 will read: —
London, Sept. 9, 1541.
" My dear Sir,—I understand that the news of my retirement, and the proposal of Mr. Cochrane being allowed to walk over the course, have occasioned great excitement among many of the Liberal party in the borough.
" So far as this affords evidence of their warm attachment to the cause in which we have been associated together for so many years, it is only what I expected of them, and is to their credit; but when their first warm and generous impulses have subsided, and the hour for reflection has arrived, let them consider and reconsider well the consequences of the course which at present they feel inclined to pursue.
" Deeds have taken place, as I am now informed, during the late election at Bridport, which cannot be exposed to the day without covering with disgrace those who have been implicated in them. Of these transactions I am personally entirely clear, and nothing that would leave a stain behind attached, I believe, to any one for anything done on my account at the late election. Not so, as I am informed is the case with regard to the election of others who were candidates. Many of my best friends and supporters are deeply involved, as I am told, in transactions that would be in-
922
jurious to their private reputations, and highly discreditable to the borough; those transactions having taken place, not to advance my cause, but the cause of others.
" It is to save the reputation of individuals whom I have long known, and whom I highly esteem—it is to save the character of the constituency of a borough which I have so long represented—that I have been induced to offer my seat as a propitiation to those who had the reputation of the individuals and characters of the constituency placed at their mercy. I do not say that that was my only inducement but it has been my principal one.
"If my friends and supporters now take any step to call public attention very particularly to what is passing in the borough, and to irritate those who have it in their power to crush the reputation of certain individuals, and cause a full and searching investigation into all that passed at the late election, the sacrifice of my seat will have been made in vain. I shall see my friends destroyed, and the borough of Bridport will stand classed with those of Stafford, Evesham, Shoreham, Aylesbury, and others, which have been handed down as the most notorious in the annals of borough venality and corruption. It is also not improbable, that on the report of the election committee for trying the return of Mr. Mitchell, such a case may be disclosed, that the issuing of a new writ may be suspended; that, as was the case with the borough of Stafford, Bridport may be only partially represented for a long period, and that, on the report of a select committee of inquiry, the borough may be either disfranchised altogether, or the Liberal interest may be swamped by incorporating with the borough a large surrounding rural district. All this I have endeavoured to prevent by the course I have taken. My excellent friends do not know on what a volcano they are treading. It has been my misfortune of late to give warnings against approaching evils, and, like Cassandra of old, not to have my warnings listened to. Let not my excellent friends in the borough, for whom I have the sincerest regard and affection, be added to the number of those who have scorned my advice.
"I adjure them, if I ever deserved well at their hands for my conduct in Parliament, and for the last act of my devotion to them in retiring from Parliament, not to be parties to any attempt to return a Liberal Member for the present vacancy, but to yield to the force of existing adverse circumstances, and to live in the expectation of a more propitious future.
" My dear Sir, yours most truly,
HENRY WARBURTON."
The hon. Gentleman proceeded to remark, Would it be believed that any gentleman who had written such a letter would have placed such a petition as he had in the hands of a Member of that House? In what he had stated to the

923
House he had not, to his knowledge, extenuated a single circumstance, and he was quite sure that he had not "set down aught in malice" towards Mr. Warburton. He was confident, moreover, that if every fact connected with the case were fully investigated, the result would, on the contrary, rather strengthen than weaken the view and the facts which he had represented to the House. He had himself been led on, day by day, in a course which his better reason condemned; and it was in that way that he had been induced to give an apparent sanction to pretences that were opposed to all argument and truth. He by no means wished in any way to make any unkind remark as regarded Mr. Warburton. Indeed, he had been almost pained in stating what he had done; but he certainly did feel, reflecting on the conduct of that gentleman towards him, that, to use the mildest term, it had been ungenerous; for he thought that to make any statement that was calculated to affect injuriously the character of a person just entering upon political life was only justifiable where the case was such that every fact could be fully and entirely supported. But he could not so lightly pass over the question of the conduct of Mr. Warburton as regarded the borough of Bridport itself, or of the truth of the allegations which he had made respecting it, as they appeared in the body of the petition. In the first page of that petition he found it stated, that in 1826, when the petitioner first became connected with the borough, he found that it was an established custom to pay head-money, and that twelve months after his return for the borough he paid to his agent the sum of 3,000 l., which be had no doubt whatever was appropriated to the payment of head-money. Now, what had Mr. Warburton himself stated on another occasion with reference to this very subject? It appeared in the reported debates of the House of Commons, that on the 11th of February, 1831, Lord Ebrington presented a petition from a gentleman at Bridport complaining that for a long time past the electors had been accustomed to receive 10 l. each for their votes. On that occasion Mr. Warburton stood up in his place and said:—
"The gentleman whose name is attached to the petition is certainly of a very respectable character; but I have a petition to present this night, from a very numerous body of my constituents, praying for Parliamentary reform-, and none of them, 1 am sure, was ever con-
924
cerned in the practices referred to; this is the second petition I have had the honour to present from them in favour of pure election. I can say that at present there is nothing of the kind known, not even in the shape of treating — some days after the election successful candidates give one dinner, and that is all—so that I believe that if there existed, in other parts of the country, nothing worse than the course pursued at Bridport, there would be no great need of reform."
Now, really he could not conceive, and he must say, that he did feel astonished and excited at the consideration of it, how any gentleman who had made such a declaration as this in the House of Commons could afterwards have ventured to present such a petition as had been presented by the hon. and learned Member from Mr. Warburton? And with regard to the borough itself, he repeated, that he felt deeply the position in which Mr. Warburton had placed them. By his own statement, that Gentleman had been returned three or four times for the borough at hardly any expense; and what was now the testimony of his gratitude towards the electors? How was he now acting towards those excellent friends of whom he spoke so highly? Why, he was the very person to turn common informer against them; he was the Very man to come forward and make his own deeds—these which he had himself stated in the petition-the ground for subjecting them to disgrace and ignominy. He could not understand the change that had come over the spirit of his dream. A short time since Mr. Warburton was ready, like a second Curtius, to leap into the gulf to save the reputation of Bridport, he was now ready to throw all his excellent friends into the chasm in order to fill it up. Mr Warburton, it was said, had transferred his affections to another borough, and was therefore regardless of the claims of his first love. With respect to the general question if bribery had been practised, or the ends of justice defeated by compromises, it was a fair subject for consideration; but he would rather remedy the defects of the law than punish those who take advantage of them. If they added Bridport to those boroughs which are to be the subject of inquiry would they not also add Tiverton and Stroud? The hon. Member for Bath asks for a bill of indemnity for witnesses; but it ought rather to be called a bill for the extension of perjury. There will be no lack of witnesses so long as they are supported at

925
the public expense, and their evidence will be limited only by the extent of your generosity and credulity. The power which the House seems now disposed to exercise might, in the hands of a corrupt majority, and a corrupt Ministry, be made subservient to the basest purposes. Of all tyrannies that most to be guarded against is the tyranny of a majority, and of all privileges those which ought to be most scrupulously protected, are those of the minority.
Mr. Mitchellsaid, if the hon. Member who had just sat down had felt an anxiety in rising on this occasion, how much the more must he feel anxious: for he had to explain his conduct, not with reference to a political enemy, but with reference to a gentleman who was said to be his friend, and with whom, or, at least, with his friends, he had had the honour of acting in conjunction at the last election. It was no light matter for him to be brought into collision with a gentleman like Mr. Warburton. He was not there to attack Mr. Warburton's public character. Though he differed from him on some political points, still he fully appreciated the uniform tenour of his public life. He had entered the House as an independent Member, and he had maintained his course as such. Therefore any remarks which he might think it his duty to make on the private character of that gentleman would be made with the more reluctance, because he must always regret when the private character of any man whose public character stood high was made in the slightest manner the subject of reproach. If the character of Mr. Warburton sustained any injury he had brought it upon himself by the course he had pursued in this affair. Before proceeding to remark upon the allegations contained in Mr. War bur ton's petition he must refer for a moment to a statement which had been widely circulated in the clubs, though Mr. Warburton was too wise to introduce an assertion on the subject into his petition. This assertion was, that he had acted with great ingratitude to Mr. Warburton, because he owed his seat for Bridport, it was said, to the influence of Mr. Warburton. Though Mr. Warburton had made this statement very generally in private, he had been too prudent to place such an assertion in his petition; for Mr. Warburton well knew that if such a statement reached the ears of his late constituents, the great body of them would be aware of the inaccuracy of the assertion, well knowing that he obtained his election independently of Mr.
926
Warburton's influence. He went down to Bridport without holding any communication with Mr. Warburton as to the exercise of his influence on his behalf; and he owed his return to his own zeal and to his connection with parties in the borough who possessed influence—not in the slightest degree to any influence of Mr. Warburton's. The first of Mr. Warburton's statements to which he would refer was not of great importance, but it might be made a test of the accuracy of several of the allegations in the petition. Mr. Warburton alleged in the petition that he had an interview with his agents, who stated, that a difference had arisen between them and himself, and requested Mr. Warburton's mediation; and Mr. Warburton proceeded to state, that,—
" In consequence of such application your petitioner on the following day saw Mr. Mitchell for the first time since your petitioner knew of his being a candidate; and in the course of that interview your petitioner informed Mr. Mitchell of his estimated very narrow majority (four votes), and warned him, in case he should continue to be a candidate, carefully to avoid having any difference with his agents, and advised him to weigh well the discretion of continuing a candidate under these circumstances,"
This statement of the interview was totally incorrect. Mr. Warburton certainly advised him to make it up with his agent; but Mr. Warburton never said a single word to him as to the estimated narrow majority of four. Mr. Warburton never said that his election was certain, but he never mentioned the estimated narrow majority. Mr. Warburton at that interview urged, that from his connexion with gentlemen residing in the borough, if he quarrelled with his agent, and did not go down to Bridport (a course which, in consequence of that quarrel, he at one time contemplated), the electors would consider that he had been ill-treated by his agents, and that the probability of the success of another liberal candidate would therefore be diminished, thus risking the loss of a vote to the liberal party in that House. He pledged his honour as a Gentleman and as a Member of that House, that this was a correct statement of the interview; but this was a personal question between himself and Mr. Warburton, for no other person was present at the interview. He would mention another circumstance which might serve also as a test of the accuracy of the other allegations of Mr. Warburton. Mr. Warburton stated,—
" That, from a correspondence which (with

927
the exception of one letter) your petitioner had, for the first time, the opportunity of reading in February last, your petitioner believes that there existed on the part of a person in London, hereinafter named, and at that time in direct communication with Mr. Mitchell, a deliberate intention of carrying Mr. Mitchell's election by force of money."
Mr. Warburtontherefore, intimated that he had at that time formed a deliberate intention of carrying his election by force of money.
"I wish to state, in the most distinct and solemn terms," (said the hon. Gentleman,) "as a Member of this House, as a gentleman, and as a man of honour, that so far from having any intention in 1839 or 1841 of carrying my election for Bridport by force of money, when I went down to the borough to canvass I had not, so help me God, the slightest intention of paying a single farthing in bribery. The statement in the petition is totally incorrect. I cannot answer for the acts of others; but on my honour, as a Member of this House, when I went down to canvass, not only in 1839 but in 1841,I had no intention of bribery."
This statement could be strongly corroborated by the circumstance that, before he went down to Bridport, he entered into an arrangement with his agents that his expenses should be guaranteed not to exceed a certain sum. That sum was less than Mr. Warburton—according to his own admission—had ever spent at any election for that borough. [An hon. Member: " State the amount."] He would not state the amount. The expenses might be only 500 l. for aught he knew, but they were not to exceed a certain sum. In proceeding to his next point he might observe that what he had stated on a former occasion with reference to a gentleman of the name of Hutchinson—whose name he conceived had been brought forward most unnecessarily and most unhandsomely by Mr. Warburton—had been misconstrued. It might be inferred from Mr. Warburton's statement that Mr. Hutchinson was his paid active agent, who went down in the same manner that Mr. Coppock, or such a gentleman might be. That idea was wholly unfounded. Mr. Hutchinson was a gentleman of high standing as a merchant in London—a gentleman, he would boldly say in the face of the country, whose honour and integrity were unimpeachable. Mr. Hutchinson was his personal and particular friend, and having for many years had direct communication with most of the manufacturers in Bridport, he possessed considerable influence in the borough, and that gentleman accompanied him as
928
a friend. When he entered the House the other evening, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Buller) was at the moment reading this extract from the petition,
"That the said Thomas Alexander Mitchell expended 3,200 l. or thereabouts, besides other sums laid out on his behalf by his agent, Matthew Hutchinson, jun."
When he heard that statement read, he denied that Mr. Hutchinson was his agent, and he still denied it, though he did not know what that House might hold to be agency in a legal point of view. With reference to the "other sums" alleged to have been expended on his behalf, he begged to state distinctly, on his honour as a gentleman, and as a Member of that House, that though he could not say whether those sums had or had not been spent, he had never paid one farthing of them, he had never received any account of them, he had never promised to pay them, he did not mean to pay them, nor were any relatives of his to pay them for him. He guarded his statement. He did not mean to deny, that money might have been expended, but he did state that it was not his money or that of his relatives. It was alleged in the petition, that bribery had been committed after he went down to the borough. He would not go into detail on this subject. Though he had not had the honour of representing the borough of Bridport for sixteen years—though he was not bound to his constituents in that borough by such ties as those which connected Mr. Warburton with them, yet no temptation should induce him to come forward in that House as a common informer, to denounce those whom he had represented. He would not go into the allegations of bribery; he would merely state that many of them were untrue. He would, however, make this remark, that, even if those allegations were true, the circumstances alleged must have become known to Mr. Warburton in the interchange of strictly confidential communications between Mr. Warburton's friends and his friends, who had acted together; and he considered that Mr. Warburton, in publishing them to the world, was guilty of a gross breach of confidence, such as he trusted he was too much a gentleman ever to have committed. Mr. Warburton asserted, that he knew nothing himself of any bribery, that he had one sole agent, in whom he placed implicit confidence, and that he remained in London while his agent was at Bridport conducting his election. Now, he was not going to ac-

929
cuse Mr. Warburton of bribery; but he thought, that if Mr. Warburton had intended to practise bribery, professing not to be conscious of it, he could not have adopted a more convenient course than that of remaining in London, and giving his agent a carte blanche to act as he pleased. Mr. Warburton stated, that at the last election he spent 2,100 l., or thereabouts, and that at each previous election he had spent about 1,700 l, and he stated, that he was informed that the increase of 400 l. on the last occasion had been caused by sundry breakfasts having been given on the day of election. Now, he was informed, that breakfasts similar to those referred to had been given by Mr. Warburton at the three previous elections. The expense of those breakfasts could not, however, possibly exceed 50 l. He thought he might ask in what manner the remaining 350 l. had been spent? He was aware, that Mr. Warburton placed such confidence in his agent, that when he received a bill, he paid it at once. That was a very convenient course. Mr. Warburton alleged, that his agent at the last election lent 150 l. to his (Mr. Mitchell's) agent. The fact was, that their respective agents were extremely intimate, and he believed his agent applied to Mr. Warburton's agent for that sum, but certainly without the slightest occasion, for the money for every necessary expense of the contest was advanced before the election to his agent. He was totally ignorant of the application on the part of his agent for the advance, and it was made without any necessity. He now came to what he regarded as the most important point in the case—the question whether or not he had sacrificed Mr. Warburton at the last election. Mr. Warburton had alluded to his rupture with his agent. Though he refused the payment of his agent's accounts, they were guaranteed by gentlemen totally unconnected with him, though they were his constituents. He now came to what took place in August. Some little time before the meeting of Parliament, Mr. Warburton said he came to him and wanted him to pay his agent his account, because he said he should otherwise himself be implicated in that transaction. Now, he had never received such a communication, and that was another instance of inaccuracy on the part of Mr. Warburton. Mr. Warburton had never said anything of the kind in any shape or manner to him. Mr. Warburton's agent came to him the day before the meet-
930
ing of Parliament, and said, "A certain disclosure of secrets has taken place, and you must resign your seat at once.'' He said, "This is the first I have heard of it." As might be expected, he was at first taken quite aback, and said to him, "I will see you about it to-morrow." The next day, he had a long conversation with him, and said to him, as he was the second candidate, if it were necessary for either of them to resign their seats, it was his duty to do so; he admitted that to Mr. Warburton's agent in the most distinct terms. He said to the agent—
" I have bad a great deal of trouble with this election; it has been the great object of my ambition; I have been looking forward to it for years; there can be no election petition presented now; give me time till the winter to see if I can make a defence to this petition. I think you make a most unprecedented demand on me to resign my seat eight months before any election petition can come on, without my having made any inquiry whether I can defend ray seat. I implore Mr. Warburton—I implore you to reconsider the subject; there can be no necessity for Mr. Warburton to resign his seat, give me time till the winter, and, if necessary then, I fully admit I am bound to resign my seat."
On a subsequent day he had another interview with the agent, who said to im—
" Mr. Warburton is determined that not even a petition for bribery shall be presented against him, and you must resign." "Good God," said he (Mr. Mitchell), Am I to be sacrificed to Mr. Warburton's purism? Why, a petition may be presented against the return of Sir R. Peel for bribery. Am I to be called on to sacrifice my seat in this manner? We can pretty well defend ourselves against the other side, is it fair to call on me six or eight months before hand to resign my seat in the House? I fully admit that I must resign it if necessary in the end, but I say it is not necessary at present."
He (the agent) said—
" Mr. Warburton has made up his mind, and therefore, if you do not resign he will."
He said—
" I implore Mr. Warburton to reconsider the subject."
"No," (the agent) said—
"He has made up his mind; he will accept the Chiltern Hundreds if you do not, and he will leave you in free and undisturbed possession of the seat."
They should hear afterwards in what "free and undisturbed possession" Mr.

931
Warburton had left him his seat. But the agent said so. Mr. Warburton's agent then went to Bridport, and endeavoured to get up a requisition to him to resign his seat. The first gentleman he applied to had proved himself Mr. Warburton's friend, and certainly a judicious one. He said—
" No, I will not sign the requisition, for there is not the slightest necessity shown for either one or the other to resign."
Finding the attempt to get up this requisition to be a failure, Mr. Warburton resigned his seat at the end of fourteen days. The next proceeding had, he thought, been pretty fully detailed by his hon. Colleague. It appeared to Mr. Warburton that by far the cheapest plan was to resign his seat, and to make an agreement with his hon. Colleague to turn him (Mr. Mitchell) out at his hon. Colleague's expense. As that would be by far the cheapest plan. Mr. Warburton held out very strong inducements to his hon. Colleague to pursue that plan, for own return, but that of his hon. Colleague also, though in an interest contrary to the principle he had all his life advocated. "But," Mr. Warburton said—
"I will go further than that we will divide the borough between us."
That Mr. Warburton in terms said was the cheapest way of getting him out of his seat—giving up the borough, giving up the party, giving up everything, so that he could keep his seat. Mr. Warburton had not been inactive in carrying out that proposition; for not only did Mr. Warburton get up a petition against him, but Mr. Warburton identified himself with all the acts of bribery in the borough, and it appeared that Mr. Hutchison and his friends were to be ruined for the purpose of enabling Mr. Warburton to walk into his seat. He now came to a further point. Mr. Warburton said in his petition—
"That on or about the 24th of January, it was signified to your petitioner's agent by Mr. Cochrane's agent, that Mr. Mitchell's agent had intimated the willingness of Mr. Mitchell to refer all matters in dispute to arbitration, and to that proposal Mr. Cochrane's agent begged to know whether your petitioner would consent, to which your petitioner replied that he would, if the arbitrator were to be empowered to examine him and Mr. Mitchell, and were to regulate his decision by the rule of honour between gentlemen; and
932
your petitioner is informed that on your petitioner's answer being communicated to Mr. Mitchell, he disavowed having ever authorized such a proposal to be made."
The fact was, the first proposition was made by a gentleman, a friend of both parties, not by him, to submit the case to arbitration, certainly not with his sanction, and Mr. Warburton distinctly refused to agree to it; and it was only a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, when he found things taking a very unpleasant turn, that he agreed to submit the case to arbitration. But Mr. Warburton did not say one syllable about that. He only stated that to show how the petition was got up. He now came to the ground Mr. Warburton had stated for calling on the House to submit this case to the inquiry of the committee that had already been appointed; and on that point he could not but observe on the remarkable absence from the House of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, Col- who had proposed that committee. [" An hon.Member: He is present."] He did not see the hon. Member. He meant to call the attention of the House to that as a remarkable fact. ["An hon. Member; He has this moment left the House from indisposition."] With reference to the compromise he could not go into any compromise that took place in August last between his Colleague and Mr. Warburton, as affording ground for this inquiry. All he said was, that this inquiry was principally directed against him; but he had been no party to that compromise, and he did not see why Mr. Warburton was entitled to call for any inquiry. If he were rightly informed, in the five boroughs included in this inquiry there had been an agreement in every case entered into, that one of the sitting Members should vacate his seat by a certain period, and a certain sum of money was paid down as a pledge to secure this. Was he in that position? He had stood his ground manfully from first to last. There he was; he had not admitted his guilt, or vacated his seat. His hon. Colleague had stated the reason why he withdrew his petition; he had withdrawn it, because he was called on to carry it on for the benefit of another at his own expense. Why did he not go on with his petition? Because his hon. Colleague had been elected on a fresh writ in September, and his counsel had given it as their decided opinion that his petition was but waste paper; because, if he could prove bribery in the gravest manner against his Col-

933
league in the June election, that could not be brought forward in a petition against his election in September. He did not, therefore, go on with a petition for which his counsel told him there were no grounds. If that were compromise, then every petition withdrawn was compromised, and was a fit subject for inquiry'. He should have no difficulty in bringing down to-morrow twenty petitions in which similar compromises had taken place, because the petitioners had thought fit to withdraw them. If this case were a fit subject for inquiry, they were all so. The hon. Member for Liskeard had stated, that part of the compromise was, that fifty-one actions, incurring penalties of 25,000 l., which had been brought against him, were to be withdrawn; but he would leave the House to judge, whether bringing an action or carrying it out were the same thing. The bringing of these actions had been intended to frighten him, but it had not had that effect. These actions had been given up, because those who brought them had not the slightest hope of success. They had been given up three weeks or a month before this petition had been got up against him; and, therefore, that part of the argument of the hon. Member for Liskeard fell to the ground. What then was the effect of the petition? To denounce the very individuals whom Mr. Warburton resigned his seat in September last, (according to his own account) to serve. He would take upon himself to say, that if the House, on allegations of bribery, brought forward by a disappointed candidate, who had been himself convicted of bribery by his own showing, appointed this committee to inquire, they would have nothing else to do but appoint committees to inquire from year to year. There was only one more point to which he would call their attention—it was the question whether he had sacrificed Mr. Warburton or not. He said distinctly he had not; no such thing could be alleged against him; he felt that he had acted correctly throughout; that Mr. Warburton had not a right to demand the resignation of his seat when he did; and therefore that he was fully absolved from the imputation of any breach of honour towards Mr. Warburton.
Sir T. Wildesaid, that having listened with attention to both the hon. Gentlemen who had just addressed the House, he did not deem it necessary to trouble the House with any remarks as to the reference of the petition to the committee because those
934
two hon. Gentlemen had made such statements to the House that he conceived there could not be a moment's hesitation as to the propriety of the petition being so referred. The statements of those hon. Gentlemen had not only confirmed all the material allegation contained in that petition, so far as they related to the reference to the committee, but they had actually gone beyond them, and now rested upon authority which could not be disputed, namely, the admission of the parties themselves. As Mr. Warburton was a friend of his ["hear"]—he felt no necessity to disavow Mr. Warburton's acquaintance. He knew of no discredit attached to it. While avowing his friendship for that Gentleman, he was not aware that that circumstance the less entitled him to be heard when he rose for the purpose of setting that Gentleman's character before the House in the light in which he honestly believed it ought to be regarded. He asserted his friendship with Mr. Warburton that due allowance might be made for anything that might fall from him in the course of the observations which he felt it his duty to make. The petition came before the House in a judicial form. The House was called upon to exercise its judgment upon it, and to refer it to a committee for inquiry. If any person who had been in the House should have considered what was the general impression with respect to that tribunal, or should have reflected what attributes properly belonged to a judicial tribunal, when called upon to exercise an important function, how much must they have been struck when they observed the loud and continuous cheers with which every statement reflecting upon the party appealing to that tribunal for justice, had been met by the other side of the House. He appealed to the House whether one single remark reflecting upon Mr. Warburton had not been received with marks of gladness by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. And upon what occasion? Mr. Warburton's situation stood in peculiar contrast with that of the two hon. Members whose remarks had been so loudly cheered. That contrast was to be presented in two respects. First, Mr. Warburton was not there to be heard on his own behalf. The other two hon. Gentlemen had been heard in their own behalf and most ably they had spoken. Mr. Warburton in the second place was praying for an inquiry, pledging himself to prove the allegations of his pe-

935
tition before a committee. The other hon. Gentlemen were there on the spot making their contradictions and opposing inquiry. Mr. Warburton said, "You make charges against me — my character is involved. Bring me to trial, and let me hear and meet the charges. "[An hon. Member: The Bill of Indemnity.] He contended that Mr. Warburton was there, because charges were made against him. [" No, no."] He trusted he might be heard. Any one of those Gentlemen who cried "no, no" so loudly might rise and do so in due form and at the proper time, and show that their "no, no" was accurate, but meanwhile he begged they would do him the favour to hear him, and perhaps he might succeed in offering some reason in confirmation of what he alleged. He repeated then, that Mr. Warburton was there, because charges had been made against him—because imputations had been cast upon him, and he felt desirous of being brought to the test of inquiry. He was certain that Mr. Warburton would not have appeared before them had it not been for that reason. Many observations had been made that were calculated to have a great effect, and had taken such effect, upon the House. Mr. Warburton had resigned his seat, as he said, to save his friends from exposure in regard to the conduct they had pursued on behalf of one of the hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House. But it had been asked, if such were Mr. Warburton's motive, how was that consistent with his being here, and by his petition impeaching them and their conduct. Mr. Warburton said, "I will resign my seat; I will sacrifice my interests to save my friends;" but when the facts of the case are turned into a personal charge of corruption; when Gentlemen high in authority, acting, no doubt, most honourably upon their convictions, make charges, and hint insinuations against Mr. Warburton, then Mr. Warburton said—and he had a right to say— "I give up my friends, indeed I resign my seat; 1 sacrifice my interest; I waive all I had been striving to attain—all these I can give up and resign; but I will not give them up my character. When a gentleman came forward, thus praying for inquiry, and stating that his object in seeking it was because charges had been made against him which he sought to rebut; upon what authority was it that hon. Gentlemen took upon themselves, before the inquiry was granted, and perhaps en-
936
tertaining the intention of opposing it, to assume that he was guilty? Was that fair i —was it just? Mr. Warburton would not have presented that petition had he not found that his resignation had been construed into a fear of exposure. Then he said "I will bring that speedily to the test, for I will apply for a committee, so that if I again present myself as a member of that House, I may do so boldly, taking my stand upon the report of that committee." Was it at all inconsistent that a man should sacrifice his own interests to save those from whom he had received kindness and support, but that when the matter was made one of personal reproach and disgrace he should say "I can no longer submit. There are men so unjust and precipitate, so ready to condemn from party and personal motives, that I must bring these matters to a test. Do not let my character be taken away upon cheers and by hints and allegations, but inquire and judge upon the evidence." Yet when Mr. Warburton challenged inquiry, presenting himself in opposition to the two hon. Gentlemen, saying he was ready to meet them, and show that his own conduct was just and honourable in every respect, it appeared that judgment was already passed against him, though he was not there to speak in his own behalf. The petition prayed for inquiry into compromises that had taken place, one being that under which one hon. Member on the other side had been returned, and the second being the withdrawal of the cross petition. The withdrawment of that petition took place in February last. Now, Mr. Warburton's object was, to have these things inquired into. He could not come into the House to ask that an enquiry be entered upon for the purpose of clearing his character. The House would not grant an inquiry on such a ground. But Mr. Warburton was perfectly justified, and his motive was a highly proper one, in asking for inquiry on such a ground as the House could recognise. The petition, without making distinct charges, stated facts which resolved themselves into charges. Mr. Warburton charged one hon. Gentleman with having obtained his seat upon a pledge, and that after having given that pledge, he did not redeem it, but afterwards withdrew his petition, being actuated by private and personal motives of his own. The hon. Member himself had admitted having given the pledge, but said that it was done away with by a second

937
arrangement. What was that arrangement? Mr. Warburton's account of it was that this arrangement having been made, the hon. Member went down to Bridport, Mr. Warburton engaging to offer no opposition. When the hon. Gentleman went down, however, an opposition was started by a gentleman named Hansell. Mr. Warburton wrote that letter, the reading of which had caused so much merriment in the House, and whatever some gentlemen might think, he thought that was a bonâ fide letter, written in fulfilment of the engagement entered into by Mr. Warburton, to prevent opposition, and calculated to effect that object. Yet the motive of Mr. Warburton had been alleged to be to prevent an exposure which, if it were made, the hon. Member now sitting had said, in a letter, nothing could prevent the borough being disfranchised. Upon that Mr. Warburton resigned his seat. Mr. Warburton had done everything calculated to effect the purpose of the arrangement, that there should be no opposition. That letter was written, and immediately afterwards a letter was sent by the agent of the hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane) to Mr. Warburton's agent, expressing the writer's sense of Mr. Warburton's honourable and straightforward conduct. The hon. Member requested Mr. Warburton's agent, Mr. Warburton himself not being present, and being wholly ignorant of the fact, to introduce him to Mr. Hansell's committee; and with that committee, without the knowledge of Mr. Warburton, the hon. Member entered into an arrangement, which, as he said, was that second arrangement which superseded his former one with Mr. Warburton himself. But of the latter arrangement Mr. Warburton had never heard a word. If the hon. Member and Mr. Warburton were at issue on this point, there were written documents to show which was the correct statement. Mr. Warburton now said that the hon. Member made that arrangement without his (Mr. Warburton's) presence or knowledge, and it was made with persons with whom Mr. Warburton had no connection. Did the last arrangement supersede the first? The letter he was about to refer to was written after the latter arrangement, yet recognizing the first. The letter was as follows: —
" I need not assure you that, except to carry out the arrangement for the benefit of Mr. Warburton, and your friends as well as
938
his, and in strict conformity with the honourable understanding between us, Mr. Cochrane and I have no wish to take any steps whatever: and that, therefore, we feel ourselves entirely in your and Mr. Warburton's hands, to act as you may direct, as to the actions and petition for Mr. Warburton's benefit. You will see Mr. Warburton's very correct and honourable feelings towards us in this matter, and all I beg of you. for his sake, is, not hastily to decide on steps as to Hutchinson's actions, &c, which may have the effect at last to leave Mr. Warburton the only sufferer."
That was written on the 27th of September, and the arrangement with the hon. Member was made several days before. An extraordinary use had been made of that, for a passage had been read which wholly altered the meaning, a part only having been quoted, which made it appear as if Mr. Warburton had stimulated the actions against Mr. Hutchinson, which was not the case. A criminal information had been moved for against the hon. Member for bribery, and which was now pending, unless disposed of by compromise; besides which there were two indictments and six actions. There was an action against the hon. Member for 25,500 l. brought by the person who had acted as agent. There were actions against four other persons. What had become of those actions? It had been said by the agent of the hon. Member (Mr. Cochrane), that evidence was so abundant to convict the other hon. Member, that the only difficulty was how to select it; and that the case would be perfectly sustained without compromising Mr. Warburton's friends; yet afterwards the agent to the hon. Member wrote to Mr. Warburton's agent, pressing for evidence, and on the 2nd. of February application was made for that evidence, and stating unless it was furnished the petition would be withdrawn. Upon the 19th a letter was received from the hon. Gentleman opposite, dated, not from London, as it had been said, but from the Carlton Club. It was natural enough that the hon. Gentleman, on withdrawing his petition, should consult with his friends at the Carlton. ["Oh, oh"]. He was sorry that anything he had said should create such agony among hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was stating that a letter was written requiring the evidence to be furnished by a given day, namely, by the 21st of February. It was furnished by that day; but the petition, notwithstanding, was withdrawn, and the letter written which the hon.

939
Member had read. Then, how stood the charge that Mr. Warburton had made? Mr. Warburton's charge was this:—
" You gave me an honourable pledge to prosecute the petition—you have withdrawn that petition—you sought an opportunity of withdrawing it by calling upon me to furnish evidence by a given day. I furnished that evidence a day previous to that upon which you require it, yet, in spite of that circumstance, you withdraw your petition. At the moment, too, at which you withdraw your petition, you were under prosecution by a criminal information, and your friends were under indictments for bribery upon several actions."
Mr. Warburton then said,—
"I think you withdrew your petition, abandoned your pledge, and kept your seat in breach of your word solemnly given to me."
So stood Mr. Warburton's pledge against the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Cochrane). What was Mr. Warburton's charge against the hon. Member upon that (the Opposition) side of the House (Mr. Mitchell)? It was this:
"You came into the borough of Bridport— you were supported by my friends in that borough—they supported you under an engagement that my seat was at all events to be secured—you were attended by friends of your own who practised corruption to such an extent as to involve my agents—involyed them to such a degree, as that, although I defy you to prove any corruption against me personally, it yet became impossible for me to defend my seat."
Mr. Warburtonhad never admitted— nay, he had everywhere distinctly denied that his return, or at least his election, was procured, either directly or indirectly, by bribery or corruption, practised by any person having his authority. There was no pretence for saying that Mr. Warburton was cognizant of the bribery that was going on, or that he was himself in any way mixed up with it. Mr. Warburton now came before the House, and challenged the proof of it. Mr. Warburton said to the hon. Member,—
" You were supported by my friends, under an engagement that my seat was to be secured."
The hon. Member admitted that fact. So much of Mr. Warburton's charge was substantially admitted. What happened? Mr. Warburton found that in consequence of the conduct of his agents he was implicated in the corruption that had been practised—not only that he was implicated
940
himself, but that his friends would be severely exposed if he attempted to defend his seat. Mr. Warburton did not affect to say that the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell) had not so used his (Mr. Warburton's) friends as to implicate him in the corruption that was practised. Mr. Warburton said—
" I believe I could not defend my seat, not because of any personal bribery on my own part, but because of the bribery practised by my agents, induced by the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell)—therefore I will not embark in the contest before an election committee. You have been committing bribery to such an extent, that I will not join with you in defending the petition. I will not go before the House, of which I was formerly a Member, in order to stand the test of whether bribery has been committed or not, when I know that you have been guilty of it, and principally through agents of my own; therefore, unless you resign your seat, I shall resign mine."
Was Mr. Warburton wrong in resigning under such circumstances? If the bribery could be proved against Mr. Warburton's agents, why should he join with the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell), of whom he had so much reason to complain, and make common cause with him in defending the petition? Mr. Warburton said he would not do so. The hon. Member, notwithstanding the engagement entered into prior to the election, had not resigned, he still retained his seat. What was his reason for doing so? The hon. Member said:—
"I thought I could maintain my seat, and I have maintained it."
The question that then naturally suggested itself was this—" How have you maintained your seat?" By a compromise with the hon. Member opposite, who, for some cause or other was induced to withdraw his petition, notwithstanding the fact that he had such abundant evidence to support it, that his only difficulty was which part of the evidence to select. That being the case, had Mr. Warburton made out the statements set forth in his petitions as far as these points were concerned? Mr. Warburton presented himself to the House protesting that his return at the last election was rendered invalid by no personal bribery on his part, direct or indirect, and he prayed inquiry into the circumstances of the election. Mr. Warburton stated in his petition that in the election of 1826 he had paid what was called "' head-money." He was not going to defend that, or to say one word in ex-

941
tenuation of it. All he hoped was, that no Gentleman on the opposite side of the House had ever paid it. He did not turn his head to that side of the House lest, he should be supposed to be looking at any particular Member. He believed, however, that admissions had been made in that House by Gentlemen highly honourable and respectable, that they had paid "head-money." Perhaps if he were to gaze about him it might be in his power to point out some particular Members from whom, if he were not much mistaken, he had heard that admission. He did not mean to say one word in extenuation of the practice: and whatever the censure that might justly fall upon Mr. Warburton for having paid it in 1826, there it must rest. He could not defend it or extenuate it. It seemed to him, however, that an impression had been made upon the House (by no means an accurate one) by what had been read by the hon. Member, which he, as the Friend of Mr. Warburton, should regret should remain. He would, therefore, briefly allude to it, with the view of removing it. It might be supposed, from what had been read, that Mr. Warburton had made a speech in that House utterly inconsistent with certain facts. He had never heard of that speech: but it was said to have been made in 1831. Mr. Warburton, in his petition, stated that in 1826 he paid "head money." He then went on to say,
" In 1830 your petitioner was re-elected under the expectation that, at the usual time he would comply with the ancient usage; but that shortly afterwards, on the introduction into Parliament of a bill for reforming your honourable House, the principal political supporters of your petitioner in the borough assembled and determined that the custom and practice of paying head money' should be abolished, and required your petitioner, on pain of losing their support, to abstain from paying the ' head money ' for the previous and any future election; and that your petitioner obeyed their direction, but devoted a much larger sum than the ' head money' for his then last election would have amounted to, in the erection of a public building for the advantage of the town; and your petitioner begs to add that, to the credit of the poorer electors at that period, not more than two individuals complained that your petitioner had disappointed them; and that from and after the period referred to, the practice in the borough of paying ' head money ' entirely ceased."
Now, he apprehended, that nothing could be more correct than the conduct of those voters of Bridport. At a subsequent period, in 1831, a certain number of per-
942
sons in that borough presented a petition to the House of Commons praying for Parliamentary reform; and then it was that Mr. Warburton was said to have made the speech that had been referred to, which was to this effect—that none of the parties whose names were attached to the petition had, in Mr. Warburton's belief, ever engaged in bribery or corruption. Was he right in assuming that that was the effect of Mr. Warburton's speech. If he were right in that assumption, then, he asked, was there anything inconsistent in such an assertion from Mr. Warburton, when, in the previous year 1830, a number of the electors of Bridport met and threatened him to withdraw their support from him unless he discontinued the practice of paying "head money." Mr. Warburton said from that time he had never paid "head money," or made any other payment that could be deemed bribery; and when his consistency was called in question for asserting in 1831 that bribery was not practised in Bridport, and for praying in 1842 that an inquiry might be made into the corrupt practices prevailing in that borough, he defended Mr. Warburton's constituency by stating that Mr. Warburton was willing to sacrifice his seat, and to continue dispossessed of it as long as he could do so without being subject to the charge of personal corruption, but that when insinuations were thrown out against him, implying, in the strongest manner, that he himself had been guilty of bribery, it then became imperative upon him, in vindication of his own character, to pray the House to enter into an inquiry. If there were any warrant for the charges that had been made against him, how unwise would it be in Mr. Warburton to press for such an inquiry. And if the hon. Gentlemen who now sat for the borough were pure and unimpeachable, how unwise would it be in them to resist the inquiry. But it happened, that he who was accused, was anxious for inquiry, whilst those who retained the seats and were cheered by the House, were afraid of inquiry. He now came to offer one or two observations with respect to the question with which the House had more immediately to deal, namely, the reference of the petition. Upon what ground could it be met—the House having nothing to do with the motives and feelings which prompted parties to make applications to it—upon what ground, when the House found that cer-

943
tain criminal proceedings had been instituted in the courts of justice against both the hon. Members who now sat for the borough—when the House found it admitted that one hon. Member had obtained his seat upon an agreement to present a petition., and that the other had obtained his seat upon an engagement not to present and to prosecute a petition in a certain manner—when the House became aware of these circumstances, upon what ground could it refuse to enter upon an inquiry. They had not mere surmise nor report— they had the best evidence, Mr. Warburton's conviction that bribery had been committed, who, though he denied his personal corruption, yet, by the fact of his resignation, admitted that corruption had taken place. Nay, more, they had both the sitting Members admitting the fact, and attempting to throw obloquy on Mr. Warburton, by saying that he called on the House to disfranchise the borough. Even if that was a just charge against Mr. Warburton, still it was not less a reason why the House should interfere. When the bribery was admitted by both the Members, would the House refuse an inquiry? He was aware of only one objection to such a course. It might be said that the bribery was so extensive and general, that it could not be remedied by a particular measure against a particular borough, and that a partial prosecution was impracticable. But the bribery in the present case was admitted, and as they had granted an inquiry into other five cases of allegation of bribery, he thought they could not, consistently refuse inquiry in the present case. It had been said, that "Mr. Warburton had broken confidence? He had broken no confidence. There was not the shadow of a pretence for saying so. The agent of the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Mitchell), on being refused payment of his bill, went to the agent of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cochrane), and delivered up all the papers. Had that hon. Gentleman not received them? He had a letter in his possession, in which that agent attempted to justify this betrayal of confidence. But nothing could justify such a betrayal of trust, and he regretted that the hon. Gentleman had obtained his seat by such impure means. In regard to the private treaty with Mr. Hansell, the correspondence connected with which had been produced by the hon. Gentleman opposite against Mr. Warburton—what
944
did Mr. Warburton say as to that treaty? He said that he would have nothing to do with it; and yet, when Mr. Warburton was defending himself, he was told that he had been guilty of a breach of confidence. What did Mr. Warburton say when he came to that House, in consequence of being charged with personal corruption? He said that he could not deny that most corrupt practices prevailed, though he denied that he was mixed up with them; and he prayed the House for an inquiry to ascertain whether that corruption could be fairly chargeable against him or not. Although he considered the subject of bribery as one of deep interest, and as one requiring the immediate attention of the House, he avowed that, in the present case, he was probably more influenced by private friendship, than public duty. He thought he had done right in justifying Mr. Warburton in asking for an inquiry, and he did not see how the House could refuse it without acting inconsistently in reference to what they had done in several other cases.
Mr. Mitchellexplained. He had admitted that bribery had taken place, but he denied that he had any share in it.
Sir J. Walshsaid, as the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Liskeard had alluded to him as the immediate cause of the discussion which had taken place on the present occasion, he wished to be permitted to state the very slight connection which he had with the subject. His observations, with reference to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, arose from this circumstance —The hon. and learned Gentleman's reason for bringing forward his charges against five individuals was, that they were matter of general notoriety, and he also particularly impressed upon the House that he was not actuated by any party motives; and the hon. and learned Member certainly did proceed most impartially. On the one side, he selected a right hon. Gentleman who held a high office in the preceding Government. On the other, he turned to two or three Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House. The House, however, was divided, not into two, but into some three or four parties, and he did think it rather unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member did not include Bridport, particularly as the compromise which took place there had excited so much atten-

945
tion. It was for this reason, that he drew the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the subject. His reason for now addressing the House was the rather singular position in which he found himself. At the time he made the appeal to the hon. and learned Member, he was not aware that it was intended to enter into a general investigation on the subject of bribery in the boroughs to which the motion applied. He had subsequently objected in a very strong manner to the committee constituted on the demand of a single Member, who merely said he believed certain things had occurred. An investigation which might materially affect the rights and privileges of a large number of persons ought not to be entered into in this manner. It was certainly on his suggestion that this matter had been brought before the House, and that Mr. Warburton had petitioned to have the matter taken into consideration. The case had assumed a new aspect, in consequence of the introduction of certain words by the hon. and learned Gentleman; and if he assented to the present motion he should be acting in the most inconsistent manner, because he should be voting for an investigation with respect to Bridport when he objected to such an inquiry taking place in other boroughs. It was almost impossible for any hon. Member to take the course which he was now doing without subjecting himself to the charge of putting himself forward as the champion of corruption, and as desirous of shielding corruption. He wished to deny, distinctly and emphatically, the truth of any such imputation. His objection to the inquiries of the committee being extended in this manner was, that it must necessarily be a partial committee, and that such an inquiry would create a most dangerous precedent. The inquiry was at present in the hands of a Member of the minority, who had procured the appointment of the committee on his making certain allegations, and expressing his belief therein. On some future occasion a Member of the majority or an unscrupulous Minister, might make the same allegations, and place different boroughs on their trial, thus exercising a power of intimidation which would control the freedom of the Members of the House, and also the freedom of election; and backed by an unscrupulous majority, a Minister so disposed might materially
946
infringe upon the freedom and independence of the House of Commons. For the reason which he had stated, he should certainly vote against the motion.
Mr. Brothertonmoved the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. Humethought, they ought to settle the question to-night. They had had discussion enough, and after the disclosures made, no one could doubt of the necessity for inquiry.
Mr. B. Escottsaid, he had a strong objection to voting for the inquiry, because he had heard the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard ask what distinction there was between the present inquiry, and that moved for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The distinction between the two inquiries was this—that asked for by the hon. and learned Member for Bath was asked for by an honorable man against whom no imputation of bribery rests. What was asked for to-night was not required by a Member, but by one who had been a Member, and who had admitted himself to have been guilty of a crime. He maintained, that it was beneath the dignity of that House to grant any inquiry to one who could not demand it with clean hands.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that upon reading the petition, and upon hearing the statements made to-night, he had come to the conclusion, that there was ground for making inquiry into the various allegations, at least, as far as compromise was concerned. It seemed to him, that the reasons which had influenced the House in the other cases, ought to have the same weight in this. He did not think, that the point taken by his hon. Friend (Mr. Escott), viz., that the party charging compromise admitted his own participation, was a sufficient Parliamentary ground for non-interference. Neither could he entirely agree with the hon. Baronet (Sir J. Walsh) that this petition ought to be exempted from the inquiry of the committee, because certain words regarding bribery had been subsequently introduced. If bribery were to be exempted in this case, so it ought in the others, and although the alteration might have been made without due notice, he did not see how it was possible to avoid investigating the fact of bribery, when it appeared, that the compromise had been occasioned by the desire to conceal it. He was, however, very much afraid, that the committee recently

947
appointed had undertaken a task which was almost impossible for it to perform. Only five cases, it was true, had been referred to it, but if the investigation proceeded on the broad ground of ascertaining whether bribery had been committed, without reference to compromise, he did not see how it could be concluded in the course of the present Session. Of one thing, he felt persuaded, that the less these proceedings possessed of a criminatory character towards individuals, the better. The House ought not to contemplate individual punishment; he did not mean individual punishment, so much as individual degradation; that ought not to be the object in view; because it was out of the question to deny, that for the last twenty or thirty years, compromises of this sort, had constantly been entered into. It would be absurd to dispute the fact; and to select five or six cases, and to hold the parties up to exposure or vengeance, would be manifestly unjust. Every man who had sat in Parliament for thirty years must know, that it was never thought to imply a charge against a Member, that in maintaining a personal right, he had done so at the smallest cost, and with the least trouble. The House ought to consider what was the most effectual mode of instituting a searching inquiry into bribery in the following cases. Either where corruption existed in a borough, and individuals were not inclined to petition for the purpose of exposing it; or in cases of compromises made before election committees, in order to prevent exposure. The noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) had undertaken to bring in a bill upon that subject, and he was of opinion, that the preliminary committee ought rather to consider the best mode of facilitating the future administration of justice, than of spending a long period in inquiries into particular cases of delinquency. Such a course was more fitting the character of the House, and more likely to accomplish a general public benefit. After the impunity which had attended such arrangements, for so many years, such was the great object at which the House ought to aim, and he thought, that the noble Lord would act wisely in not hastily bringing forward his measure, in the course of which, he, in perfect good faith, had offered his co-operation, as far as was consistent with those principles of justice which governed the proceedings of the
948
ordinary tribunals of the country. The case of Bridport would certainly be an addition to the labours of the committee now sitting, and, perhaps, it would be better o decide to-night upon the second branch of the proposition of the hon. Member for Liskeard. The great advantage of the bill contemplated by the noble Lord would probably be, that it would be passed in such a form as to enable the House to inquire into alleged compromises of this kind—not merely prospectively, but retrospectively. Looking at the particular terms of the motion before the House, he must repeat, that looking at the general principle, it seemed to him, that it fell within the rule which had already been laid down. He reserved his opinion on the question which was to be brought forward by the hon. Baronet, as to the actual powers of the committee, and whether the terms of appointment conformed with the original intention of the House, but he must observe that it seemed expedient that the committee should possess the right of inquiring into bribery, when it might be supposed, that the bribery determined the nature of the compromise. If, indeed, it were to be a committee to ascertain whether bribery had been committed at the last election, he was certain, that the first case would occupy more time than the remainder of the Session. What he now recommended was, that the sense of the House should be taken upon the preliminary motion, and that the question—what practice should be pursued, should be left for future consideration. Such was the best judgment he could form at present, not having yet heard the full extent of the case, but only what had been stated in the course of the present debate.
Lord J. Russelldiffered from the right hon. Baronet, and probably from a large majority of those who heard him; he thought, that there was less reason for referring this petition to the committee now sitting than had existed in any of the former cases. When he stated, that there was less reason, he meant as regarded the points to be inquired into. The point most affecting the character of the House was that mentioned by the right hon. Baronet,—viz., whether the compromise that had been effected, had been occasioned by a desire to avoid the exposure of bribery. The establishment of this fact would necessarily lead to further legislation on the

949
subject. When he said, that there was less ground in this case than in some others, it was because the statements in Mr. Warburton's petition, and the speeches of the two hon. Members, contained all the facts relating to the compromise that could in any other shape be laid before the House. He did not wish to enter, nor could the committee conveniently enter into the precise engagement, or into the implied understanding and various disputes and quarrels between the three gentlemen. He must say, that they were unfortunate, and had led to a not very creditable exposure of transactions. The investigation of this matter might lead to a general inquiry into the bribery and corruption prevailing in Bridport, and that might end in the disfranchisement of the borough. If that were the object, the motion ought to have been different to that the committee would carry the inquiry that which had been submitted by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. Buller.) It ought not to be a proposal for a committee to inquire into the various allegations, but for an examination at the Bar, or before a committee specially appointed to confine its labours to the case of Bridport. It was obvious, that if they added the case of Bridport to the five or six other places, and endeavoured to show the extent of bribery which was supposed to have taken place, not only would it require the whole of the present Session, but also the next, before they arrived at an adequate and satisfactory result. He thought, that there was less reason for inquiry in this case than in any others, as the compromise had been admitted, not only in the petition, but by Members in that House; but it might be as well to have the facts more regularly recorded, by going before a select committee, than by rejecting the motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. On that narrow ground, therefore, he was not disposed to disagree with the present motion. Let him say generally in reference to the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that words had been added to that motion after he had left the House, understanding that the motion was assented to, which he, for one, did not expect to have been added, and therefore in consenting, not perhaps willingly, to let those words remain, in the appointment of the committee, he must say, in what sense he conceived the committee should inquire into the bribery. He conceived, the com-
950
mittee should inquire first, whether any compromise had been entered into; and in the next place, whether it did require any further inquiry, whether such compromises did not lead to the surrender of the seat independent of any bribery. If the surrender of his seat might have been caused by other circumstances, if a Member found that he was in an impaired state of health, or that the duties of the House were incompatible with his private business, he might resign his seat. Thus the committee, in all cases, would not be able to ascertain the reason why one Member had surrendered his seat, unless they went so far as to inquire into the general allegations of bribery. Further than this, it was utterly impossible for this committee to do justice to the various cases in the various boroughs; they could not expect that the committee would carry inquiry so for us to enable the House to determine whether it would either suspend the writ, or proceed to disfranchise the borough entirely. He thought, in the first place, that this was beyond their power in any limited time, and he conceived in the second place that this was not the mode in which a committee for such a purpose ought to be appointed. There were not now, but there ought to be, two modes by which such an inquiry should be carried on. They might either trust to an election committee, before which the facts would come out and appear in the report, or if there was any reason, as there was in the case of Grampound, and on which he recollected he obtained the assent of the House to his proposal, on which there should be a special inquiry, they might have a particular inquiry into the state of the borough itself, unconnected with the conduct of individuals, or any right to a seat in this House. The present committee to inquire into election compromises would not answer either of those purposes. He believed that this committee could only ascertain whether in the several cases to be brought before them the Members had effected compromises, and whether such transactions had taken place for the purpose of avoiding an investigation into bribery and corruption. If this were so, there would be reason why the House should provide a better measure for the treatment of bribery and corruption, and not to rest satisfied with the inquiry which took place in the existing committees, where the question was between individuals

951
as to their rights. In this restrictive sense, he did not object to the appointment of a select committee, although he was certainly sorry that it had been thought necessary by Mr. Warburton, and that it was thought necessary for hon. Gentlemen who were Members of that House, to enter into the details of transactions which he sincerely wished could have been spared.
Sir R. Peelthought that he must have imperfectly stated his views to the House, for he generally concurred with the opinion of the noble Lord; he certainly had arrived at the same conclusions.
Sir R. H. Inglisdiffered from the noble Lord in the conclusions at which he had arrived. The constitution had vested in a specified tribunal the investigation and decision of all questions as to those affairs, so far as related to the rights of individuals. So far as public morals were concerned, the law had invested another tribunal with the power of punishing the individuals. In the present instance they had not tried either the first of these tribunals— they had not tried before a committee the election petition. They had tried the other. There were five actions pending, involving penalties of 25000 l. They were now attempting to transfer this jurisdiction from the properly constituted tribunal to another tribunal which they themselves declared to be already overworked. What reason had they to think that there was not one of the other twenty cases which had been withdrawn during the present Session, that did not require inquiry as much as Bridport? Did they mean to select here and there a particular instance to carry out some party view? Besides, the hon. and learned Member for Bath had not yet got the machinery on which the whole success of his experiment depended. The bill for indemnifying witnesses had only been read a second time, on the understanding that the discussion should take place on the next stage. Was there any hope that the bill would pass that House under a week, or that it would pass the other under two more? Did the hon. Member think that the bill would come perfect for the House to act upon before the end of June? He only asked the House not to deceive themselves and practically to deceive the country, that they would be able to take effectual means to prevent bribery for the future, and to punish it for the past, by referring this matter to a tribunal which was not
952
yet in existence, and which must sit at a period when it was physically impossible they would conclude the inquiry.
Viscount Palmerstonwould venture to submit to the House one or two observations in reference to what fell from the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, when he reverted to that part of the labours of the committee which related to the election compromises. He might have taken an erroneous view of the matter, but he wished to submit, in reference to that object of the committee, whether the House had not run away with an exaggerated idea of the question to be submitted to the committee. Hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that all compromises of election petitions were culpable, and especially if they had for their object the withdrawal from the cognizance of the committee of the fact of bribery having been committed. He thought that this view was founded on a misconception of what was the existing law. The law for the trial of controverted elections treated the application for the seat as for the private right of a private individual; it did not let in the interests of the public, so far as those interests were concerned. He thought that this was a fault in the existing law, he thought it was a law which ought to be corrected; but, whilst it remained they could not complain of individuals taking advantage of the law, and carrying out its intention to obtain their own particular rights. The act for the trial of controverted elections stated, that the petitioner might withdraw his petition at any time he pleased, and therefore it invited the petitioner to compromise if it was for his interest to do so. But what said the act with regard to the sitting Member—-the defending party? Why, the 85th section of the act stated, that if the committee should find that the defence of the silting Member had been frivolous and vexatious, it might punish such Member for having made that defence, by imposing upon him the penalty of paying the costs of the petitioner. Therefore, the sitting Member was told to consider whether the defence he had to make was a primâ facie good one or a primâ facie bad one, in order that he might not be saddled with the expenses of his opponents, and incur a penalty for having brought the question to trial. He would take a case in which flagrant bribery had been committed. He would

953
suppose that the sitting Member's legal adviser told him that his agents had been so indiscreet, and so blameable, as to have committed him in acts of bribery, which could be proved without the least {difficulty, and that his seat could not be maintained. What was the condition, then, in which the sitting Member was placed— first, by the law, and next by the impression which seemed to prevail in that House? If he persevered in his defence, and in opposing the petition, and put the petitioner to the proof by compelling him to adduce evidence, in order to establish the fact of bribery and criminality of the borough, why the committee might turn round upon him and fine him for having so done, and sentence him to pay the costs of his opponent; and, on the other hand, if consulting his own interest he should retire from the contest, and make a compromise with that opponent, by which he should agree to give up his his seat without putting the petitioner to any further expense, then, according to the present disposition of the House, he was to have a committee of inquiry appointed to investigate the transaction; and he was to be held up to the public as a person having committed an odious offence in retiring from the contest, and not bringing the question before the election committee. Now, he would seriously submit it to the just and generous consideration of the House, whether they thought a Member ought to be exposed to this alternative, and whether, in fact, hon. Members were not running a little too fast. Were they not going too rapidly in attaching to these compromises that degree of criminality which there appeared to be a general disposition to attach to it? For his part, he was desirous that the law should be altered. He thought that the public ought to be introduced, as a third party— the party indeed, that was principally interested in these cases, because he entirely differed from the principle on which the present law stood, as regarded this question. The law now looked upon these things as matters between the individuals who sought to obtain their seats on the one side, and those who wished on the other. In fact, Parliament as private was no such thing. It was not the property of either party, but it was a great trust held for the benefit of the public;
954
and these trials as to what individual should hold the seat, ought to be tried mainly with a view to the public interests, and for the purpose of establishing purity of election, and not for deciding whether one particular party or the other should enjoy the seat. It was not a private right, but a public trust imposed for the benefit of the people at large. He felt, therefore, that the main object to which the House should direct their attention, should be the system, and not to individuals—that they should aim at making such a change of the law as would prevent those compromises in future, and enable the House to punish bribery wherever it existed. For these purposes, he would cheerfully and cordially give his vote, but for all the reasons he had given, and from all that had passed, he did not think, that the committee which had been agreed to could arrive at any conclusion that would materially assist them in the correction of that which he thought it ought to be the duty of the House to remedy. He fancied that no man would be disposed to doubt the great extent to which bribery had prevailed; on the contrary, they all knew that the system had been unfortunately more extensive than what could be confined to the cases which had been specifically mentioned. Was it then expedient to pursue an inquiry to the full extent to which bribery had prevailed? He did not think it was, and he would tell the House why. If they inquire at all, they ought to inquire to the full extent of the system that had been pursued. If the practice had been so extensive, as he was afraid it had, he thought that the public feeling, and the public morality would be best consulted by the House going at once to enact some law to prevent the recurrence of the system in future. If it could be proved to the country that the criminal practice had been most extensively pursued, it would rather tend to diminish the feeling of the public against any particular instances, because whenever an offence was participated in by large numbers, the sense and feeling of abhorrence became mitigated; and in the case of bribery, he thought that, in proportion as they showed the practice to have been extensive, would be the diminution of feeling against the individual offenders. He, therefore, should say, that the most useful object to which the labours of the committee could be directed, would be to consider in what

955
mode this practice could in future be most effectually prevented. That would be a more useful occupation of the committee than for them to inquire into a few out of the many cases of bribery, and holding up a small number of individuals to that odium which they should only share in conjunction with others. And, moreover, after the House had determined that in the case of Ipswich, where, undoubtedly, grounds for inquiry were at least quite as great as those in other cases, no inquiry should take place, he could hardly understand upon what principle the House could direct an inquiry in other and less established cases.
Lord Stanleysaid, that in a great part of the observations of the noble Lord he entirely concurred. He entirely concurred in those observations with which the noble Lord had commenced his speech—namely, that the House appeared to take up with an extraordinary degree of energy the investigation of that subject matter of compromise, which every man who had sat as long in Parliament as he had done must know was a matter of notoriety at every election for every consecutive Parliament; and he concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that the subject matter of these compromises followed as a matter of course from what was understood to be a most parliamentary usage. The noble Lord had stated that the investigation of bribery before an election committee was not a matter of trial of a public but of a private right. It was a question tried between two parties, and at the expense of those two parties—the one seeking to obtain the seat and the other to defend it, and each was always held to be at liberty to proceed just so far, and to stop at that particular point when he conceived that his own individual object was accomplished in obtaining or defending the seat, and to abstain from the defence of the petition when his object was accomplished, or when it appeared hopeless, or was from any other cause desirable not to press it further, but agreeing with the noble Lord in his statement of the object of an election committee as at present constituted, and thinking it desirable that the law should be so altered as to enable the public to have an interest in the discovery and investigation of bribery, which they had not at present. He certainly differed from the noble Lord in the view he took of the course which ought to be pursued in the
956
case of the committee about to be appointed, and he also differed from his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who said that there were but two courses which it was competent or desirable for that House to pursue. His hon. Friend said, there was an election committee to try the seat of the Member, and there was the criminal tribunal to which they might have recourse to investigate an individual act of bribery; that these were the only two courses open to the House. He said, if that were the case, there was a great gap which it was desirable for the House to fill up; there was a great interest which was not at present provided for. There were cases in which there was no object in coming before a criminal tribunal, and in which there was no object in incurring the expense of an investigation before a committee, and yet there might be flagrant cases of corruption and bribery in a borough; but the House must shut his eyes and with hard, because there was no public prosecutor whose own rights were concerned, or who could enforce the penal consequences, to bring the matter to light. He differed from his hon. Friend on this point, and he thought there was little if any difference between the noble Lord and his right hon. Friend, in the object proposed and the course to be pursued on the occasion, because the noble Lord appeared to consider there was still a third point to be aimed at, namely, the investigation of cases of bribery and corruption in which no individual had an object in instituting a prosecution. Such cases, he thought, ought to be within the jurisdiction of the House, not so much for the purpose of exposure or punishment of the individuals, as for the sake of adopting such a course of legislation as should provide an effectual remedy against the evil in future. In that case, what better course could they take, what more parliamentary ground could they have for future legislation than the illustration by evidence, and exemplification of the system in all its variations and modifications, as illustrated by the cases which had forced themselves upon the attention of the House. He thought there were great objections to referring every case to the committee appointed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He thought there was very great objection to keeping a parliamentary tribunal always I ready to receive every accusation of this

957
description that might be made—and he did not understand his right hon. Friend and the noble Lord, in assenting to the motion of the hon. Member, to pledge themselves to any distinct opinion, whether it were right that this case of Bridport should be referred to the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; but simply to pledge themselves to this, that on the petition of the late Member for Bridport, and the statements of the two sitting Members for that borough, it was not desirable this House should shrink from entering into an inquiry as to the proceedings which had taken place at the last and previous election for Bridport, not for the purpose of affecting the seat, or of visiting either the hon. Members for the borough with any penal consequences, but for the purpose of laying before the House the case of Bridport as an exemplification of ' that which had taken place, and might take place again to-morrow, and year after year, with impunity, if the House of Commons did not show they were determined, by all the means in their power, to put a stop to it. Though he admitted that no case could be more full or complete than that which was now before the House, yet it should be remembered that a great part of the statement was not on record; that it was in their minds, ears, and would be in their recollection, as the statements of the two hon. Members for Bridport. But, admitting that the whole of that were on record, and that there would be very little in the case to add to the labours of the committee appointed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he was not prepared to make a distinct declaration of his opinion, that it was a case which ought to go to the committee so appointed; while, on the other hand, with reference to the motion of which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had given notice with regard to future proceedings for the purification of this House, no matter how extensive the practices of bribery might have been, that was no reason why the House should not attempt its future purification by an universal and general exposure of the practices, and by honest endeavour to defeat those practices by legislative measures. Without expressing an opinion whether this case should be referred to the committee of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, still it was a case to which the House should not shut
958
their eyes and say, "We will bear all things which have been stated by petition, and by the Members, to our own House, and yet we will not take any steps for placing this state of things as a record, for the purpose of serving as a groundwork for future legislation, and for the exposure of such practices as are alleged to take place, as a beacon and warning to other boroughs at future elections." With this caution, then, desiring to guard himself, in acquiescing in the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard, as he thought his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) would guard himself also, in assenting to a motion couched in precisely the same words as the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath—wishing to guard himself against the implication which might appear to follow that, as a matter of course, he was prepared to refer this and any subsequent case which might hereafter be presented to the committee appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, he was prepared to affirm that this was a case which ought not to be passed unnoticed by the House, and that, for the purposes of future legislation, an inquiry ought to take place in the case of Bridport. Thinking, then, that it was a case which should be inquired into, and guarding himself against any construction which might be put on his assenting to words precisely similar to those in which the hon. Member for Bath had framed his motion; and looking to it as a motion assenting to the necessity of an inquiry into the circumstances of the case, he, for one, was prepared to give his cordial assent to the first motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard.
Mr. G. Bankes:Let them see to what an extent they were opening the doors of this House, if they attempted an inquiry of this nature. It was not because Mr. Warburton was at a former period a Member of this House that they should give more attention to his petition than to a petition of any private individual. If they gave a preference to Mr. Warburton on this occasion, how would they be able, in future, when any disappointed candidate, however low in character, mean in station, unknown or ignoble, or however little patronised by a political party, chose to send his petition, alleging that those who were the Members ought not to retain their seats, and dishonourably endeavouring to calumniate them, by making

959
charges of bribery against them—how would they feel entitled to reject a similar motion? He wished to impress upon the House that it could not, with any sense of justice, admit this petition, though it was that of a Gentleman who had long been known to them as a Member of this House, and who was entitled to their respect and consideration; and the reasons he had stated he thought were a sufficient ground for saving "No" to the present motion. The noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston), and the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley) had stated that, according to the existing law, the question before an election committee was merely a private question between party and party. He begged leave to say that he did not agree with them in that view of the matter; for the acceptance of the office of a Member of Parliament was, in the eye of the law, a public duty which could not be legally refused. Therefore the public were concerned in the decision of a tribunal appointed to judge such questions; and it was upon that ground, as he understood, that the committee was appointed on the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath. The present was a case of a wholly different nature from those to be referred to that committee, and therefore he should oppose the motion.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, it was unpleasant to him that the question had assumed the appearance of one of a personal character. He must, as a matter of duty, return his warmest thanks to the Members of the Government who had spoken on this occasion, and particularly the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) and the noble Lord (Lord Stanley), for the very cordial and effective assistance they had given in promoting the adoption of remedial measures against bribery. The conduct of the right hon. Baronet and the noble Lord was deserving the highest praise. He begged to assure the House that it was not the object of any hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House in promoting those inquiries to gratify vindictive feelings; they thought that the best way of laying a groundwork for future legislation on the subject of bribery was to place before the public some samples of what had been going on at elections and before election committees. Though he agreed entirely with the noble Lord in what he had said with respect to that which was of paramount importance to the House, that remedial measures
960
should be adopted to prevent compromises and to put an end to bribery; and though he said it was a most important thing to carry out such bills as those proposed by the noble Lord, yet he was sure that the inquiry proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Bath was precisely that which was likely to carry out the object which they all had in view. They knew that House was taken by fits; that cold fits followed hot fits, and that then again the House could be very cold. Now, he was anxious to take advantage of the glow of good which he felt necessarily would follow the adoption of some of those remedial measures. But there might be a way in which the inquiry might be rendered unnecessary, if the noble Lord were to take the chance of carrying these bills with temperate and wise provisions, so that before the committee entered into the inquiry they might be told, "We have got these remedial measures." He meant to say, that when these bills should be passed, the strongest enemies of bribery would not care for this inquiry. But, at the same time, let them not give up the bird in the hand for two in the bush. Now, there were those who objected to refer these cases to inquiry. The noble Lord seemed to think that the matter not having been introduced in the first reference, it would afford a precedent for making such matters the subject of constant reference, and that whatever might occur in future, the House would become a standing committee to which these cases might be referred. He admitted the force of this argument, but the case of Bridport was one which, in order of time, ought to have been taken first. It was an oversight of the hon. and learned Member for Bath that he had not done so. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in conclusion, said he would move only the first part of his motion, leaving the second part as an adjourned debate.
Sir R. Peelthought the best course would be to postpone the decision on the question as to the reference to the committee to another day. But there was another point worthy of consideration— namely, that the hon. and learned Member for Bath had a bill under the consideration of the House, given an indemnity to witnesses in particular cases which were to go before this committee, and that committee would have additional facilities of hearing witnesses upon oath. If this petition were referred to another commit-

961
tee, the power of that committee would I be much less extensive. He thought that the multiplication of these bills of indemnity would be a great evil, as affecting the privileges of the House.
The House divided on Mr. C. Buller's motion—Ayes 156; Noes 37: Majority 119.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Grogan, E.

Acton, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hamilton, J. H.

Aldam, W.

Hamilton, W. J.

Archbold, R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bailey, J.,

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Baldwin, B.

Heathcoat, J.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Herbert, hon. S.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Heron, Sir R.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hervey, Lord A.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Hill, Lord M.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Bernal, Capt.

Howard, hn. J. K.

Blackburne, J. I.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Bodkin, W. H.

Hume, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Hutt, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Jermyn, Earl

Bramston, T. W.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Broadley, H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Knatchbull. rt. hn. Sir E

Brodie, W. B.

Langston, J. H.

Brotherton, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Browne, hon. W.

Lawson, A.

Bunbury, T.

Lefroy, A.

Busfeild, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Byng, G.

Lindsay, H. H.

Chapman, B.

Litton, E.

Childers, J. W.

Lowther, J. H.

Christie, W. D.

Mainwaring, T.

Clayton, R. R.

Mangles, R. D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Marsland, H.

Cockburn, rt. hn.Sir G.

Martin, J.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Meynell, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Mitcalfe, If.

Dawnay, hn. W. H.

Morris, D.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Munday, E. M.

Denison, E. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Napier, Sir C.

Duncan, Visct.

Newry, Visct.

Dundas, Admiral

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Dundas, F.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

East. J. B.

O'Brien, W. S.

Easthope, Sir J.

O'Connell, D.

Ellis, W.

O'Connell, M.

Elphinstone, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Evans, W.

O'Connell, J.

Fielden, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Flower, Sir J.

Packe, C. W.

Forster, M.

Paget, Lord A.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Pakington, J. S.

Gill, T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gore, hon. R.

Parker, J.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Philips, G. R.

Granger, T. C.

Plum ridge, Capt.

Greene, T.

Plumptre, J. P.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Praed, W. T.

962

Pusey, P.

Trail, G.

Rashleigh, W.

Trollope, Sir J.

Redington, T. N.

Tufnell, H.

Rice, E. R.

Turner, E.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Vane, Lord H.

Russell, Lord J.

Verner, Col.

Scholefield, J.

Vesey, hon. T.

Scott, hon. F.

Villiers, hon. C.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Waddington, H. S.

Seymour, Lord

Ward, H. G.

Seymour, Sir H. B.

Watson, W. H.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Wawn, J. T.

Stanley, Lord

Williams, W.

Stanley, E.

Wood, B.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Wood, C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wood, G. W.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Worsley, Lord

Stuart, Lord J.

Yorke, H. R.

Strickland, Sir G.

Young, J.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Tancred, H. W.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Buller, C.

Towneley, J.

Wilde, Sir T.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Hodgson, R.

Bagge, W.

Knight, F. W.

Baillie, Col.

Leicester, Earl of

Baillie, H. J.

Lockhart, W.

Bankes, G.

Mackenzie, W.F.

Bradshaw, J.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Broadwood, H.

Manners, Lord J.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Milnes, R. M.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Neville, R.

Christmas, W.

O'Brien, A. S.

Colville, C. R.

Pollington, Visct.

Cripps, W.

Richards, R.

Darby, G.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Dodd, G.

Smythe, hon. G.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Stuart, H.

Ferrand, W. B.

Trotter, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Ffolliott, J.

Fuller, A. E.

TELLERS.

Goring, C.

Escott, B.

Henley, J. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Mr. C. Bullerthen moved,
"That such inquiry be referred to the select committee' appointed to inquire whether such compromises have been entered into, and whether such bribery has taken place in the towns of Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn and Falmouth, and Reading."
Mr. G. Bankesprotested against the House then going into the question, and called upon the hon. Member for Liskeard to name some other time at which he would bring it on.
Mr. Ferrandsubmitted to the House, whether it would not be an act of even handed justice, wherever a petition, charging bribery and corruption, had been presented from any city, borough, or county, to refer that also to the same committee.
Mr. Darbysaid, he had been convinced by the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), and he thought it rather hard that the noble Lord should use such convincing arguments and not support them by his vote.
Viscount Palmerstonwas very much flattered that the hon. Gentleman should have been convinced by any speech of his; it was not often that speeches wrought conviction in that House; but if the hon. Member had attended to his speech, he would have seen that he (Viscount Palmerston) considered inquiry objectionable, but as long as the committee existed he should vote for referring every case to its consideration.
Debate adjourned.
The House adjourned.

Preamble
MINUTES.] BILLS. Public.1a. Ecclesiastical and Admiralty Courts Appeals Transfer.
2a.Pentonville Prison; Australia and New Zealand; Roasted Malt; Fines and Recoveries (Wales and Cheshire).
Reported—Punishment of Death (Ireland).
3a. and passed: — Excise Duties Compounds; Dublin Police; Turnpike Roads (Ireland).
Private.—1a. Gibson's Estate; Tyne Fisheries; Toxteth Park Paving and Sewerage; Market Harborough and Brampton Road; Birmingham and Liverpool Junction Canal; Holywell Roads; Boston Harbour (No. 3); Yate Inclosure; Stockton and Hartlepool Railway; York Cathedral; Milton's Estate (Crawford's).
2a. Faversham Navigation; Ardrossan Harbour; Duke of Cleveland's Estate.
Reported.—Greenock Harbours; Dundee and Arbroath Railway.
3a. and passed:—Aberdeenshire Roads.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Kenyon, from the Bath Church of England Lay Association, against any further Grant to Mamooth College.—From the Presbytery of Bray, etc., for the Repeal of the Law of Patronage.— From the Members of the Cornwall Medical Association,
882
for Medical Reform, and for the Better Remuneration of Medical Officers attending Poor-law Unions.—From the Guardians of the Nantwich Union, for the Alteration of the Bastardy Clause of the New Poor-law.—From the Board of Guardians of the Huddersfield Union, for the Repeal of the Poor-law Amendment Act.

OUTRAGES IN TIPPERARY.
Lord Dunalleybegged to ask the noble Lord (Lord Wharncliffe) whether it were true that two terrible murders had recently been committed, and whether any measures had been taken to preserve the peace in that county.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that there had been two murders recently committed, of a very atrocious nature in the county of Tipperary, and that many other outrages had also been committed in the northern part of that county. This he admitted, but he could assure the noble Lord that no general system of offence was to be apprehended, for the Government and the local authorities had made every preparation to guard against any general breach of the peace. The strength of the police force in that district had been increased from 800 to 900 men, besides whom there were 1,700 regular troops stationed in that part of the county, and no less than seven stipendiary magistrates. This, he conceived, was a strength quite sufficient to guard against any extensive outbreak on the part of the turbulent and less peaceably-disposed part of the population. With regard to the two cases of murder which bad occurred, it was some mitigation of the feelings such occurrences were calculated to excite, that they had not arisen out of any organised system of hostility either to the Government or to the general peace of society, but they had resulted from private and family disputes. Outrages of this description were such as the police could not prevent. The only remedy for such evils must be found in the altered feelings of the people, or by some comprehensive legislative enactment. When he sat upon the committee which was appointed two or three years ago to inquire into the state of Ireland, he was happy to observe, that a better feeling prevailed among the landed gentry of Ireland towards their humbler neighbours, and that they were more disposed to treat their tenants with kindness. The happiest results had ensued from this commendable change. There, however, unhappily still remained evil dispositions productive of crime, that were the growth of former bad feeling and wicked misleadings,

883
and which nothing but a continuance o. generous treatment and conciliatory conduct on the part of those who possessed influence could effectually remove. And, while admitting that a very beneficial change had taken place generally in the feelings of the landlords, yet he was compelled to confess that there were some who exercised the rights of property in that country in a manner which could not be justified. Those parties were not confined to any one class of political opinions; there were amongst them not only Tories, but Liberals— at least, Liberals in speech, whatever they might be in practice. The system generally, however, was much mitigated, and with respect to the outrages that had recently been committed he could only repeat that they arose from no hostile feelings against the Government, but from personal enmities and revenge.
Subject at an end.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS (IRELAN D.)
Lord Campbellsaid, he was about to lay on their Lordships' Table a bill, the object of which was to transfer to their Lordships' House all appeals from the Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland. Heretofore—at least, since the union with Ireland—it had been the practice to take such appeals to a court of delegates, composed of a certain number of common-law judges; but this course would now be attended with some inconvenience, as several of the common-law judges in Ireland were Roman Catholics, and by an article of the Act of Union of the two countries, Roman Catholics could not sit as Judges in any matter connected with the Ecclesiastical Courts. The remedy for this inconvenience would be to transfer all such appeals to that House. He would now lay the bill on the Table, and would, on a future stage, go more fully into its merits.
Bill read a first time.

PENTONVILLE PRISON.
Lord Wharncliffemoved, that the Pentonville Prison Bill be read a second time.
Lord Colbornewished to call the noble Lord's attention to a very able report which had been made by Dr. Baillie on the subject to which this bill related. It was full of the most valuable information respecting the working of the system of solitary confinement. Dr. Baillie set forth many instances in which solitary imprison
884
ment had not only failed in its object, but in which it had produced the most serious consequences. He hoped the noble Lord would allow that report to be printed, and a copy of it laid on the Table.
Lord Wharncliffehad not had an opportunity of reading the report which his noble Friend referred to. He was aware, that there was a considerable difference between separate confinement and solitary confinement, and he was certainly inclined to give a preference to the former. He would, however, read Dr. Baillie's report, and give the subject full consideration before their Lordships went into committee on the bill.
The Duke of Richmondentertained very considerable doubt whether a perfect and entire separation of prisoners was a system that ought to be maintained in this country. There ought, however, to be so much separation as would prevent parties from contaminating one another. He was of opinion, too, that mischief resulted from persons being imprisoned for too long a period. He believed, that the great secret of imprisonment was, that men should come out of prison smarting under the punishment that had been inflicted upon them while there, and that they should not remain there long enough to be familiarised with it. The present bill might do good if its operations were narrowly watched by the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Bill read a second time.
Their Lordships adjourned.