come a matter of notoriety, and producing considerable scandal, appeared to many persons to demand the summary interposition of the Legislature, and the task of probing the mischief to the bottom was taken up with much energy by Mr. Roebuck, who, without any stronger foundation than public rumour for his charges, determined to appeal to the House of Commons, to afford him the means of substantiating them. He adopted the bold, but somewhat unusual course of a personal challenge of inquiry before the whole House, addressed to those Members whom he believed to be implicated in the suspected arrangements; and on the 6th May, having previously given notice of his intention, prefaced his motion for a Committee of Inquiry by putting a formal question on the subject to the respective Members for Reading, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn, and Harwich. Beginning with the case of Reading, he stated, that he had heard and believed that the Election Committee in the case of the controverted return for that borough, had had its business put an end to by a compromise made on the part of one or both of the Members sent to the House of Commons as its representatives. He had also reason to believe, that a bond had been entered into with their knowledge, if not in their name, to the effect that one or either of them-though both were declared by the Committee to have been duly elected, should vacate his seat by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds-thus defeating the determination of the Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition, and committing a violation of the privileges of the House. With the most perfect VOL. LXXXIV.

respect, therefore, for the noble Lord (Lord Chelsea) who was one of the Members, he begged to inquire of him whether he was cognizant of, or a party to any arrangement, by which it had been agreed that he was to accept the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds, in order to vacate his seat, notwithstanding he had been declared duly elected by the Select Committee appointed to try the merits of the petition against his return-or whether, by any other means, he intended to vacate his seat, although duly elected to serve in Parliament ?

The answer of Lord Chelsea was couched in courteous terms. Holding (he said,) a strong opinion of the unreasonableness of putting a question to any Member respecting a matter which related solely to his private conduct and affairs, he felt bound to decline giving any answer whatever to the question put to him. He was sure, if he and Mr. Roebuck could change places, that Gentleman would follow precisely the same course which he (Lord Chelsea) now pursued, and would, without difficulty, find excellent reasons for refusing to answer such interrogatories.

Mr. Roebuck said, he was quite satisfied with the answer. He then put the question to Mr. Charles Russell, the other Member for Reading.

Mr. Russell said, if any doubt existed as to the mode in which the petition against his return was withdrawn, it was for the Committee to have judged; and he denied Mr. Roebuck's right, personal or Parliamentary, to question him as to his intention of retaining his seat. If Mr. Roebuck drew any inference from that reply, the [N]

inference would be just as pertinent as the question.

Mr. Roebuck was perfectly satisfied. He next asked Captain Plumridge, the Member for Penryn, if he was cognizant of any agreement that he should accept the Chiltern Hundreds in July next, although he should be declared duly elected by the Election Com mittee; it being notorious that acts of bribery were committed at that election; and whether he was cognizant of those acts?

Captain Plumridge said, he was not cognizant of the arrangement until it was made; it did not please him, and he still thought it premature.

Mr. Roebuck thanked Captain Plumridge for his extremely candid answer.

He then asked Sir John Cam Hobhouse, whether he was about to take advantage of an agreement, that a sum of money should be paid down to avoid investigation into the alleged bribery at Nottingham; and that a further sum should be deposited in pledge, that another Gentleman (Mr. Walter) should be allowed to walk over the course, as it was called?

Sir John Hobhouse said, he should not answer the question. He thought no more was called for.

Mr. Roebuck agreed that nothing more was called for. He could not put the same question to Sir George Larpent, because late last night it was intimated that Sir George had accepted the Chiltern hundreds.

He asked Mr. Elphinstone whether he was cognizant of an agreement, that the question of bribery was to be withdrawn from the consideration of the Lewes Election Committee; and that a gen

tleman was to come into the House who had not been returned by the returning officer?

Mr. Elphinstone replied, that an agreement to that effect was entered into before the Committee; that he was no party to it; and that he did not contemplate accepting the Chiltern Hundreds.

Mr. Roebuck thanked him. He then put a similar question to Major Beresford and Mr. John Attwood, the Members for Harwich.

Major Beresford replied for both (his colleague being absent on account of indisposition,) with a direct refusal to give an answer. If Mr. Roebuck had any charge to make, let him bring it before the House; and before that tribunal he would state all he knew.

Here the Chancellor of the Exchequer interrupted Mr. Roebuck, by moving the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Income-tax; but the Speaker having sanctioned Mr. Roebuck's claim to precedence for a motion on breach of privilege, and the general wish of the House being manifested to proceed with the stirring question now raised, after some contest, Sir Robert Peel consented to the temporary suspension of the Government business by the withdrawal of Mr. Goulburn's motion.

Mr. Roebuck proceeded to state in each case the charges implied in the questions, accusing the Members whom he had questioned, all and severally, of the commission of bribery. By the existing law any one presenting a petition against a Member's return, had the right to withdraw it; and thus it was, that the offence imputed could be withdrawn from the cognizance of the tribunal appointed to judge it. He gave an illustration: "Suppose there is a general election, and

that the town of Nottingham is about to be contested: a sort of Parliamentary Napoleon determines to conquer the town, or, in the language of the historian, to "jump on it with both his feet." He rushes down to the town, bribes every man, frightens his opponent out of the town, and is returned to Parliament as Member for the place. The opposing candidate enters a petition against his return. Say that the Committee for the trial of that petition is to be struck next Monday. Fear seizes upon him when about to come before the tribunal which the law provides for the investigation of his proceedings; and he desires to es cape from that tribunal. What then do the successful parties do? Why, they enter into a compromise with the opposing candidate; propose to pay down a sum of money, for the purpose of exculpating themselves, and escaping the scrutiny of the Committee; and further, pledge themselves to allow the ousted candidate to walk over the course. He had questioned Sir John Hobhouse, as the party most acquainted with facts: what would have been the conduct of a Member who was not cognizant of such transactions ?-He would have said, in the face of the House and of the country, that the whole statement was a foul lie and a gross calumny: but Sir John Hobhouse had refused to answer; and Sir George Larpent had done, what at five o'clock the day before he anticipated would be done accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. He could conceive one valid excuse for withdrawing from the judicial contest: it might be said for the party withdrawing, that he could not stand the expense of contesting the seat before

the Committee; but in the Nottingham case, he could prove, that money had been promised or paid down, for the purpose of escaping the scrutiny of an Election Committee. Was the House prepared to say, that the bribery of a whole town was not a gross breach of its privileges? In Nottingham nearly the whole of the voters were corrupted; many of them were "cooped" or shut up; and the large and extensive system of corruption and intimidation which had been brought to bear by the admirable strategies and machinery of the right honourable Baronet, had been successful for its purpose. It appeared that enough had been done by the opposing candidate to frighten those who were the sitting Members of the House; but he would ask the House, what was to be come of it-what was to become of all the principles of Parliamentall the honourable feeling that con. ducted their proceedings, if after an election-petition had been thus presented, making grave charges against the Members of that House, it should be hushed up in an hour, and an arrangement made to screen the grossest cases of corruption ever practised?"

Mr. Roebuck then alluded to the case of Lewes, where the charges of bribery, betting, treating, and other corruptions were so sweeping, that the number of objections to voters on the part of the sitting Members was 560, while the highest number of electors polled was 411. The petition against the return for Penryn was withdrawn, but the sitting Member was to retire in July. The honourable Member was afraid, or his friends were afraid, or his lawyer was afraid. That was it. (Cheers and laughter.) He, who knew what the result

would be, brought his legal acumen, sharpened by experience in trials of this nature, to bear on the consideration of the question, and said, "The case is up; we cannot go to trial, and you must retire in July." And was he not to retire in July? No answer was returned to his accusation: but why? for what reason? It was not from ill health-(Laughter)—the honourable and gallant Member was perfectly equal to the discharge of his Parliamentary duties as equal as ever he was. Why then retire?

Captain Plumridge: "Because I made a bad bargain. (Laughter.) Mr. Roebuck asked the people of England if that was the kind of language to be used on such an occasion ? Was the honourable Member to come there and make such a declaration to his fellow countrymen, whose interests he was sent there to protect? Was he to turn round and say, made a bad bargain?" He entreated the right honourable Gentleman in the chair not to permit such language. He wished to brand such bargains with shame.

66

In Harwich, one of the sitting Members was to retire to let in Sir Dennis Le Marchant; who, after accusing him of bribery, treating, and corruption, had withdrawn the petition against the return. In the case of Penryn, the lawyers thought that the petition could not have been withdrawn, had the inquiry lasted five minutes longer, because the thing would have been so plain, that the Members of the Committee, being on their oath, could not have let the guilty escape. These were the grounds on which he asked for inquiry and legislative interfer"And what is the legislative interference I ask for? Why,

ence.

something that shall enable this House to regard an election-petition as something more than a fight between A. and B. At present, the return to a seat in this House is considered as a mere matter between A and B. If A gains, his party is pleased; and if B gains, his party is pleased. But the public and the great business of this empire are totally unconsidered in the matter; and we buy and sell the constituencies of this country as if they were flocks of sheep. Look at the case of Nottingham. The right honourable Baronet on this side of the House, as I said before, bought the whole constituency; and I say, Mr. Walter bought them of him. Perhaps the right honourable Baronet may have thought he had made a bad bargain, and may, therefore, have sold the constituency for less than he gave for them. Nevertheless, he has sold them, These are the transactions I wish to inquire into, in order to expose them to the people of this country. I have not confined my accusations to one side of the House or to the other. I have made no party question of this. I do stand up for the purity of this House; and, God willing, we will make it pure." (Cheers.)

Mr. Roebuck then moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the matters which he had brought before the House.

Mr. Fitzroy seconded the motion; warmly challenging inquiry into his own conduct: he had stepped into the seat for Lewes merely because Mr. Harford had retired, without obtaining it by any unworthy means, though a needless and expensive inquiry of three weeks duration had been avoided.

Mr. Elphinstone, however, de

clared that both parties had been guilty of bribery; and that if the inquiry had proceeded, none of the four candidates would now have been Members of the House; that the lawyers agreed that one Member should retire; but he had made no compromise.

Captain Plumridge declared before the House, the world, and his God, that he had never given one penny towards the expenses of his election.

Mr. C. Wynn observed, that the subject was of very great importance; and as it was also an important consideration whether the question should be reserved for a Committee or should be examined by the House, he moved to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Ward seconded the motion; which was assented to at once by Mr. Roebuck, and affirmed by the House.

In moving the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the appointment of a Committee to inquire into his charges of bribery against the Members for Reading, Nottingham, Penryn, Lewes, and Harwich, Mr. Roebuck presented a petition from Reading, declaring his charges to be true; and also a petition from Nottingham, praying the attention of the House to Election Compromises.

Major Beresford hoped the Committee would be appointed; he did not object to Mr. Roebuck's motion, but to the tone and manner with which he had brought it forward. He adduced no proof, but said that rumours were abroad. Major Beresford, too, had heard of rumours that Mr. Roebuck had been returned to the House without a qualification, and that on the very day that the qualification was

executed for him in London he swore in Bath that he had it; and that an evil feeling had incited him to his present proceeding; but he would abstain from pointing the finger of scorn at Mr. Roebuck, as that gentleman had done at him.

Mr. C. Wynn objected that the terms of Mr. Roebuck's motion were too general, and the Committee which he proposed would therefore have the character of a fishing committee. The circumstances of the several cases stated by Mr. Roebuck varied; and prima facie, some of them, as the retirement of a Member who might not be able to support the expense of maintaining his seat, and yet might not wish an inquiry affecting his character to proceed in his absence, implied no breach of privilege. The regular course would be to bring forward a separate charge in each case.

Mr. Ward said, that Mr. Roebuck had studiously understated his case, and that he was prepared to prove the charges which he had made by evidence. He would ask in the case of Nottingham, was it not true that the malpractices were so clear, that the sitting Members could not defend their seats? Sir George Larpent had twice given proof of his ambition to hold a seat in the House, yet he had withdrawn; a fact which was in itself a confirmation of the charge. Alluding to the circumstance of 147 persons being charged with bribery out of the 181 of the Harwich constituency, and the existence of a bond that a Member should retire from a certain borough under a penalty of 2,000l., Mr. Ward insisted on the necessity of inquiry.

Sir Robert Inglis opposed the motion, because he did not see how