duce them to make the arrangements mentioned, were stated to be,→

1st. An apprehension on the part of the counsel of the sitting Members that there was great danger incurred, by defending the seats, of losing them both.

2nd. The certainty of great expense, with very great chances of an unfavourable issue.

The Report proceeded to detail the terms of the compromises re spectively entered into in the cases of the two boroughs of Penryn and Bridport, the general nature of which resembled those already referred to. In the latter case, one of the sitting Members had already accepted the Chiltern hundreds in pursuance of this compromise; in the former the resig nation was to take place within a time specified. This Report having been presented to the House, Mr. Roebuck shortly afterwards gave notice of his intention to move the following resolutions:

"That the compromises of election-petitions, as brought to the knowledge of this House by the Report of the Select Committee on Election Proceedings, must, if for the future they be allowed to pass without punishment or censure, tend to bring this House into contempt with the people, and thereby seriously to diminish its power and authority.

"That all such practices are hereby declared to be a violation of the liberties of the people, and a breach of the privileges of this House; which it will in all future cases strictly inquire into and severely punish.

"That whereas in the late elections for Harwich, Nottingham, Lewes, Reading, Falmouth and Penryn, and Bridport, the present laws have been found insufficient

to protect the voters from the mischievous temptations of bribery, it be ordered that Mr. Speaker do issue no writ for any election of Members for the said towns till further legislative enactments have been adopted to protect the purity of elections."

In moving these resolutions on 28th July, Mr. Roebuck reminded the House of the statements which he had made when he first brought the subject before the House; and he referred to the proofs of those statements in the Report that had been presented.

He had stated in one case, that a compromise had been made, that a sum of money had been deposited, and that one of the honour. able Members representing the place had agreed to retire. He remembered being struck by the dignified manner in which one honourable Member had denied the fact. Indeed, he had gone beyond a mere negation. But what had been the fact proved? Had not the honourable Member for Harwich, Mr. Attwood-for now he was obliged to distinguish him-agreed to pay 3,500l. in order to withdraw from the Committee the discussion then about to take place before it? and did not the other honourable Member, Major Beresford, agree to withdraw himself by a certain day by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds? Both these facts had been proved. Before he proceeded, let him say, although he had at the outset been met with vituperative hostility, that he believed honourable Members were unwittingly and unwillingly the victims of a system.

His resolutions mentioned no names, reflected in no way upon character, but simply provided for future mischiefs. He had proved

all his assertions, and much more: and would the reflecting and honest people of England believe, that in buying up poor voters, in debauching poor constituencies, and afterwards in shielding themselves by a contemptible quibble, and buying off the consequences, the conduct of Members was either honourable to themselves or beneficial to their constituents? He believed the people would say the chief criminal was the briber; the rich man who went down with money in his pocket, to a large constituency some of them oppressed by poverty -and offered them bribes to sell their consciences.

If honourable Members were content to bribe, let there be no bribery-law. Let there be no hy. pocrisy upon the subject. There was far too much hypocrisy already. They made a law to put down bribery they passed whole nights discussing bribery-bills-and yet, on the morrow, that man who had been the most decorous in his professions, the most exact and precise in his deprecations of bribery, would go into the country with 5,000l. in his pocket to bribe the first constituency that presented itself. An honourable Gentleman went to a place with 5,000l. in his pocket, and said-"I want no bribery; I must know nothing about it. My eyes are of the most delicate texture; I am full of sensibility and honour-I beg you will not say a word about bribery, but return me. [Laughter.] Make me a Member of Parliament, but let me not know the means used. There is 5,000l.; go away, and let me know nothing about it till I am a Member." [Cheers and Laughter.] Now, he would appeal to the House, and ask was it possible for an honest man, conversant

in the ordinary business of life, not to know the purposes to whica the money was applied? Was it not clear as the sun that he must know, that the sum he had given was to percolate throughout the heart of the constituency? He must know that his money was applied to the grossest, basest bribery. He walked the streetshe saw the beer-houses full of his own followers-but he turned aside; and if pressed upon the subject, he would say, "Oh, I have no doubt the beer-houses are open, but I really know nothing about it."

One reason for retiring from these contests was stated to be, alarm at the enormous expenditure. It might be the duty of the House not to call upon persons so situated to spend the whole of their fortunes; but there was something more than the dread of expense. In every one of the five cases that had been before the Committee, (he purposely excluded Bridport,) the retiring party had been afraid of inquiry, not simply in consequence of the expense attending it, but in the apprehension that the whole proceedings would be discovered, and that bribery, or that which was deemed to be bribery, should be proved before the Committee, and the seat sacrificed. In the case of Harwich, Mr. Attwood, the real party to the contest, paid 2,000l. to avoid inquiry, and the agent paid 5007. more; and the Member for Reading paid the 2,000l., although feeling secure of his seat. The circumstances of the Reading case showed clearly that inquiry was dreaded. The honourable Member might sacrifice his colleague, and pay 2,0007.; but would that do with the country? It was clear

as the sun at noon-day, that some thing was behind of which all parties were afraid. In the case of Lewes, the third party on the poll was placed at the head by "shuttlecocking" the votes; that is to say, one party alleged that John Thomas had no vote, and the other that John Jackson had no vote; and thus the poor voters were to be struck off the poll. Was that the way that the franchise was to be dealt with? He insisted that they had reached a crisis, when interference could no longer be postponed, and concluded by moving the first resolution.

Mr. Charles Russell then addressed the House, observing that he had not opposed the appointment of the Committee, but protested against Mr. Roebuck's whole course in the matter. He objected to the constitution of the Committee, appointed under circumstances of excitement, and unsworn to impartial justice. And was Mr. Roebuck the fittest person to have the conduct of such an inquiry? Did he not sell his Parliamentary services for money?

Mr. Roebuck-" I did not." Mr. Russell" Did he not sit in this House as the paid agent of a rebel colony ?" [Loud cries of "Hear, hear!" and "Order!"]

Mr. Roebuck-" Sir, I rise to order. The imputation against me is, that I sold my Parliamentary services to a rebel colony. Now, whoever told the honourable Member that, uttered a falsehood."

Mr. Russell" It was certainly universally believed; but, however, if the learned gentleman declares it to be untrue, I withdraw the

statement."

The Speaker-" The honourable Member will, I am sure, see the

propriety of withdrawing the expressions he used."

Mr. Russell-"It was universally stated, when Canada was in rebellion, that the learned Gentleman, for money, became the advocate of Canada in this House." ["Order!" and "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. Roebuck-" I was not even in the House at that time."

Mr. Russell-"At all events, if I understand the learned Gentleman to deny the statement, I willingly withdraw it."

He denied the necessity of the inquiry. The House had ascertained that compromises had been made. Was it ignorant of that fact before? Was not the fact as notorious as the sun at noon-day? Could it be said that the House was not sufficiently cognisant of these compromises to be in a condition to found legislative enactments for the correction of them?

he

Major Beresford followed with an indignant explanation. He defied Mr. Roebuck to point out any part of the evidence which convicted him of bribery or treating. He had certainly agreed to retire, because Mr. Attwood had been at the expense of the election, and he thought that, if either were to go out, it should be the person who had not paid. Had he defended the seat, should have retained it, for he was quite innocent of the charge of bribery. He was no party to the compromise. He had never communicated with Sir Denis le Marchant; his offer to retire was made solely to Mr. Attwood; and Mr. Attwood's agent was not his. The Report was guilty of a little exaggeration; for instance, it stated that " a large part" of the constituency had been bribed,

whereas, only 80 had been bribed out of 182.

Mr. Fitzroy contended that the Report had not placed his conduct in the true light; he had agreed to the compromise after it was definitely arranged, and, therefore, he maintained he could not be described as a party to it; and he complained, that neither his agent in Lewes, nor his agent for the petition in London had been examined.

Mr. Escott would not oppose the first and second resolutions, as the House had sanctioned the constitution of the Committee, and their peculiar procedure; but he questioned the right of the House indefinitely to disfranchise five

towns.

Captain Plumridge asked how any case could have been made out against him, when the Report stated, that the compromise for Falmouth and Penryn had been made wholly without his knowledge?

Mr. Blackstone could not assent to the proposition that compromises were a breach of privilege; nor could he agree to the third resolu tion; but when he saw that at Nottingham the opposing party had power to make the other expend 10,000l. or 11,000l., and that the prosecution of the petition would have cost 20,000l. he should not oppose an inquiry into the case of that town before issuing the writ.

Mr. Lascelles, bearing testimony to the correctness of Mr. Roebuck's conduct as Chairman of the Committee, explained, that he brought forward the resolutions in his individual capacity, without the cognizance of the Committee, with whom it was an understanding, that no criminatory proceedings

should be taken against indis viduals.

Lord Chelsea thought, that all useful purposes might have been answered by bringing forward some abstract proposition, to the effect that such practices were notorious, and that measures ought to be devised to put an end to them.

Mr. Ward argued, that general allegations would have been repeated usque ad nauseam, with no legislative result; while but for the boldness, the novelty, and even the irregularity of Mr. Roebuck's course, the House would never have had the Report before them. But, those cases proved, was the House to pass no censure on any one, and to render the inquiry abortive?

Mr. Hawes could not support the resolutions; he believed that he might speak for every Member of the Committee. The inquiry had been of a peculiar kind. He felt that, if they received informa tion from parties interested, they received that which they could obtain from no other source; but though they received it and pub. lished it, they felt they could not use it either against the individuals or the constituencies concerned. The Committee stated as much in their Report. But by these resolutions they were here called upon distinctly to affirm, that the practices revealed to the House by this Report, and received under the peculiar circumstance he had stated, were practices to be desig nated a breach of the privileges of the House. Now, was he to stop here? Why, what was the object of that declaration? To stop there would indeed be calling upon the House to make a declaration extremely objectionable.

other hand, if they proceeded to punish the parties, they would then be acting in direct opposition to the Report of the Committee. The Report, however, would not be barren of result; for the Bill which had passed through Committee the preceding night, (Lord John Russell's Bribery Bill,) contained clauses which would meet the cases of compromise; and although that Bill had preceded this discussion, it had not preceded the inquiry of the Committee.

Mr. Aglionby foresaw, that the result of the discussion would add one more to the many farces which the House had been called upon to enact in the course of the present Session.

Mr. Hawes remarked that, although as a Member of the Committee he could not concur in the resolutions, as a Member of the House he should concur in almost any legislative measure that Mr. Roebuck could propose to remedy the evil.

The Solicitor-general repeated the reasons against the resolutions, already given by Mr. Hawes. Mr. Roebuck's resolution ought to have been somewhat in these terms: "That the compromises disclosed by the Committee in the opinion of the House tend to prevent the investigation of charges of bribery, and that it is the duty of the House to adopt some legislative measure to remedy this evil," and then he could have supported it. He moved as an amendment, "the previous question."

Sir Robert Inglis, with some general and rather severe remarks on Mr. Roebuck's proceedings, declared, that he should have been better satisfied had the Solicitorgeneral met the motion with a direct negative.

Mr. Hume regretted that Sir William Follett should have placed the House in the situation of not being able to express an opinion; and he asked, why not expressly condemn practices which no one defended? No one suggested

punishment for the past, but the Solicitor-general said, that there should be none for the future. The third resolution might at all events be supported, on the ground that they should wait to see the Bribery at Elections Bill through the House of Lords. No sooner had the writ for Ipswich been issu ed, than within twenty-four hours bribery had been again resorted to.

Mr. Thomas Duncombe asked the Ministers whether, if Major Beresford, Viscount Chelsea, and Captain Plumridge, applied for the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds to carry out these corrupt compromises, it would be granted?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the Stewardship was in his gift: it would be time enough for him to decide upon the application when it should have been made.

Captain Plumridge asked Mr. Goulburn whether he would give him the Chiltern Hundreds to carry out the compromise?

Mr. Goulburn said, the application had not been made. Captain Plumridge-"I now make it."

Mr. Goulburn returned no answer.

Mr. Cochrane defended his own consistency, and denied that bribery was proved against him.

Sir Robert Peel declared, that he did not regret the course he had taken in supporting the application for a Committee; the developement of facts would be beneficial. But it would now be unjust to