BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
On the 6th of May, Mr. Roebuck, having given notice previously of his intention, moved for a committee of inquiry into the election of the members for Reading, Nottingham, Lewes, Penryn, and Harwich. In making this motion Mr. Roebuck entered into particulars concerning these elections, in all of which he contended bribery had been practised. He wished to inquire into these transactions in order to expose them to the people of this country. He had not, he said, confined his accusations to one side of the house or the other. He had made no party question of it: he stood up for the purity of the house; and, God willing, it should be made pure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzroy, member for Lewes, who warmly challenged inquiry into his conduct. Captain Plumridge, also, member for Penryn, declared that he had never given one penny towards the expenses of his election. On the other hand, Mr. Elphinstone, another of the accused members, declared frankly that, in his election, both parties had been guilty of bribery, and that if the inquiry had proceeded, none of the four candidates for his seat would now have been members of parliament. After a lengthened discussion a committee was appointed, and at the latter part of July the report of this committee was presented to the house, shortly after which Mr. Roebuck 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 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 Mr. Roebuck said that they mentioned no names, 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 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. A lengthened and stormy debate took place; but the resolutions were all negatived. But, notwithstanding the house of commons refused to affirm these resolutions, the investigation that had taken place had some practical result. One of the terms on which the petition against the return of one of the members for Reading was compromised, was the acceptance of the Chiltern hundreds within a limited time. When that time arrived, however, for carrying this stipulation into effect, an unexpected difficulty occurred. The chancellor of the exchequer now made aware, by the publication of the report, for what the application was preferred, declined to grant it; and the individual who had bound himself to resign his seat, found it beyond his power to do so. The course of proceeding adopted by the chancellor of the exchequer became the subject of discussion in the house of commons on the 6th of August, when Lord Palmerston moved for “copies of any correspondence which had taken place since the 1st day of July last, between the chancellor of the exchequer and any member of this house, upon the subject of the stewardship of the Chiltern hundreds;” the result of which motion was that the copies were ordered. Subsequently, the writs for filling up vacancies created by the unseating or collusive resignation of members at Ipswich, Southampton, Nottingham, and Newcastle-under-Lyne were all ordered to be issued. The disclosures before the committee concerning Sudbury, induced Mr. Redington, the chairman, to bring in a bill for the disfranchisement of that borough; but though this bill was supported by government, and passed through the commons, owing to the late period at which it was sent up to the lords, it only reached a second reading in that house. The writ, however, was suspended sine die. In connection with this subject, it may be mentioned that Lord John Russell brought in a bill for the prevention of bribery, and remedying some of the abuses to which election proceedings were liable; which bill, with some modifications in committee, passed both houses, and received the royal assent.