REIGATE ELECTION.

MOTION FOR A JOINT ADDRESS.

ing the same as the others; he wanted a fiver I had promised him, and more if I could get it." From this and other eviMR. HUSSEY VIVIAN, Chairman of dence, the Committee came to the concluthe Reigate Election Committee, in rising sion that "a fiver" was the price of a to move for a Royal Commission to inquire Reigate vote. That sum had, it appeared, into the existence of corrupt practices at been promised right and left, but in many the last Election for the borough of Rei- cases nothing had been paid. The electors gate, presented a petition from the inhabi- looked upon the bribe as so much a matter tants of the borough urging the necessity of course that one voter who was not paid for such an inquiry. The petition was had actually brought an action against the signed by 140 inhabitants, including the agent who promised him for the recovery high bailiff, the mayor, the vicar, every of the £5 as a debt. When the case came clergyman resident in the neighbourhood, on in the County Court, forty other voters and by the chairmen of both candidates. cherishing a similar grievance were present The fact that these last-mentioned signa- in court, fully resolved to follow his examtures were attached to the petition, in com- ple if he were successful, but of course he pany with the signatures of a large number was not. Other evidence was forthcoming of the most respectable people of the bo- touching the number of promises made. rough, showed that very corrupt practices A person appeared in Reigate after the must have prevailed there, and that the election calling himself Mr. Naylor. It more respectable among the inhabitants turned out subsequently that was not his felt strongly aggrieved at the fact. Among name, but that he was a publican of Shorethe fourteen cases of bribery brought before ditch. He announced on his arrival in the Committee, seven were clearly proved. Reigate that he was the representative of They found that very many promises had Mr. Gower, and that he had come to settle been given, and that many of the electors with all those who had been promised. seemed to look upon their vote as so much money for their votes. A number of the marketable property-in fact, it seemed to "promised" voters fell into the trap, be almost a part of the political creed of a and although he diligently recorded their great number of the electors that they names, he gave them no satisfaction, and ought not to vote unless they had received soon afterwards some one else called upon a promise of some pecuniary consideration. them and took down their statements in But although the Committee were gene- writing. Indications were given in the rally impressed with the corrupt state of evidence produced before the Committee the borough, it was impossible for them of corrupt practices having prevailed at to report fully upon that point, as it previous elections. It was not competent was the desire of the parties who came for the Committee to inquire into these before them rather to make out specific matters; but a Royal Commission would charges against their political opponent be able to do so, and that was one reason than to blacken the borough. The conse- which led him to urge its appointment. quence was, that their conclusions must be He was not now giving the House the come to rather from inference than from names of those witnesses who were reabsolute proved facts. It was proved be- ported as having been absolutely bribed. fore the Committee that a witness named A voter named George Jupp, canvassed by Allen Edwards stated that one Joyce, a Mr. Green, admitted that he had received sub-agent of the then sitting Member, had £10 for voting for Mr. Gower. The evioffered him £5 "to vote for Gower." He dence taken before the Committee was as promised to do so; but because he did not follows:receive the promised £5 he voted for Mr. Richardson, a gentleman who, it appeared, had no idea of standing for the borough, as he had either proposed or seconded Mr. Monson as a candidate. It was fair to presume that eleven other persons who voted for Mr. Richardson did so from similar motives. A man named Johnson stated that Joyce had said to him, with reference to a voter named Pitt, "I did think he was square, but he wanted buy

--

"And there, outside the Committee-room, did you see Mr. Green ?—Yes. Did he say to you anything about voting?—Yes; he said to me, backward in coming forward.' I said, 'I do not Are you coming upon our side again? You seem know.' He said, Did I not behave well to you before?" I said, 'Yes.' 'Well,' he said, 'I will do the same to you again.' That was an answer. What did he give to you before?—I cannot exactly you about £10 before ?-Yes. Was that for votsay what it was; it was about £10. He gave ing before?-And canvassing a little. I infer from what you say that you had voted for Mr.

Gower upon former occasions ?—Yes. Had you canvassed for him upon a former occasion ?-All that I did was to take one circular."

There was also the case of the voter named Balchin, which was a peculiar one. This man admitted that he had received £5 in the first instance from the opponents of the sitting Members, and that he subsequently received £2 158. from the agents of those Members, so that he obtained bribes from both sides. He said that he had been employed to look after voters; but it was very evident that he required a good deal of looking after himself-for the whole night previous to the election he was held in confinement, and kept in a state of drunkenness. During the night, whether he desired to go back to his former love or not, it was impossible to say; but when he made a search for his boots he

was not able to find them. The next day he was taken in a cart to the polling-booth. He stated that he knew for whom he voted; but the Committee were unable to determine whether he was really aware for whom he was recording his vote. The cases he had mentioned clearly proved that corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last election. On the whole, there could be no doubt that if ever there was a case clearly made out for the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry on account of bribery and corrupt practices it was that of the borough of Reigate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That an humble Address be presented to Пer Majesty, as followeth :

Most Gracious Sovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for the Borough of Reigate, have reported to the House, that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election for the said Borough:

down forcibly showed how necessary it was that the course pointed out by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Baxter) should be adopted-namely, that the agent guilty of the act of bribery should be rendered liable to be prosecuted for the offence. In the present case it was clearly shown that Mr. Gower was innocent of the bribery which had been proved, and from his knowledge of that gentleman he was convinced that he would do all in his power to check corrupt practices. Over zealous supporters would be restrained from resorting to illegal acts if they knew that the Attorney General would, as a matter of course, prosecute every person who was proved to be guilty of bribery. That was the only way of effectually checking such proceedings.

MR. DUTTON, as a member of the Reigate Election Committee, said, that he did not think it was possible to conceive a worse case than that of Reigate. In the borough there was no political feeling whatever; it was entirely in the hands of the Liberals; and the consequence was that the electors, to a large extent, only looked out for the man who would pay them the most money for their votes. There was, in fact, hardly a man in the place who had not been bribed.

MR. BRADY asked the House what they would do after these inquiries had taken place? What practical step was expected to result from the inquiries to be made by the Commission? Four Commissions of Inquiry had already been moved for he did not know how many more were to follow-but about £8,000 at least must be expended upon them. In his opinion not the slightest profitable result would follow those investigations. When the Corrupt Practices Bill was before the House he placed an Amendment upon the table to the effect that all Members, on being sworn, should deliver an account in writing of their expenses, and declare that those expenses were all that were incurred by them, or that they had paid, or intended to pay by themselves or their agents. That Amendment, however, was not accepted by the House; and that fact went a long way to prove that the House was not thoroughly honest in their intention to put down corruption. He hoped that the Government, for the protection of the public purse, would ask themselves, before they went further into these ComMR. BUXTON said, that the remarks missions, what benefits would result from of the hon. Member who had just sat them.

We therefore humbly pray your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made, pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, "An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointment of Thomas Allen, esquire, Frederick James Smith, esquire, and T. D. Archibald, esquire, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices.

MR. GREGORY concurred in the opinion | GENERAL: That is after a Commission.] that in order effectually to check bribery He read it in the alternative-either a and corruption at elections, it would be Committee or Commission. They disfrannecessary to instruct the Attorney General chised Sudbury without the Report of a to prosecute all persons guilty of such ille- Commission, and St. Alban's after one. gal proceedings. He wished to point out The general Act was passed for the apto the House, however, that cases might pointment of Commissions where extensive arise, and frequently did arise in which bribery was supposed to have been pracbribery was practised, without either the tised, with the view of Parliament dealing candidate or his agents having had any- with it afterwards. He hoped that when thing to do with it; and then constituen- it could be proved that any of these bocies got a bad name. He had risen to roughs had been guilty of bribery, that make these remarks because an impression the House would be prepared to disfranseemed to him to prevail in the House that chise them. the course pursued by the Wakefield Committee was that of undue leniency. Now, only two cases of bribery were proved before the Committee, and they were not in the smallest degree attributable to the candidate, his committee, or his agents. In another case money was offered by a person who, in vulgar parlance, would be called a sporting man; he had entered into very large bets on the result of the election petition, and he spent a great deal of money on his own account, in order that he might win them. In every other case where money was offered it was refused. He had taken the opportunity of vindicating the character of Wakefield, which he must say he thought had been very unfairly aspersed. All the evidence that could be obtained was laid before the Committee, and it clearly proved that the last election for Wakefield was an extremely pure election.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that if his right hon. Friend looked at the latter part of the clause, he would see that it contemplated the case of a Commission after the Report of a Select Committee; but he admitted the clause was not well worded, because the words were "such Report with the evidence taken before the Committee, shall be laid before the Attorney General." He apprehended the Home Secretary would cause the evidence to be laid before the Attorney General, and he would be bound to prosecute unless he in his judgment thought that evidence to be insufficient. It by no means followed that there must be a Commission; for he had not the least doubt that, in any case where an Election Committee reported that bribery and treating had prevailed, it would be competent for that House, without a Commission, on their own Motion, to direct the Attorney General to prosecute, or to lay papers before him with a view of his prosecuting, and that on the Resolution of the House.

SIR MATTHEW RIDLEY, as a Member of the Wakefield Election Committee, corrobarated the statement of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Gregory). It MR. DARBY GRIFFITH said, he must was utterly impossible to connect the sit-protest, with all due deference to the Chairting Member or his committee with any of man of the Wakefield Election Committee, the cases of bribery and corruption which against the statement that no bribery had were proved to have occurred. It was not been committed, because it had not been proved that bribery had been offered or proved that the bribery was by the agents committed by any agents of the sitting of the sitting Member. How was the Member or by any of his committee. Committee to know that the bribery had not been committed by some person who had been secretly commissioned to do so.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE said, it appeared that these Commissions did some good, because at the last election for Wakefield, it had not been shown that there was any bribery committed by the sitting Member for that borough or his agents. He wished to set his hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Buxton) right as to the law upon the subject. His hon. Friend suggested that instructions ought to be given to the Attorney General to prosecute in all cases reported to the House. Now, that was the law at present. [The ATTORNEY

MR. ALDERMAN LUSK said, he had listened with great attention to all that had been stated with regard to these delinquent boroughs, and it appeared to him that the only and best remedy against bribery was the ballot. He believed they might as well try to keep sparrows out of a field by stone walls, as to prevent bribery by fencing it round without the ballot.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered, That the said Address be communicated to The Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.-(Mr. Hussey Vivian.)

POOR LAW-MINES ASSESSMENT.

LEAVE.

MR. STEPHEN CAVE, in moving to introduce a Bill to amend the law in England and Wales with reference to the Assessment of Mines to the relief of the Poor, said, that as he understood the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had no objection to its introduction, he should reserve any observations he had to make upon it until the second reading. MR. COLVILE said, he regretted that the hon. Gentleman should, at this time more especially, when the mining interest was in such a depressed state, bring in such a Bill. It should be remembered that three Bills, which had been brought in before with the same object, had failed, because the opinion of the House was that this description of property was of too speculative a nature to be rated. He should be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman on the whole question of rating, but he was at a loss to know why the mining interest alone any more than timber, young plantations, and even shipping, should be the object of the hon. Member's attack. He should feel it to be his duty, representing, as he did, the mining interest, to oppose the further progress of the Bill at every stage.

by the counsel for the petitioners that the unsuccessful candidate was unable to claim his seat because his agents could not come out of the proceedings with clean hands. It was admitted as fact that there was as much bribery practised on one side as on the other.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth :

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Commons of the United Subjects, the Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition complaining of an undue Election and Return for House, that they had reason to believe that corthe Borough of Lancaster, have reported to the rupt practices extensively prevailed at the last Election for the Borough of Lancaster:

We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause inquiry to be made pursuant to the Provisions of the Act of Parliament passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, " An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for ment of W. F. Fletcher Boughey, esquire, Thomas Members to serve in Parliament," by the appointIrwin Barstow, esquire, and Robert M. Newton, esquire, as Commissioners for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices.

Motion agreed to.

Ordered, That the said Address be communicated to The Lords, and their concurrence desired thereto.-(Mr. Howes.)

ADMIRALTY COURT (IRELAND.)

LEAVE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAWSON), in moving for leave to introduce a Bill to extend the

dure and practice, and regulate the establishment of the Court of Admiralty, Ireland, said, that as he understood there would be no opposition to the introduction of the Bill, he would merely content himself by saying that its object was to unite the business of the Irish Court of Admiralty with that of the Irish Court of Probate.

MR. HOWES, Chairman of the Lan-jurisdiction, alter and amend the procecaster Election Committee, said, that after the discussion that had taken place that evening with reference to the other reputed boroughs, he thought it was unnecessary for him to take up the time of the House by entering in detail into the circumstances connected with the last election for the borough of Lancaster. The Committee had unanimously reported that they had reason to believe that bribery extensively prevailed at the last election for Lancaster. He might, however, further add that it was the unanimous opinion of the Committee that bribery was practised there in an open, and unblushing and systematic manner. And it was admitted

MR. WHITESIDE remarked that there could not be a better Judge for the discharge of such responsible duties than the present Judge of the Irish Court of Probate. The only question was whether the learned Judge would like to have this jurisdiction transferred to him.

SIR ROBERT PEEL desired to know | cussing the details of a Bill not before the what was to be done with the present House, but he trusted that the GovernJudge of the Admiralty Court-whether ment would be prepared at the right time. he was to discharge other duties, or whether he was to be superannuated.