distinctly, not whether he was going to accept the Chiltern Hundreds, but whether the investigation in respect to that borough was not withdrawn from the Committee."

He called to Mr. Wynn's recollection a precedent :-He found that on the 13th of February 1700, "The House having been informed that Samuel Shepperd, Esq., a Member of this House, has been guilty of bribery in several corporations, in order to procure Members to be elected into this Parliament; and the said Samuel Shepperd, Esq., having been heard in his place, and having assured the House of his innocence; resolved that the charge be heard at the bar." The right honourable Gentleman was aware of the distinction between oral and written charges, in that House-that an honourable Member in his place might make an oral charge: he had done so ; it was not his business to have it taken down; he had made the charge, and had simply moved for a Committee of inquiry; and he contended that that was precisely within the regular proceedings of the House.

However, he consented to remodel his motion, and after some discussion it finally stood thus :"The House, having been informed by an honourable Member that he has heard and believes, that in the cases of the election-petitions presented from Reading, Nottingham, Harwich, Lewes, and Falmouth, a certain corrupt compromise has been entered into for the purpose of avoiding an investigation into the gross bribery alleged to have been practised at the elections in the said towns, resolve, that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring whether

such compromise has been entered into, and whether such practices have been carried on in the said towns."

Mr. J. Neeld proposed to omit Lewes, where there was no proof of a compromise; and Mr. Charles Buller proposed to include Bridport. But neither suggestion was acceded to, Sir Robert Peel observing in the latter case, that such inquiries ought not to be instituted without notice. Eventually Mr. Roebuck's amended motion was put and agreed to, without opposition.

He afterwards gave notice of his intention to introduce a Bill of indemnity for witnesses, who might be implicated by the proceedings of the Committee of Inquiry.

Lord John Russell, at the same time, gave notice of his intention to bring in a Bill to prevent Bribery at Elections.

Some conversation ensuing on the composition of the Committee, which Sir Robert Peel observed ought to be free from all suspicion of partizanship in its members,

Mr. T. Duncombe gave notice of a motion to secure that object by a test -he should move :-"That each Member appointed to serve on the Select Committee on Compromises of Election Petitions, shall subscribe the following declaration in the presence of Mr. Speaker: 'I do solemnly declare, that I never, directly or indirectly, have been guilty by myself or my agents, of any act of bribery or corruption in procuring a seat in Parliament; that I have never paid, or promised to pay, or sanctioned the payment of, any sum or sums of money beyond the legal expenses of my last or any previous election; nor have I at any time connived at, been privy to, or assisted

in, any corrupt practice for the purpose of procuring the return of any Member or Members to serve in Parliament."

Mr. Duncombe's motion, after a debate of considerable length, was rejected. The Committee afterwards nominated on the motion of Mr. Roebuck, consisted of Mr. Bramston, Mr. W. Miles, Sir W. Heathcote, Honourable W. S. Lascelles, Sir W. Somerville, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Strutt, Lord Worsley, and Mr. Roebuck. A Bill was passed to give indemnity to the witnesses who might criminate themselves by their evidence, and the investigation proceeded with closed doors, the Committee having resolved that the ends of the inquiry would be best promoted by the exclusion of all persons except those who were under examination as witnesses. At length, at the latter part of July, the Report of the Committee was presented to the House. This document, which was briefly drawn up, and couched in dispassionate and temperate language, commenced by stating the objects which the Committee had in view in prosecuting the investigation for which they had been appointed.

"They conceive that the inquiry was not one of a judicial character; that they were not called upon to decide upon the legality or illegality of the proceedings of any party, or upon the guilt or innocence of the transactions in which any of the parties implicated were involved, in connection with the alleged compromises and bribery practised in the boroughs comprehended in the order of reference.

"They understand their duty to have been, to elicit and lay before the House, faithfully and clearly, all the facts of the several cases,

rather with a view to expose the evils of a system, than by any direct expression of their own opinion to inculpate individuals, or directly to lay the foundation for any legislative enactment with respect to the particular boroughs in question; and they consider that they are borne out in this opinion by the nature of the Debates in the House upon the motion for the appointment of the Committee, and upon several subsequent occasions.

"In this view of their duty, the Committee called before them the parties immediately concerned in these transactions; and the Committee feel bound, in justice to those parties, to state, that their willingness to appear, with few exceptions, and the full and frank disclosures made by them, have tended greatly to facilitate the proceedings of your Committee; and they have consequently been enabled to obtain, from the most authentic sources, evidence relative to practices, which, although supposed to have existed, have never been before so clearly and unquestionably brought to light."

After little more preface, the Report proceeded to give a detailed account of the arrangements which had been entered into with respect to those boroughs to which their inquiries had been directed. Beginning with Harwich, they found that a compromise had been effected, by the terms of which, the petition presented against the return of both the sitting Members was to be withdrawn-one of the sitting Members engaging to retire by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds within a limited time, and one of the parties to the petition, a defeated candidate at the last election, being allowed to stand for

the borough, and guaranteed by a pecuniary deposit against opposition from the other contracting parties or their agents. In the case of Nottingham they also found, that the petitions against the sitting Members on the ground of bribery, treating, and other corrupt practices, were agreed to be withdrawn on the following terms, which were duly witnessed by a written agreement. That 1000l. should be immediately paid on the part of the sitting Members, in consideration of the expenses incurred in the petition. That within four days one of the seats should be given up. That it should be understood that one of the candidates defeated on the poll should be returned upon the vacancy thereby created; for security whereof a number of persons, whose names were specified in the memorandum, were pledged neither directly nor indirectly to oppose his election; and that a promissory note for 40007. should be deposited, as a security on the part of the sitting Members for the honourable fulfilment of all the terms of their compact. A statement was added of the amount of money discovered to have been expended during the contest, exceeding 16,000.; the greater part of which was employed in illegal purposes. In the case of Lewes, an arrangement nearly similar was shown to have been concluded, with this exception, that instead of a voluntary resignation of his seat by one of the sitting Members, the same end was attained by the expedient of a pre-arranged scrutiny, by which the petitioner was placed in a majority upon the poll. It was also a term of the bargain, that all actions and indictments preferred respecting respecting conduct at the election, should on

both sides be withdrawn. In the case of the borough of Readingwhere also a petition had been presented, complaining of gross and systematic bribery, but the proceedings of the Committee appointed to try the case, had been arrested on the third day by a compromise between the parties— the following agreement, regularly signed by the two sitting Members, and subscribed by an attesting witness, was set forth at length in the Report.

"READING ELECTION PETITION. It is agreed between the petitioner and the sitting Members, as follows;

1st. That the petitioner shall withdraw from the prosecution of his petition; and such reasons shall be assigned to the committee as counsel on both sides shall agree on, and the sitting Members be declared duly elected.

2nd. That one of the sitting Members shall vacate his seat in such time that a new election may take place during the present Session; and that both of them shall use their utmost endeavours to secure the election and return of the petitioner at the next election for the borough of Reading (whether caused by such vacating, by death, advancement to the Peerage, or any other circumstance), without opposition, and to induce the Conservative electors of the borough of Reading to do the same.

That in the event of the petitioner's election not being effected in the way above proposed, the sitting Members will forthwith pay (2,0007.) two thousand pounds to the petitioner."

In each of the above cases, the reasons which operated upon the agents of the sitting Members to in.

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 respectively 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 resignation 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 honourable 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 unwil lingly 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 constituencysome 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 hypocrisy 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 500l. 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 2,000l.; but would that do with the country? It was clear