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?

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, he 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 resolution; 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 Com mittee, 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 individuals.

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. On the

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 issued, 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

brand with any peculiar censure Members who had been parties to those compromises. He had expected that Mr. Roebuck would have moved some resolution, that it was desirable, in consequence of the disclosures, to adopt immediate legislative measures; now such a measure had passed through Committee only the previous night. The appointment of the Committee was the act of the House; and Sir Robert Peel could not see in the manner of their inquiry, any departure from the ordinary course of other Committees, to justify a condemnation of the mode in which they had discharged the duty assigned to them. Mr. Roebuck was not personally responsible for their proceedings; on the other hand, the Report of the Committee showed that they contemplated no such proceedings as that in which he was now engaged. But how did the resolutions meet the case? He read the first two.

"Why, that being translated, means no more than this: You have been guilty of an offence, which is a violation of the liberties and privileges of the people, and a breach of the privileges of the House; still we will not call you to the Bar and censure you; but any person who hereafter in like manner may offend, we will.' But there are several other parts of these resolutions with which I am not satisfied. The honourable Gentleman, by his resolutions, declares these practices to be a violation of the liberties of the people, and a breach of the privileges of the House: now, I do not like dealing with general terms of this kind. I think the House ought not lightly to adopt such a declaration. The honourable Gentleman does not state the particular

nature of the compromise which shall constitute a violation of the liberties of the people, and a breach of the privileges of the House; but he refers to certain compromises, all of which differ in character; and, speaking generally, says, they are breaches of privilege, and violations of the liberties of the people. If they be so, why do you not go on, and censure the parties to them? When you talk of inefficient proceedings, is it not inefficient to pass by those guilty of these violations? Why, you abstain from censuring them, because we gave them reason to believe, that if they gave their evidence fairly, they should not be visited with censure. I wish to see a law passed which shall insure a full inquiry into, and a remedy against, such practices; but I am not quite certain that they are a breach of the privileges of the House, because, when the House passed the Elections Trial Bill, it divested itself of the charge of inquiring into bribery, and said to individuals, We leave it to you to prefer and defend charges of bribery.""

On a former occasion, Sir Robert Peel had strongly stated the danger of establishing precedents for the suspension of particular writs; but to pledge the House to suspend writs in six cases, involving the seats of twelve Members, was a course full of danger; on a nice balance of parties in the House, the majority might retain the balance of power, by thus suspending writs. He doubted whether the House had the power of suspending a writ on the vague intimation that some general measure concerning bribery was contemplated. In some cases, as that of Bridport, there was no seat

vacant; yet the resolution pledged the House to suspend the writ on the next vacancy that might occur. He should vote against the resolution, but should support Lord John Russell's Bill.

The resolutions were further opposed by Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Sharman Crawford, and Mr. Turner.

Mr. Roebuck briefly replied, showing that Major Beresford and Mr. Fitzroy had not disproved the substantial facts in their exceptions to the report. He had proposed his resolutions as a safeguard against the practices complained of until a Bill should be passed.

The first resolution was then negatived by 136 to 47; and after some little further discussion, the other two were negatived without a division.

Although the House of Commons thus refused to affirm Mr. Roebuck's conclusions respecting the proceedings which the Select Committee had brought to light, the investigation that had taken place proved not wholly devoid of practical result. It has been mentioned in the short summary which has been given of the disclosures contained in the report, that the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds within a limited time, under a pecuniary penalty, by one of the sitting Members for Reading, was one of the terms on which the petition against the return for that borough was compromised.

When, however, the time arrived for carrying this stipulation into effect, an unexpected difficulty occurred the Chancellor of the Exchequer, now made aware by the publication of the report of the purpose for which the application was preferred, declined to grant it; and V L. LXXXIV.

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 on this occasion, became the subject of discussion in the House of Commons, at the instance of Lord Palmerston, who moved on the 6th of August, 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."

He referred to Mr. Goulburn's refusal of Lord Chelsea's application for the Stewardship, on the ground that he (Mr. Goulburn) would not lend his assistance to carry out the compromises disclosed by the late Committee.

Lord Palmerston objected to that course on two grounds: It was a clear and distinct understanding, that if the parties whose proceedings were to be inquired into before Mr. Roebuck's Committee should make a full disclosure of what had taken place, and a full admission of any facts in which they were concerned, they should be completely indemnified and saved harmless from any injury, which might otherwise arise from the disclosures. The refusal of the Chiltern Hundreds by the right honourable Gentleman, must have been considered as an inconvenience or punishment to some one

either to the individual to whom the Stewardship was refused, or to the individual who expected to come to the seat when it was vacated by Lord Chelsea. Now he thought, that by retaining any person in Parliament who wished to go out of it, or by preventing [0]