sentative system. He was grieved to be | have done so. That hon. Gentleman could obliged to say that there were many cor- not be ignorant of the state of Harwich, rupt boroughs in England, but there were for he was one of the most prominent strong grounds for believing that Harwich Members of the Committee appointed in was the most corrupt of all. It was a 1841 to inquire into the affairs of that decaying town-falling off in wealth, and depraved and degraded borough. Many wasting away in population; and there was inquiries had, from time to time, been this remarkable peculiarity about it, that instituted respecting the electors of Harthe number of voters increased in propor- wich, but he (Mr. B. Osborne) would not tion with the poverty and progressive ruin go further back than to the Commission of the town, This fact alone was suffi- of 1842. The Commission appointed in cient to awaken suspicion and justify in- that year had presented a Report which quiry. It was his own opinion that so was eminently worthy of the attention of universal and so deep-rooted were corrup- the House. They stated that three petition and bribery in Harwich, that there tions had been presented against the rewas but one method of putting an end to turn of Mr. J. Attwood and Mr. Beressuch practices, and that was by disfran- ford on the ground of bribery and corrupchising the borough altogether. They tion-that arrangements had been entered might depend upon it there was no other into by the agents of those gentlemen, mode of abating the nuisance. There was which had been carried into operation by scarcely such a thing known as an election their principals, to the effect that Major in Harwich which was not followed by an Beresford should retire within a month, inquiry before a Committee of that House; by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds-that but the worst of it was that when the Sir Denis Le Marchant should be allowed Committee had once seated or unseated to retain his seat-and that Mr. J. Attthe Member petitioned against, there was wood should guarantee the fulfilment of an end to the matter, and the House did these stipulations by the payment of not care to institute any further investiga- 2,500l. The Commission, moreover, had tion into the prevalence of corrupt prac- had it in evidence from Mr. J. Attwood tices in the borough. He looked on the himself, that he had paid 2,000l., and present Motion as ill-timed and unneces- they also discovered that one of his agents sary, and would more as an Amendment had been so obliging as to pay 5007. more. that the writ be suspended for six months. The Report then went on to state that MR. BERNAL OSBORNE, in second- the election of Messrs. Attwood and Being the Amendment, said, that regard resford had cost 6,3007,-that thirty-three being had to the changed circumstances voters had received for their votes sums of public affairs, he was sure that the varying from 50l. to 100l. a piece, and House would give credit to the hon. Gen- that the great majority of the whole contleman the Secretary for the Treasury stituency had been bribed. That was in (Mr. Mackenzie), who had just moved for 1842. And what occurred in 1847? certain writs, for declining to move a new Why, in 1847 a Committee of that House writ for the borough of Harwich. Al- declared that J. Attwood, Esq. had not though it might not be known to many been duly elected to sit for the borough of Members on the Ministerial side of the Harwich, having been by his agents guilty House, it was not the less notorious out of of bribery; and the noble Lord who had doors, that the present Solicitor General just accepted the office of Treasurer of (Sir F. Kelly) intended to present himself Her Majesty's Household (Lord C. Hamilbefore the immaculate electors of that ton) had been very eloquent, a few evenborough; and he held in his hand an ad- ings ago, about the corruptions which were dress to that right hon. Gentleman from proved to have prevailed at St. Albans, certain of the electors of that borough, and had even declared that, in his opinion, inviting him to come down to that purest Mr. Coppock would have been treated just and most estimable of constituencies. He as he deserved had he been called to the therefore was not surprised that the hon. bar of that House to answer for his misconGentleman the Secretary for the Treasury duct-a course which he (Mr. B. Osborne) should not have moved for a new writ for regretted was not persisted in. But such that unhappy place; but he certainly was a proceeding would not have remedied the not a little amazed that the hon. Member evil of which the noble Lord complained; for South Essex (Mr. Bramston), who for what was Mr. Coppock but one of the knew so well what Harwich was, should effects of their present Parliamentary

fact was, that unless the writ had been | from the charge of encouraging corrupmoved for with a view to serve the pur- tion as any Member of the House. It poses of a candidate attached to Her Ma- was not right for the House to encourage jesty's present Government, they would this unconstitutional mode of proceeding have heard of no opposition to the writ against suspected or convicted boroughs. from those who now opposed it. ["Oh, oh!"] They ought to take the manly course of Then, why was not a Motion brought on disfranchising the borough if they had last year for sending a Commission? He evidence of its corruption; but, since they simply contended that the Committee em- had altogether failed in obtaining sufficient powered to investigate the matter reported legal evidence, however strong the moral that the sitting Member ought to be un-evidence might be, of bribery or corrupseated, but did not recommend any ulterior tion on the part of the borough of Harproceedings; and he thought, as there was wich, he protested against their withholdno record on the table of the House show-ing the issuing of the writ. He would ing any grounds on which the borough of ask whether, at the last two elections for Harwich ought to be disfranchised, they that borough, there had been a tittle of were bound, consistently with the ordinary evidence to sustain the charge of bribery? rules of the House, to concur in the Mo- He believed there was no proof at the last tion that Mr. Speaker be directed to issue election or the one before, of either bribery his writ. or corruption.

MR. HUME said, he could not refrain from expressing his surprise that his hon. Friend who had just addressed the House should have risen to be the advocate of corruption. He was sure his hon. Friend would be obliged by a correction of the statement, that if the Ministers who were lately in power had remained in office, no such proceeding as that proposed respecting Harwich would have taken place. Notice was given on the subject last Session, and notice was given this Session; and he had himself put a question whether steps would not be taken by the Government for the issue of a Commission? They who wished to see rotten boroughs disfranchised, and an end put to corruption, expected in the coming reform that the borough of Harwich would be one of the first to be dealt with. The late Ministers had sanctioned the course of not issuing the writ. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bramston) who had moved for the writ should have waited till the Ministers of the Crown were in their places. Ministers would have had a glorious opportunity of showing how far they were determined to support such practices as had prevailed in Harwich. The hon. Gentleman was, he (Mr. Hume) knew, as hostile to such practices as any one, and would, he hoped, yield to the opinions intimated by the House, and abstain from pressing the Motion.

MR. AGLIONBY objected to the continued suspension of writs without steps being taken for inquiry. The constitutional way of proceeding would have been to have had a Commission issued long ago. On this point he held himself to be as free

SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY said, he had sat upon the Harwich Election Committee, and he could state that the evidence produced referred only to the premature close of the poll, in consequence of a riot, and not at all to bribery or corruption. Therefore there was no ground of proved malpractices to justify the refusal to reissue the writ. But he also objected to the Amendment before the House, on the ground that the practice of suspending writs was most unconstitutional. If the House allowed the principle, the result would be, on occasions, to place in the hands of a tyrannical majority a most unconstitutional power.

At the same

MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY believed that the practice of the House in the case of transferring the franchise from one borough to another, was to consider what had taken place in that borough, not at one election only, but at all preceding elections. That was the rule applied to the borough of St. Albans. time, he considered it very unconstitutional to suspend the issuing of a writ for any borough, and to take no steps for purifying that borough. But, voting for suspending the issuing of the writ, as he should do in this instance, he should do so upon the understanding that Harwich would be dealt with in the same spirit in which St. Albans had been. He could not help agreeing with the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) that this was a glorious opportunity for Her Majesty's present Ministers, which it appeared they had failed to take advantage of. They should have come forward at once and proposed an inquiry into the practices not only at Harwich, but at Staf

ford, at Malton, and in several other | Evans) would give notice that if the House boroughs where there would have been suspended the issuing of the writ, he should found practices that required to be dealt move for a Commission of Inquiry. with quite as much as with Harwich itself. MR. KER SEYMER could state, as Chairman of the first Harwich Election Committee, that no evidence had been given to justify a report that bribery and corruption had been proved. If this Amendment was carried, the mover of it would be bound to call upon the House to issue a Commission; and in the event of a Commission for Harwich being appointed, he (Mr. K. Seymer) would feel it his duty to ask the House to appoint another Commission to inquire into the state of affairs at Leicester at some recent elections. He had sat on the Leicester Committee, and the report of that Committee had been that the bribery proved to have been practised at Leicester required the attention of the House.

MR. BRAMSTON said, he had entertained no intention whatever to take the House by surprise, and he should not have moved the issuing of the writ, if he had not understood from the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster (Sir De L. Evans) that he merely wished to make some remarks upon the question, without opposing the Motion. He (Mr. Bramston) admitted that he was a Member of what was called the "Roebuck Committee" of 1841, when the state of Harwich and other boroughs was inquired into; but the House had no right to concern itself now with what took place in 1841. Upon receiving a communication from some of the electors of Harwich, requesting him to move a new writ, he at once felt it to be his duty to look into the decisions of the two last Harwich Election Committees, and the result of his investigations was, that in the case of the inquiry which took place before the Com

SIR GEORGE GREY thought that as such different opinions had been expressed by different Members of the Harwich Election Committee, with regard to the charac-mittee of April, 1851, he found that Mr. ter of the evidence produced in this case, Prinsep was deprived of his seat for want it would be advisable for the House not to of the property qualification required by come to any conclusion without being well Act of Parliament; and that in the recent informed as to the precise facts. He be- instance Mr. Crawford was unseated believed that on a former occasion it was cause a riot took place in the town which clearly understood, at the suggestion of brought the poll to a premature conclusion. the present hon. and learned Judge Advo- No mention of bribery or corrupt practices cate, that the writ for Harwich should not was made by the Committee in their Rebe moved for without forty-eight hours' port, or any recommendation for the issue previous notice being given. The hon. of a Commission of Inquiry; but the ComGentleman opposite (Mr. Bramston), how-mittee contented themselves with simply ever, had moved that the writ be issued; and the hon. Gentleman was understood to say that he would not take the House by surprise, but that, if any opposition should be offered he would at once withdraw or postpone his Motion. At least, if the hon. Gentleman pressed his Motion, the best course would be to adjourn the debate for a fortnight. He (Sir G. Grey) had not understood from the observations of hon. Members who had sat on the Harwich Election Committee, that gross corruption had been proved to prevail at Harwich: if, however, that were so, the House should certainly be called on to issue a Commission. But under present circumstances he thought the discussion had better be postponed.

SIR De LACY EVANS understood that sufficient evidence of corruption in the borough of Harwich had been adduced to prevent the present Judge Advocate from moving for a new writ. He (Sir De L.

stating the facts to which he referred as grounds for a fresh election. In cases of bribery and corruption, he (Mr. Bramston) was as ready as any man could be to visit boroughs and even counties with the punishment such an offence deserved; still it was due to those boroughs that they should not be punished without evidence to convince the House of the guilt they had incurred. Having satisfied himself by consulting the Reports of the two last Committees that bribery was not proved or imputed against the borough of Harwich by those Reports, he felt that he was doing no more than his duty as one of the Members for the county of Essex when he acceded to the request which was made to him, and moved for the issue of a new writ. He would not, however, press his Motion further at this moment.

Ms. ELLIS begged permission to refer to one point in the remarks of the hon. Gentlemau (Mr. K. Seymer) opposite. He