.1.111. FIVE BOROUGHS.
THOMAS DuNcolinn has a knack of taking up half-formed conclusions which float about the House of Commons and putting them into a practical shape which makes them capable of a sub- stantial effect. He has done so with reference to the five corrupt boroughs whose practices became the subject of a special inquiry and a special set of Ministerial measures, introduced into Parlia- ment only to be withdrawn. In the following announcement which Mr. Duncombe has put upon the Notice-paper, the lame and impotent conclusion of this elaborate inquiry is compressed into a form satirical from its simple conciseness ; but a practical course is suggested for dealing with the case. In the event of any mo- tion being made for a new writ to either Canterbury, Cambridge, Hull, Malden, or Barnstaple, Mr. Duncombe is to move an amend- ment, as follows—
"That, whereas her Majesty, in pursuance of the provisions of an act passed in the 15th and 16th of her Majesty, c. 57, intituled, An Act to pro- vide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of corrupt practices at elec- tions for Members to serve in Parliament,' and in compliance with the prayer of the joint addresses of both Houses of Parliament, did appoint under her royal sign-manual certain persons to be Commissioners for the purpose of making such 'more effectual inquiry' into the corrupt practices alleged to have existed in the election of Members for Canterbury, Cambridge, Hull, Heiden, and Barnstaple:
"And whereas the said Commissioners have reported to her Majesty— "'That corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last election for the city of Canterbury, and at previous elections':
" ' That bribery, la-eating, and other corrupt practices, have for a long period systematically prevailed at elections for the borough of Cambridge ': "'That systematic corruption has uniformly prevailed at all the elections in Hull to which their notice had been called .
"'That corrupt practices in various forms had long prevailed at elections for Mahlon, and that open and direct bribery was practised at the last elec- tion to a greater extent than at any which preceded it ; that the bribery- oath was tendered to each voter as he CMS to the poll, and that it was freely taken by all, however recent, open, and unquestionable the bribe to them may have been ; and this shamelessness was in some cases increased by their becoming witnesses before the Commission of the double fact of their own bribery and perjury ; that a large portion of the electors, consisting chiefly of the poorer class of freemen, had, in giving their votes, been influenced by considerations of money and other benefits to themselves and that such in- fluences had been habitually employed to corrupt them, 'but that the blame of such corruption did not rest so much with them as with their superiors, by whom the _temptation to it was held out.' 'That corrupt practices extensively prevailed at the last election for Barnstaple; that of the 696 voters who polled; 255 received bribes ; that in the majority of cases, those who received bribes came forward and admitted their delinquency, but in some instances the efforts of the Commission to elicit the truth were met with gross evasion, prevarication and even perjury ; but these instances were not confined to the lowest class of voters ; men whose position in life ought to have placed them beyond the reach of cor- rupt influences attempted to screen their venality by denying it upon oath ; and apparently decent and respectable tradesmen were induced to commit the crime of perjury in order to preserve their position in the eyes of their fellow townsmen, and thus to hide the shame of their electoral cor- ruption.'" So far this showing exactly represents what her Majesty's Min- isters, with the assistance of the Commons, have done. The cor- rupt practices were known to exist in the five boroughs; an ela- borate inquiry was got up ; evidence was collected ; it was em- bodied in blue-books; and the results appear above. It was thought unfair to disfranchise whole boroughs for the sins of in- dividual electors, and bills were brought in one for each borough, to disfranchise the electors individually who had been proved to be guilty of corruption. Ministers, however, had entered upon a course of retractations, and the Disfranchisement Bills followed their Parliamentary Representation Bill. They thus left the whole of this flagrant case uncompletea. Practically they stopped short at Mr. Thomas Duncombe's "whereas." There was even a talk of issuing the writs ; so that the offence had been challenged, and proved, and then nothing was to be done upon it ! But here Mr. Duncombe rallies the Commons to their duty. Hold! he cries, you have established this wrong, and are about to license the repetition of it. As Sir William Molesworth says, you have tried every means of checking electoral corruption—except one, and you are going to suffer this flagrant case to pass without even attempting that one untried remedy. The untried remedy is the vote by ballot. You have decided, even this week, not to adopt that method as the rule. Many of the advocates, and some even
of the opponents, desire an experiment. Apply it, then, to this case.
Accordingly, Mr. Duncombe follows up his "'whereas" by the following substantive proposition-
" That leave be given to bring in a bill, limited to the period of five Years, to cause the votes at elections for Members to serve in Parliament, at Canterbury, Cambridge, Hull, Maldon, and Barnstaple, to be taken by ballot."
It will be observed that Mr. Duncombe only proposes to apply hia remedy in ease the writs be issued. He proposes to limit the bill to five years, a period just sufficient to take in the next general election and any single elections that may take place in either of the boroughs. It is a practicable proposal still applicable to the case
°F the five boroughs and to the suspended proposition of the ballot.
Previous page
