moved, pursuant to notice, that the Andover Union Committee have power from time to time to report its proceedings to the House.

wished to hear from the noble Lord some explanation respecting this Motion. He understood that the first time the Motion for printing the evidence was made in Committee, and at a full meeting it was rejected by a majority of six to four. [An hon. MEMBER: No, by the casting vote of the Chairman.] Then it was lost by the casting vote of the Chairman; but in two or three days after the rejection of this Motion, it was again brought forward and carried by a small majority, and against the opinion of the noble Lord, who was in the chair. Now, he thought some Parliamentary reason should be assigned why the evidence in this particular case should be reported from time to time. It was an unusual request, and the House had reason to look for an explanation.

observed, that the right hon. Baronet was quite correct in stating that the question was before the Committee on two occasions; that on the first occasion the numbers for and against the Motion were equal; and it was rejected by his casting vote. On the second occasion the numbers were six to four in favour of printing the evidence. He still retained his opinion, that in the circumstances of the case it was not expedient that such a Motion should be carried. At the same time, he was bound to state that the Committee was sitting with open doors, that the public were allowed to come in, and that reports of the proceedings of the Committee found their way to the public. Those reports were of course not in an authentic shape, and were often inaccurate, and there could be no doubt that an authentic account of the proceedings, coming from the Committee itself, would be the means of furnishing correct information both to the House and the public. He must, however, state, that he had made this Motion as the organ of the Committee, and not on his own responsibility.

said, that when the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) said that a Parliamentary reason ought to be given for this Motion, the House would remember that there was the same reason for it that there had been in the case of the Committee which sat in 1836 and 1837 on the administration of the Poor Law. The right hon. Baronet was a Member of that Committee, he believed; and he was sure that the right hon. Baronet would recollect that after every sitting of the Committee the evidence had been reported to the House by Mr. Fazakerly, the Chairman of the Committee. He was sure that would be in the recollection of hon. Members, and, that being the case, he considered that it was for the right hon. Baronet to show why the precedent established on that occasion should be departed from on this. It was for the House to determine whether the evidence should be reported from day to day or not; but he trusted they would accede to the Motion, for if they did not, and if the evidence were printed all at once in a body, it was his conviction that it never would be read by the public. For himself, he hoped he should be acquitted of having acted unfairly in the course he had taken in the Committee. It had not been his object, in bringing forward a second time the Resolution for reporting the evidence from day to day, to take the Committee by surprise. He had been beaten on the first occasion by the casting vote of the Chairman, and he had then given notice that he should repeat the Motion at the next sitting of the Committee. The Committee, therefore, had the most ample notice of what was coming on. Considering the public importance of the questions involved in this evidence, he trusted that the House would agree to the Motion.

thought that this being a case in which an investigation was going on most intimately connected with the interests of private individuals, if the evidence were reported from time to time, they would only be giving to the world one-sided statements, which might be contradicted by subsequent evidence, but in the mean time might do much injury to the parties concerned. He must say that he did think it a hardship on the parties mentioned in the evidence that there should be parties in the Committee-room taking notes for the purpose of publishing the evidence; and he did think that it was worthy the consideration of the Committee whether they should not prevent any notes being taken; he believed that they had the power to do so, and he thought that justice to the parties demanded it.

said, that the hon. Member (Mr. Wakley) had referred to the precedent of 1836 and 1837. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) had an indistinct recollection of what had occurred on that Committee, but, if he remembered rightly, he opposed in the Committee the Motion for reporting to the House from day to day; and the Motion which it was now sought to obtain the assent of the House to was the first Motion of the kind since that precedent had been established. Undoubtedly the Committee might either exclude strangers, or if, admitting strangers, they found any of them taking notes of the proceedings for the purpose of publication, there could not be a doubt that such a publication would be a breach of the privileges of the House. The Committee might bring such publication before the House, and he had not a doubt that it would be considered to be a breach of privilege. It was quite true that the Motion was in form only to report the evidence from day to day to the House; but he presumed the object was to follow that up, if it were carried, by the ulterior Motion that the evidence so reported be printed. To that he should be decidedly opposed, considering such a proceeding to be quite opposed to justice and fairness to the parties concerned in this investigation.

did not see any objection to the publication, in an abbreviated form, of the facts as they came before the Committee. This was a public Committee; the public were admitted by the Committee to hear the evidence, and, that being the case, he could not conceive what harm could arise from the publication of it in print. He thought it would be much better for the persons against whom charges might be made in the course of the evidence to have those charges appear in print in an authentic form.

bore witness to the extreme approbation which the noble Lord opposite had earned from the Committee, and every Member of it, by his conduct as Chairman. He did not believe that any Member of the Committee would put in exercise either of the two powers which the right hon. Baronet had so kindly reminded them that they were invested with; he believed they would neither exclude the public nor seek to treat the publication of the evidence as a breach of privilege. He trusted the House would support the views of the Committee.

said, that perfect harmony had prevailed in the Committee, much of which he thought was attributable to the courtesy and good judgment with which the noble Lord had conducted himself in the chair. He (Mr. Pakington) had voted on both divisions against reporting to the House from day to day, on the ground that it was not for the public good that evidence so deeply affecting the parties mentioned in it should be published until the whole of it could be presented to the House. It would be the much better course for the Committee to put an end to the partial publication of their proceedings. He was bound to state that he entirely agreed with the right hon. Baronet, and should vote against the Motion.

had voted in the Committee, on the first division, against the evidence being reported from day to day. He should have done the same on the second division, if he had not been accidentally absent at the moment the division occurred. There might be garbled reports of the evidence given to the public by persons who attended the Committee-room to take notes of what occurred; but those persons did so at their own peril. The House had nothing to do with that; but they ought to recollect that much of this evidence—and very loose it was—consisted of criminations and recriminations of individuals, and was connected with nothing but mere local squabbles in the town of Andover. He would venture to say the public cared nothing about it. They had heard of parish meetings, in which it had been said of one of the speakers that the eyes of all Europe were on that man; and, perhaps, it might be that the people of Andover thought that all Europe was longing for this evidence. The House had lately legalized their own publication of libellous matter; and he would say that there was a great chance of libellous matter being brought out in the evidence before this Committee, which, if this Motion were carried, would be printed from day to day, and go forth to the world. Now, the evidence was chiefly ex parte so far as it had gone, and he said therefore that it would not be fair or just to the parties concerned to publish it. The newspapers published it at their peril, and the parties libelled had a remedy against them; but if the House published these libels, the parties would have no remedy. One witness had stated to the Committee that seven or eight other witnesses were all perjured, and persons of bad character. If the newspapers put that in print, the parties designated would have an action of libel against them, but if the House published that statement, the parties would have no redress. The precedent of the Committee of 1836 and 1837 had, he maintained, no analogy to the present occasion. That was an inquiry into the administration of the Poor Law throughout the country and into its general operation; it was not an investigation of local charges against individuals. He thought it would be unjust and unfair to pass this Motion.

as the organ of the Committee, did not feel justified in doing otherwise than taking the sense of the House on the Motion which he had been ordered to make as Chairman.

rose to move the following Amendment, to add at the end of the question after the word "Romilly"—

"And whether any means were resorted to by parties to the Petition, or others, for withholding from the consideration of the Committee matters contained in the allegations of the Petition having reference to bribery and treating."

The hon. Member contended that it was evident upon the face of the proceedings of the Committee, that there must have been a compromise for the purpose of avoiding a disclosure of the circumstances complained of in the petition. The petitioners complained of bribery and treating, and that was the point referred to them to inquire into. Well, the Committee did not say that bribery had not been proved, but that they postponed the consideration of it, thereby giving no judgment on the point at all. If the House permitted such a practice as this to go on, the public would come to the conclusion that the Members of that House were careless of such charges, seeing that they did not avail themselves of the power which the law gave them to investigate charges of this kind; and the result would be that some other tribunal would be found necessary to exercise jurisdiction in such cases in room of that House; a result which he, for one, should grealy deprecate. The hon. Member also maintained that the Speaker, in giving his casting vote on this question in the previous debate, exercised a power not authorized by Act of Parliament. For those reasons, he moved the Amendment of which he had given notice.

seconded the Motion, and insisted that the House was bound to inquire into this case, in order to vindicate its conduct in the eyes of the public. It had been stated in the previous debate by the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Gisborne), that the practice of "jobbing the votes" before Election Committees was quite notorious, If such were the case, that was another reason for inquiry, in order to see what amendment of the law was necessary to prevent this system being acted upon. It might be said that the Act commonly known as Lord John Russell's Act would afford a sufficient remedy. He denied that it would, for it could only be brought into operation if an elector of the borough would run the risk of subjecting himself to the forfeiture of 500l., which was the amount of his recognizances; and if he failed to prove his charges he was mulcted in that sum.

felt it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. Member, and, upon this simple ground, that a remedy was provided by the Act of Parliament introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London calculated ex- actly to meet the case, if any ground existed, for the Motion. From this Act it appeared that not only would a Committee be appointed with power to inquire, but it would be their duty to inquire whether extensive bribery had or had not been committed; and if it appeared that it had been committed, to report all matters relating to it to the House, which would take such steps against the parties committing the bribery as they should see fit. If, then, any elector or other person competent to do so had any real ground for bringing this matter under the notice of the House, there was a legitimate mode appointed by law for inquiring into it, and, therefore, he opposed the present Motion.

said, that the House had already agreed to an inquiry into this matter; and the question now before the House was, whether the Committee should not be required to carry it a little further, and endeavour to ascertain whether any means had been resorted to for withholding the consideration of bribery and treating alleged to have taken place. Well, what were the reasons for refusing it? It was said that Lord J. Russell's Act enabled him to inquire under certain circumstances: that might be quite true, but there was nothing in that Act to relieve the House from the responsibility of inquiring under other circumstances. It was the right of the subject that there should be such an inquiry. There had been a petition charging bribery and treating; but that was evaded by the Committee not going on with the inquiry. Was it intended to be laid down, that if Members of that House rose and made out a primâ facie case of bribery, the House was not to inquire into it? He maintained that they ought not to shrink from the subject, but that it was due to the honour of the House, where allegations of bribery had been so broadly made, that a Committee should be appointed, and he should vote accordingly.

should vote with the Government on this question, as he did not think any ground had been laid by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. Rockett had only called on the House to inquire into the circumstances attending his own vote, and not into any more general matters; and in the absence of any such request, as the Act of Parliament was so decisive, he should vote against the hon. Member for Oxfordshire.

reminded the House that this was not the first or second time that bribery had been proved, or at least generally supposed to exist, in the borough of Bridport. The allegations of Members of that House were worthy of attention, and the question ought not to be blinked by means of a mere technicality of law. The public would believe that they wished to screen corruption.

said, the natural impulse at first was, of course, to accede to any proposition to inquire into alleged bribery and corruption; and the question now was, whether or no they should appoint a Committee to determine whether or no there had been bribery at the Bridport election. Fortunately in this case there was no party or personal feeling to interfere with the dispassionate decision of this case. But while they were naturally anxious to inquire into allegations of bribery, they should not lose sight of the natural tendency there was in a popular assembly to decide questions by party feeling, nor of the circumstances under which, in the time of Sir R. Walpole, the power to decide on disputed questions of the sort was given to Election Committees. He ventured to say, that if the House were to resume the right of jurisdiction, the time would soon come when the decisions on such questions would again be decided by party and political considerations, and not by justice. The House could not have forgotten the time when a regular canvass was resorted to in order to obtain a majority. It was to stop such proceedings that the House had divested itself of the power of giving the decision of such matters to Committees appointed pro hac vice, and had given it to Committees appointed under statute to decide judicially. He feared that the course now recommended by the hon. Member would establish an inconvenient precedent. An inquiry would by no means be precluded by their refusing to agree to the recommendation of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire. The Speaker, though he (Sir R. Peel) would by no means say that his opinion was necessarily conclusive, had said that under the 5th and 6th Victoria it would still be competent to any elector to present a petition praying for an inquiry into alleged bribery, on which the House would appoint a Committee, with power to examine on oath, and to decide judicially; and the vote of the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded on that ground, thinking, as he did, that the Committee then moved for would have no better means of deciding than the Bridport Election Committee had had. If such a petition were presented, and bribery were established by the evidence of a single witness, the question of compromise could not be excluded from the inquiry of the Committee; so that by the adoption of such a course the whole question would be legally decided by a Committee appointed under the Act known as Lord J. Russell's Act, the express object of which was to prevent inquiries of this sort, at the mere instance of individual Members, by Committees with no more powers than those of an ordinary Select Committee. Feeling, then, that the authority of the Committee must be maintained, and that no Committee presided over by the right hon. Gentlemen the Member for Halifax would neglect its duty, he should now give the vote which he considered he had substantially given on the former occasion, against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire.

said, the right hon. Baronet had done all he could to draw the House away from the real question, which had nothing whatever to do with the party influence formerly exercised; because, whatever way the inquiry asked for might be decided, the seat could not be affected by it. The real question at issue was the credit and character of that House. The right hon. Baronet said, it was open to the electors to petition; but the time for petitioning expired on the 6th of June, and the adjournment for the holidays was until nearly that time.

was of opinion that the Committee had had, under the Act, full power to inquire into the cause of the abandonment of the charge of bribery. Words which gave them that authority were introduced into the first section, and as industriously excluded from the fourth; but the Committee, instead of inquiring, as they were authorized to do, adopted the extraordinary course complained of in the petition of Rockett—they did not receive the evidence of the poll-clerk, which would have decided the question; but, acting on the evidence of a stranger to the record, they shifted the vote of Rockett from one poll to the other. He thought that the House should not allow this opportunity to escape of ascertaining whether there had been a compromise or not.

said, what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman appeared to him an additional reason why the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ox- fordshire should not be agreed to. The authority of the Committee ought to be supported. It was appointed under the Act known as Lord J. Russell's Act, by the first section of which specific tribunals were to be established for the purpose of deciding such questions. That Committee had exercised its discretion. No new evidence was afforded, no new petition had been presented, and he agreed with the Speaker in thinking that if a Committee were now appointed, they would have no better means of deciding the case than the Bridport Election Commitee had. The Committee now moved for would, in fact, be a court of appeal from that Committee. On the other hand, it was still open to the electors to petition, and a Committee might then be appointed which would have much greater power than a Select Committee of that House.

denied that there was no new matter before the House; but, after all, the real question was, whether the House desired to be left in ignorance of what their own tribunal had done. The character of the House was suffering through the conduct of the Committee. He gave them credit for the best intentions; but out of doors every one was laughing at the decision of the Committee. They were bound to inquire whether the tribunals they had established for the trial of election cases were efficient. If it turned out that the Committee in this instance had discharged its duty, the investigation would redound to the credit of the House.

adverted to the appointment of Mr. Rogers as additional Under Secretary in the Colonial Office. He thought the Office ought to have been remodelled, rather than a gentleman nominated in disregard of the claims of those who had long been connected with the department, and who had efficiently discharged their duties. Mr. Rogers had been Registrar General under the Joint Stock Act, and had hitherto had nothing to do with the Colonial Office.

wished the right hon. Gentleman had given him notice of his intention to introduce the subject. It was proposed to appoint an Assistant Secretary in the Colonial Office, for the purpose of aiding Mr. Stephen, particularly in reference to Colonial Acts. Mr. Stephen had pointed out the necessity of having a person to look after these. The gentleman who held this appointment would also perform the duties of Third Commissioner of Emigration, without receiving any additional salary. An appointment which had lately fallen vacant in the Colonial Office had not been filled up, and new arrangements were in contemplation for remodelling the Office, and reducing the number of the chief clerks.