"Did Hardiment give any reason for not paying money to the two men from the Third Ward? Yes, he said they did not belong to his ward. Did he say they could get it from their own ward? -Yes. From this statement of Hardiment's it certainly appeared to him that there was bribery in each ward, or at all events, in why he had got a cheque cashed on that particular day, and was it not rather an inconvenient day on which to receive and carry a large sum of money. He replied that he had some small bills to pay, and had no change in the house. The question was then put to him had a bagful of gold, and the men at first wanted £3 from him, but he only gave them £1 apiece. In the course, however, of the inquiry with respect to Hardiment a piece of evidence came out which will, I think, satisfy the House that the bribery at Norwich was of a very extensive character. After giving "You took all this in half-sovereigns for the £1 each to all the other men, there were convenience of the thing?-I did not ask for halftwo or three to whom he would not give sovereigns. They said they had got £200 worth anything; and the witness was asked-Very well, then, that will do.' It so happened of half-sovereigns ready counted up, and I said, that Messrs. Harvey's bank are Conservatives in the town?-I do not know; yes, I think they are. Think! Mr. Webster. Is he not one of the stanchest of your lot?-That is true, so he is. So it happened that at this stanch Conservative bank there were £200 in half-sovereigns that happened to be counted up?—Just so.” If, therefore, between two and three most of the wards in the town. There were o'clock in the afternoon of the day of other public-houses and other bribers in polling at Norwich Mr. Webster came Norwich, but the cases being of a similar into possession of 400 half-sovereigns character it was not necessary to trouble ready counted out on the counter of the the House with details. Many of the Conservative bank, the House could be men when they came to the poll were in at no loss to account for a certain amount such a state of intoxication that they ac-in the town. If this clue were followed of that electoral activity which prevailed tually did not know the names of the candidates for whom they were voting. up by the Commissioners, they would The Report, as he had ventured to sugprobably discover from what sources the For his own part, he gest already, hardly gave any idea of bribery came. the extent of the corruption which in all confessed he was not well satisfied to probability prevailed at Norwich, for proceed merely against inferior agents; after counsel for the petitioner had called he wished to discover the really guilty a number of witnesses to depose to cer- who had supplied the money forming parties in the background, the persons tain facts, he stated that there were a the source of all the corruption. It was great many others who could be pro-his painful duty to add that on the part duced to give evidence to the same effect, of the borough this was not a first ofwhereupon the learned Baron who presided said he did not think Mr. Keane would be forwarding his case by adducing any more evidence of that class. And accordingly the case was stopped fence. Norwich, in fact, was an old offender. It was not necessary to go back to 1837, when a very eminent Member of the House was unseated for In bribery. It would be enough to refer short. But it was clear from the statement of Mr. Keane, and he believed no to the year 1859, when two Members doubt existed as to the fact, that evi- were unseated for the same cause. dence such as that to which he had just from the Mayor and Corporation of Northat year a very remarkable Petition called the attention of the House was wich had been presented by his right but a sample of what might be given. hon. Friend the President of the Board The learned Judge said there was one thing which puzzled him, and that was of Trade (Mr. Bright), who had also, he to discover where the money came from. believed, a Petition to present on this That was a matter which he himself occasion, but was not now present. The should like exceedingly to see investi- petition to which he referred, after alleging that extensive and systematic gated by a Commission. There was, however, one curious piece of evidence bribery had been practised at the last which threw some light upon the sub-election, went on to sayject. A man named Webster stated that between two and three o'clock in the afternoon he went to the bank to get a cheque cashed for £200. He was asked "Your petitioners are desirous that a thorough inquiry and investigation should take place before Commission, into the alleged bribery and corrupa Committee of your House, or before a Royal tion practised at the last election, and particularly into the sources from which the money so cor- places where corrupt practices had prevailed; and the petitioners therefore prayed the House to deal the same measure of justice to them as to other places, and not to cast a stigma on the honesty of 12,000 or 13,000 electors because of the corrupt practices of a few. He was not going to contend that Norwich had always been an immaculate city. In olden times a Liberal majority was purchased by the Liberals, and that was attempted to be overturned by Conservative money. This state of things reached its culminating point in 1859, when the gentlemen who had since succeeded in disfranchising Lancaster very nearly succeeded in disfranchising Norwich, and in consequence of the startling and disreputable disclosures then made both parties determined to turn over a new leaf, though undoubtedly there still remained a residuum of drunkenness and venality. At the recent election the heads of both parties declared that they would not in any way countenance any act of bribery; and it had been proved that, on the part of the Liberals, not 6d. was spent, and that up to two o'clock in the afternoon the Conservatives were equally free from bribery. By that time some 8,000 honest electors had recorded their votes, and then, no doubt, a few over-zealous and injudicious partizans did bribe to a limited extent; but there was no organized system. What was done was small in extent and insignificant in amount. The Attorney General MR. READ said, the constituency had overstated the case in some respects. which he represented embraced many Only one or two persons were reported of the leading citizens and men of in- to have received £1, none to have refluence in Norwich, and that must be, ceived 10s., but some had taken 7s. 6d. in part, his excuse for asking the House or 28. 6d. It must be remembered that not to agree to the Motion of the hon. the Norwich trial was the first that took and learned Gentleman. He had just place under the new Act, hence a certain presented to the House a Petition signed harshness of procedure that was not by upwards of 2,900 magistrates, mer-practised elsewhere; and he believed chants, manufacturers and tradesmen of that the law laid down with regard to all shades of politics in the city of agency was hardly the same as had been Norwich, and that must be a further subsequently laid down by the same excuse. The persons signing that Peti- learned Judge in the cases of Westmintion stated that corrupt practices pre-ster and Wigan Petitions. In regard to vailed at the last election only to a very the state of the poll at two o'clock, the slight extent, and were conducted by private persons entirely on their own responsibility; that only eight cases of bribery were proved, and that the amount given was small and at a late hour, negativing the idea of any preconcerted scheme of corruption; and, further, that new Writs had been already issued to facts were these that the Liberal committee only issued one return at ten o'clock, which claimed for them a majority of 600, but they afterwards owned that it was incorrect, and they issued no more. The Conservative returns showed a gradual diminution of the majority against Sir Henry Stracey after eleven o'clock. It had been said that the day and drunkenness which formerly preof election seemed to be made a general vailed at elections had ceased to exist, holiday; but a great number of the new and he concluded by observing that he electors were very poor men, not earning had at all times found Norwich the more than 10s. or 128. a week, and some quietest and best behaved town he had of the larger employers of labour gave been in. If the Commission were issued, them a half-holiday, but few of them he believed that only some trumpery could have afforded to lose a day's work, cases of bribery would be proved; and and consequently numbers of workmen though he was not at all afraid that voted in the afternoon. The learned disfranchisement would follow he was Judge had, in the midst of his general anxious that Norwich should be spared severity, made one excuse-namely, that the stain and stigma that the appointsome of the voters really thought they ment of a Royal Commission would were entitled to a day's work. He (Mr. occasion. As to the three CommissionRead) would venture to offer another. ers, he would suggest that ample occuIt was a common delusion, but one not pation might be found for them if they likely to occur again, among the ex- were instructed to make a digest of the tinguished compound-householders, that different decisions of the Judges upon they were entitled to recoup themselves treating and agency, for the use of for the rates they had been called upon stupid Members of Parliament like himto pay. It would be remembered to self. A Royal Commission was not rethe credit of Norwich-that though the quired for the punishment of the guilty election undoubtedly occasioned consi- persons, for the evidence already colderable excitement, there was no tumult, lected was amply sufficient for a proserioting, intimidation, or window-break-cution, and it would be a great hardship ing; that no watchers were employed, to inflict the pain, disgrace, and expense and no cabs hired. Of the nine Conser- of a Royal Commission upon Norwich, vative committee-rooms only four were where the ratepayers were already burat public-houses. At the election in dened with local taxes to the amount of 1865 £7,000 was spent in legitimate ex- half their rent. He appealed to the penses; in 1868 the sum disbursed by hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William both candidates for that purpose was Russell), who had represented Norwich under £4,000. It had been said that in three successive Parliaments, to stand the day of election was marked by up, and either confirm or contradict the general drunkenness. That he entirely statement he (Mr. Read) had made. It denied. He had seen the chief constable was due to himself, to the constituency of Norwich and the deputy chief consta- he represented, to the House, and to the ble of Norfolk, and they both assured country, that the hon. and gallant Baronet him that drunkenness was not at all should do this. general on the day of election, and that MR. D. DALRYMPLE said, he they had seen much more on many mar- thought that what had just fallen from ket and fair days. According to the the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. police reports only three cases of drun- Read) went a considerable way to justify kenness occurred, and the Adjutant of the step taken by the Attorney General. the 1st Norfolk Rifle Volunteers stated He was not present at the last election in a letter to him that he had been quar- for Norwich-he might fairly say he was tered in many garrison towns, and that better engaged in another boroughhe never saw a quieter or more orderly but he attended at the inquiry before election, and though much about the the Judge, and he must say that, if entire day he could not call to mind a there was one point more completely solitary case of drunkenness. The proved than another, it was the fact colonel commanding the Royal Horse that Sir Henry Stracey was himself Artillery at Norwich had also sent him entirely free from any participation in a communication, in which the writer the disgraceful proceedings which ocstated that he was particularly struck by the great quiet, good order and temper that prevailed in the town during the election, and that he had since frequently expressed his pleasure at finding that so much of the disorder, rioting, curred at the last election. He, for one, regretted personally not to see the stalwart form of the hon. Baronet on the Benches opposite; but the regret was personal and not political, for he was not indifferent to the success of his party but he desired that the success should be obtained honestly and with clean hands. He thought there was a remarkable similarity between the elections of 1832 and 1868. On both occasions there had been a Reform Act, with a large addition to the constituency, and on both occasions the very first step of the Tory-or, as it was latterly termed, the Constitutionalparty had been to try and bribe the new constituency. He had himself entertained high hopes of the political integrity of that body; and he saw with regret that the foul stream of electoral corruption had not ceased to flow. If any other means could be suggested by which to get at the bottom of the evil he should be glad to spare his native town the stigma and expense of a Commission and the possible consequences that might ensue. But if the remedy could not be attained by any other means he was prepared that a Commission should issue rather than have it said corruption had been going on for thirty-five years and no attempt made to put a stop to it. He could very well understand that in the minds of some hon. Gentlemen opposite there might be strong objections to the appointment of a Commission. When the political trigonometers went through the county of Norfolk they created a remarkably pleasant constituency called South Norfolk-it was a constituency in which not even the reeds were shaken the strong winds of democracy—and in case of the disfranchisement of Norwich it might be fatal to the Conservative interest to have an influx of the Liberals thrown in upon that bucolic constituency. It did not seem to him at all necessary that disfranchisement should follow. If there were disclosures as to who supplied the money on this last occasion, it would surely be competent for the Attorney General to prosecute those parties. He (Mr. Dalrymple) disliked disfranchisement, which involved the many innocent in the punishment of the few guilty. The parties bribed, as had been stated in the Report, were persons in the receipt of wages not higher than 10s. or 128. a week. Now, if hon. Members had seen, as he had seen, the silent loom, the cold hearth, the empty cupboard, and the still more empty stomachs of such men as these, they would hardly blame them for taking the bribes offered. It was those who found the money and gave the bribes who were the real delinquents and deserved punishment. It was said only eight cases of bribery had been proved. That might be strictly true; but if Mr. Tillett had proceeded with the scrutiny there could be very little doubt that number would have been multiplied by eight, ten, or twenty. But a scrutiny cost nearly as much as a contested election, and they could, therefore, all very well understand why the scrutiny had not been pushed further than was necessary to demonstrate the existence of bribery as well as the agency employed in it. He did not think any measure short of a Commission would be effectual, otherwise he believed the Attorney General would have adopted it. The hon. Member for South Norfolk had read letters from various parties to the effect that Norwich had been very orderly, and that there was comparatively little drunkenness on the occasion of the last election; he (Mr. Dalrymple) also held in his hand letters from influential persons, clergymen, solicitors, and others belonging to both parties, who strongly urged that an effort should now be made to get rid of the stain which for so many years had rested upon the town, and he cordially echoed that sentiment, rejoicing, as he did, that the first opportunity he had of addressing that House was with a view to raise the standard of electoral morality in his native town. MR. GATHORNE HARDY: If there is one thing more desirable than another in inquiries of this kind, it is that they should be conducted in a spirit of impartiality and freedom from all semblance of party motive. Last Session, when an alteration was made in the system which had before prevailed, of trying election petitions, we endeavoured to obtain a tribunal that would be respected by the House and the country— a tribunal of which there would be no possibility of saying that it was affected by the partiality which attached to Committees, which, in many cases, did not deserve the imputation. We endeavoured to get rid of the difficulty by having the Judges to preside at those trials, who are to make a Report to this House, and, that Report having been made, there remained the question of the course to be taken in order to give effect to it. There is at present no public prosecutor, no Committee sitting that can initiate proceedings after the inquiry, and therefore that duty is devolved on the Law Officer | and after that time what was spent was of the Crown, who very properly comes by two, three, or four private individuals, forward as a quasi-judicial officer, and, entirely without the knowledge of Sir placing the case before the House in Henry Stracey, and to a very small exconnection with the Report of the Judge, tent. The present was not a question moves for the issue of a Commission. It on which, as a Member for Norwich, he seems to me we ought to act on the could venture to give an opinion. He Report of the Judge. The Judge re- left that entirely to the House, but ports, in the express terms of the sta- having been called on to state what he tute, that bribery was proved to exist, knew of the facts he had done so as well and that he has reason to believe that as he could. bribery extensively prevailed, and the Act of last Session provided that on such a Report we should address Her Majesty to issue a Commission to inquire. In this case there can be no dispute as to facts. The learned Judge purposely inserted these words in his Report with a view to call the attention of the House to the circumstances that came before him, and impressed his mind with the necessity of full inquiry. The learned Judge said there was a necessity for inquiry, and the Attorney General therefore comes forward in a quasi-judicial capacity to initiate the proceedings. When that has been done -when the Judge reports in the terms of the Act of last Session, and when a Motion is made, as in the present instance, by the Attorney General, we ought, I think, in order to avoid all painful discussions, to act in accordance with the Judge's Report. The whole of the facts are not gone into before the Judge; there is no occasion for a party to the proceedings to go further than he thinks necessary for his own objects; but the Judge has seen reason to ask the House to go further, and, relying on his Report, and the action of the Attorney General, I think it is our bounden duty to accept the recommendation of the Judge. SIR WILLIAM RUSSELL, as representing the city of Norwich for the third time, desired to state that after the year 1859 it was determined by both parties to avoid all corrupt influences, and that determination had been religiously carried out by the Leaders on both sides. At the next election not a farthing, he believed, had been spent; and on the last occasion the Judge had given his opinion that, as far as the Liberal candidates were concerned, no money whatever had been spent. As far as the Conservative party was concerned, up to the middle of the day he did not believe one single farthing was spent; He MR. HOWES said, he hoped to represent his present constituency for many years, but he trusted that he should not have the pleasure of receiving so large an addition to their numbers as would be the consequence of disfranchising the city of Norwich. The constituency of South Norfolk already numbered 8,000 voters, and that was quite a sufficient burden on the shoulders of any representative. After what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), it was not for him to oppose the Motion before the House; at the same time he must express his regret that greater pains were not taken to inquire into the errors that were said to have been committed. would make no reflections on the ruling of the learned Judge who tried the petition, but it was a mistake to assume that the Liberal candidate was the favourite and popular candidate. On the contrary, he did not believe there was a more unpopular man in Norwich than Mr. Tillett, although, no doubt, much of this was due to the share he had in the petition. All parties were agreed that Sir Henry Stracey was perfectly innocent of any participation in corrupt practices. At the same time it could not be denied that some of his supporters had bribed to a certain extent. He believed, however, that the amount spent in bribery was exceedingly small, and that the number of persons who had accepted bribes was also very limited. Now, if a Commission were appointed, and it should be found that there had after all been only a few cases of bribery, and that the sum given did not exceed 2s. 6d. per man, the effect would only be to throw ridicule upon the appointment of a Royal Commission, and to leave a strong sense of injury on the minds of the inhabitants, who would be saddled with the expenses, not one farthing of which would fall upon the guilty parties. He might pursue these remarks much |