HC Deb 22 March 1833 vol 16 cc991-5
Mr. Ellice

moved the Order of the Day for a Committee on the Bill, and that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

Mr. Baring

begged to call the attention of the House to the unusual circumstances under which this Bill was brought forward. There was no ground for going out of the ordinary course of proceeding in this case. All that the House knew was, that there was an ordinary election petition against the sitting member for Stafford, which petition contained inter alia, the usual allegation of bribery. If a Committee above stairs had decided that bribery had been so extensively practised that it was necessary for that House to take notice of it, and to open the borough, or adopt any other proceeding which that Committee might recommend, that would have been the regular and proper mode of proceeding. But in this case when no Committee had made a report, the hon. Member came down with the whole weight of the Government to which he belonged, and called upon them to violate their usual course of proceeding, and suspend for six weeks the Committee on this election, for the pur- pose of continuing in the House a Gentleman who, by his own confession, could prove that 524 out of 526 persons had been guilty of gross bribery and corruption. What instance was there of any similar proceedings? What other case could be adduced of the House having consented to such a Bill, and that, too, on the mere assertion of an individual? He greatly disapproved of this interference with the established regulations for examining election petitions, and it ought never to be had recourse to, unless it was found that there was no chance of obtaining satisfactory evidence of corrupt practices without it. This Bill would enable the hon. member for Stafford to sit in that House, after a confession that his seat had been obtained by bribery, and he would be relieved from every possible disability that might otherwise affect him. The very first clause of the Bill said, that he should be "discharged from all disabilities and incapacities whatever."

Mr. Ellice

said, that two persons had stated in the Committee, that they could prove that 524 out of 526 persons had received bribes, and that they would do so if they were indemnified, and he in the name of that Committee, had promised them such a security.

Mr. Baring

continued: Why did not the hon. Member then confine his indemnity to those persons who were to give this evidence? If they freed the hon. member for the borough from all disabilities, as the Bill stated, he did not see what could hinder him from sitting for Stafford. Or was he to go back and be returned again—thus making the enormity of the offence his protection? This was a question of general principle, and they should be very careful not to establish a precedent which might produce very mischievous results. He moved, that the Bill be committed that day six months.

Mr. Ellice

said, the hon. Member's objections were of two kinds. First, that it was establishing a bad principle, because there had been no previous inquiry and report; and next, because it indemnified the candidates. The hon. Member found fault with him, because he proposed to omit the usual words, "not having been a candidate at the late election." Now, his hon. friend would have an opportunity of moving the insertion of these words, as in the Bills relative to East Retford and Gram-pound. One ground for the course he had pursued was, that it was the grossest hypo- crisy to select particular persons in such cases. It was well known, that up to the present time scarcely a Member had sat for this borough without having paid for his scat. He feared, that if the House waited for the Report of a Special Committee, they might wait till it was too late to make any inquiry. In the observations which his hon. friend had made on him, his hon. friend had spoken of him as connected with the Government, and as introducing this Bill in consequence of that connexion. He assured the House, that he was no more connected with the Government than his hon. friend was. He had been also unjustly accused of merely wishing by this means to keep the sitting Members in the House. He was not influenced by any such motive, All he desired was, that justice should be done. He thought, that on this question the House owed a duty to the public, and that the first Reformed House of Parliament was bound to investigate matters of this sort, if it wished to give satisfaction to the public. This Bill was not a perfect novelty. There was one recent instance of such a Bill having gone up from this House, and several instances of bills of this kind having been brought down from that House into the House of Commons. One particular instance was that of the Melville case, where a Bill of Indemnity was passed with regard to Mr. Trotter. He thought it of importance, that the Bill should be passed before the Election Committee sat to try the question of the return for Stafford. That Committee was appointed for the 16th of April, and it was for that reason that he now pressed the Bill through the House.

Lord Sandon

thought, that the candidates, if they were the persons who had been guilty of the bribery, ought not to be included in this Bill of Indemnity.

Mr. Ellice

said, that his object was, not to punish any party whatever, but to obtain a full disclosure of the facts, in order that the House might afterwards deal with the matter as a public abuse.

Mr. Littleton

would certainly vote for referring this Bill to a Committee; but he must say, that he looked upon it with some degree of distrust, since it extended the proposed indemnity to all persons whatever. At the same time he thought, that if some measure of this kind were not passed, public justice would be eluded. He thought, that the House should go into a Committee, where the Bill might be put into a less objectionable shape.

Mr. Shaw

thought, that a Bill of this kind ought not to be introduced, except it was founded upon the Report of an Election Committee, or otherwise the House would be adopting the bad precedent of acting in such matters on the suggestion of an individual. The hon. Member ought first of all to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject.

Sir John Wrottesley

agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman, who had just addressed them. He thought an Election Committee would be competent to meet the case, and with such a Committee it should be left. He wished the present Motion to be withdrawn, and the Bill not to be committed before the 20th of April, in order that the matter might previously be taken into consideration by the Election Committee, which would be appointed on the 16th. If, when the Election Committee was appointed, the sitting Member withdrew from opposing the petition, there would be ground for supposing that bribery had taken place, and then he should agree with any one who proposed a proceeding of the kind. If the hon. member for Essex would allow him he would substitute his Amendment for that proposed by the hon. Member, and would move, that this Bill be committed on the 22nd of April.

Sir Robert Inglis

looked at the Bill with great distrust, and was disposed to concur with the Amendment of the hon. member for Essex.

Mr. Baring withdrew his Amendment in favour of that proposed by Sir John Wrottesley.

Mr. Robert Gordon

said, that this Amendment would leave them in a great difficulty, and ought not to be adopted, for, according to this, if there should be no Election Committee appointed, then there would be no Bill. The House ought not thus to put themselves at the mercy of the persons concerned in this election, but ought to set their faces against bribery wherever they found it. A Reformed House of Commons would disgrace itself if it submitted to let such bribery escape as that which the right hon. member for Coventry was prepared to prove had been practised at Stafford.

Sir Thomas Freemantle

objected to proceeding now, as the course recommended seemed to him one of a most anomalous nature. If they did then go into a Committee, he should certainly vote to except the sitting Member from the benefit of the Bill.

Mr. Ellice

could not agree to the Amendment of the hon. Baronet; and if it were carried, he must leave the whole matter under his management.

Mr. Warburton

thought it was impossible for any unbiassed man to have heard the statement of the right hon. member for Coventry without being convinced, that the House ought now to go into a Committee on the Bill.

Mr. Foster

said, that it was an unjust principle, that certain parties should obtain indemnity for their individual crimes at the expense of the borough. The respectable part of the constituency of Stafford would consider it extremely hard to lose their franchise by the misconduct of some of their unworthy brethren.

The House divided on the original Motion: Ayes 84; Noes 16—Majority 68.

The Bill considered in Committee; verbal Amendments agreed to.

The House resumed.

List of the NOES.
Bankes, W. J. Pigott, R.
Chetwynd, W. F. Ross, C.
Eastnor, Lord Sandon, Lord
Foster, C. S. Shaw, F.
Freemantle, Sir T. Stormont, Lord
Gordon, Hon. Capt. Welby, G. E.
Handley, H.
Hay, Sir J. TELLERS.
Inglis, Sir R. H. Baring, A.
Nicholl, J. Wrottesley, Sir J.