Mr. Hodgesrose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition from numerous Electors and other Inhabitants of the Borough of Chatham, complaining, that, in consequence of the votes which many of them gave at the last election, the Commanding Officer of the Marine Barracks had thought proper to interfere in a manner wholly unprecedented, and, as the petitioners alleged most unjustly, with the freedom of trade in that place. He was sure it was unnecessary to call the serious attention of the House to a subject of such grave importance, affecting so deeply its rights and privileges, and the due freedom of election, as that to which the petition referred. It was signed by 330 electors and inhabitants of Chatham, and it complained of the line of conduct adopted by the Commandant of the Marine Barracks there, in consequence of the proceedings that had taken place at the late election for that town. The petitioners stated, that for many years—indeed from time immemorial—the tradesmen and other inhabitants of Chatham had been in the habit of transacting business in the Marine Barracks, for which purpose they had been admitted without let or hindrance there, until the 19th of January last; that on the 7th and 8th of that month the election for Chatham had taken place, on which occasion a large proportion of the slopsellers and pawnbrokers resident in the borough had voted for Captain Byng, the candidate opposed to the Government, and successful candidate, Sir John Beresford; that on the 19th of January, to the surprise of the petitioners, an order was affixed to the door of the Marine Barracks, signed "H. James," 1194 ordering that no pawnbrokers or slopsellers should in future be admitted to the barracks, without a special order from the Commandant. The petitioners proceeded to state, that though this order had been issued without any charge of misconduct having been preferred or established against the said class of tradesmen, they would not have complained of it, if it had been enforced fairly and impartially, but that two or three slopsellers and pawnbrokers, who had voted for Admiral Beresford, had been admitted to the barracks, while the others had been excluded; that, in fact, the whole of that set of trades people who had voted for Admiral Byng, had been refused orders of admission from the Commandant: that they (the petitioners) considered such an order, so enforced, arbitrary and unjust, originating in party and political feelings, and intended to prevent the free exercise of the elective franchise in that borough; that they were especially induced to form that opinion of it when they found the issuing of it so recently after the election, coupled with the fact of a conversation which it would be proved had occurred just previous to the election between an elector and Colonel Tremenhere, the Colonel-Commandant, in which the Colonel used the following words:—"If Chatham does not return Admiral Beresford, I hope that the Government will take such measures as will have the effect of shutting up half the shops in the town." The petitioners, in conclusion, expressed their confident hope, that the House would not allow persons holding such situations to interfere unduly with the free exercise of the elective franchise—they asked for inquiry, and for the adoption of such measures as the House in its wisdom might consider the case required. As the House would observe, nothing could be more constitutional or decorous than the tone and prayer of the petition. He was sure that the House would agree with him (Mr. Hodges) in the opinion, that this was a most important petition. Was it to be endured that officers maintained out of the public revenue of the country, should take upon themselves to interfere in the manner here alleged with the freedom of election.? It was quite true, that the order was issued after the election, but its effect would be prospective. What chance (should proceedings like this be suffered) would any tradesman, or inhabitant of 1195 Chatham have of fair play in future in the way of his business, if he should at any election hereafter vote against the Government candidate? He was well aware that the Commandant of any barracks might issue such orders as he judged fit relative to the admission of persons into the barracks, but here, if the allegations in the petition should be proved, there had been no charge made against the parties of interference with the discipline of the place; and if the conversation that was alleged to have occurred between an elector and Colonel Tremenhere previous to the election, should be proved, it was plain that the Government influence would be employed to prevent free and fair trading in the place. He was aware that great danger was incurred by persons making applications of this nature either to Members of the House, or to the House itself. Indeed, if such applicants should be few in number, they generally devoted themselves by so doing to certain destruction. But on the present occasion, upwards of 300 persons had signed the petition, and by so doing they mutually protected one another, for it would be impossible to deal destruction on so large a body. He believed it would be found, whenever the matter should be investigated before a tribunal of that House, to which he hoped it would be referred, that the petitioners would be able to support by evidence the allegations contained in their petition. It was his intention, after he had presented the petition, if the House would permit him, to move that it be referred to the Intimidation Committee, appointed on the Motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Devonport. They had now a complaint brought in a distinct shape before them, and by a petition numerously and respectably signed, and he thought they would fail in their duty if they did not throw some protection over those to whom the elective franchise had been intrusted. The hon. Member brought up the petition, and after it was read, he moved that it be referred to the Intimidation Committee.
Sir John Beresfordwas obliged to the hon. Member for the note that he had last night received from him, intimating that he would present this petition this evening. The only thing that he could assure the hon. Member and the House was, that the charge against the gallant Commandant of the Marine Barracks was 1196 a charge, in his opinion, not at all borne out, and he did not think that in the opinion of anybody such a course as that alleged to have been taken by the Commandant would at all promote his (Sir John Beresford's) interests. The fact was, that if he could take any course to make enemies for him in the borough of Chatham, it would be by prohibiting anybody to go into the barrack-yard. He certainly would not be disposed to excite or foment any angry feelings connected with the election; on the contrary, it would give him the greatest pleasure to allay them. The present charge of intimidation after an election was over, was one that belonged to his country, for it was something like a bull, and was indeed a curious charge to prefer. He had never known of the petition until he saw it last night; but if the prayer of it should be entertained, he supposed that the next thing would be, that the House would interfere with commanding officers. He said so, not from any idea of sheltering Colonel Tremenhere whatever; but if they should come thus to interfere with an officer in the execution of his duty, the next step would be to interfere with his Majesty's ships. As to this matter of Colonel Tremenhere's order, relative to the barracks, he knew not whether Colonel Tremenhere had a vote or not. He had himself never questioned electors on account of their votes. He had been applied to by several parties who had given pledges to Captain Byng, but he would not accept their votes. He would rather cut off his right hand than do so. He believed that a better officer, or a more honourable man, there did not exist than Colonel Tremenhere. He (Sir John Beresford) had not served with him, but Admiral Murray, and others who had served with him, spoke of him in the highest terms. Good God! could not an officer give orders to his regiment, or his corps, without being interfered with? As to the conversation that was said to have occurred, the only marked thing in the matter, he had never heard of it until he read the petition last night. He did not think that Colonel Tremenhere would lend himself to any one or any body of men. He was sure that he was incapable of doing anything improper. If any blame attached to the transaction, he (Sir John Beresford) was clear of it, and he would go further, and say, that he was ready to 1197 stand in the place of Colonel Tremenhere, as he was sure that he was altogether free from blame also. He did not think that it was necessary for him to say anything more in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member.
§ Sir George Greysaid, that no one imputed to the gallant officer such acts as the petitioners had complained of. Every one knew that a more honourable man did not exist, and he was quite willing to give him credit for acting up to the sentiments he had just expressed. The present question was one of great public importance. Being himself the Representative of a borough (Devonport) somewhat similarly situated to that of Chatham, he could from his own knowledge testify that the zeal of certain officers often outran their discretion, and that in serving the existing Government, they did not stop to consider the freedom of those placed under them as sailors or soldiers as to the giving of their votes. This petition, signed by 300 and upwards of the inhabitants of Chatham, contained charges which, if established, constituted a gross breach of the privileges of that House; and the complaints thus made by those petitioners, were not to be disposed of by the mere assertion, that the commanding officer of a barrack or a ship, might issue any orders that he pleased for the regulation of those under his command, and that he ought not to be interfered with. The House had a right to look at the animus with which such orders were issued, whether on the eve of an election, or immediately after it; and he had no hesitation in saying, that if the circumstances stated in the petition were true, they amounted to little short of positive proof that the commandant of the Marine Barracks at Chatham, did interfere so as to influence the freedom of election at a future period, by the exercise of a power which he had no right to use in such a way. It was clear, even had not the conversation alluded to taken place previous to the election, that the electors could not but bear in mind that in a few days after the election was over, a certain course of conduct had been pursued towards those persons who had voted against the Government candidate, that there was no doubt that it was intended to influence their votes at a future election, and to make them know that if they should then give their votes according to their consciences, they would be injured 1198 in their interests by so doing. He was of opinion, that if the House were honest and sincere in its desire to maintain the purity and freedom of election, they would entertain this petition, and give it their most serious attention. He knew that the greatest dissatisfaction existed amongst a large class of the voters in the borough which he represented, owing to the manner in which Government influence had been exercised there. He hoped that the Committee to which reference had been made, might be able to devise some remedy to prevent such doings in future. But the object of that Committee would be, not to deal with any particular case, or to sift the charges contained in any petition addressed to that House, with a view to any particular case, either for the redress of particular electors, or the punishment of any individual, that should have acted contrary to the spirit of the Constitution. The object of that Committee was, to take a general view of all those cases, in order to apply a general remedy. It was important that they should have such a petition as this referred to them, but he thought that a Select Committee should be specially appointed to take it into consideration. This case, sustained by the petition of 300 electors, might be taken as a sample of the kind, and he would suggest to his hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, whether, as this case had assumed a serious aspect, he had not better give notice for a future day of a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into it. He thought that would be the fairest and the best way of taking up the matter and investigating it, both as regarded Colonel Tremenhere and the petitioners.
§ Mr. Pottersaid, that he knew many shopkeepers who had been interfered with in a similar way on account of votes they had given. If the House did not interfere, the freedom of election would be at an end. He believed that there was no cure for such practices but the Ballot.
§ Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that as practices similar to those alleged in this petition, had taken place at Devonport, he thought it important that this petition should be referred to a Select Committee, specially appointed to take it into consideration. He would be able before such a Committee, to prove that similar intimidation was going on at the present moment in Devonport. Hon. Members 1199 had, no doubt, seen a correspondence in the newspapers on the subject. The conduct of the marines at Devonport, in reference to the late election there, should be inquired into, particularly that of the adjutant, who was married to the daughter of the commanding-officer. He would clearly show, before a Committee, that intimidation had been resorted to by him, and that serious injury had been caused to the freedom of election in Devonport. He thought that might be properly attributed to Mr. Dawson having hoisted the Admiralty flag, and to the general commanding the marine corps having taken a leading part in the election at a neighbouring borough.
§ Sir Robert Inglishad thought that the matter to which the gallant Admiral had referred, had been set at rest. If he was not mistaken in the correspondence alluded to, it was stated in a letter from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Ebrington) to whom the case was referred, that the officer in question was not at all to blame.
§ Sir Edward Codringtonsaid, that the hon. Baronet confounded two cases.
Sir Phillip Durhamhoped the House would be slow to open either barracks or ships to such a class as those persons who endeavoured to get in to them, whether Jews or Gentiles. He had been a great deal at sea-ports, and he would say, that if they were to open a barrack or a ship to those whisky-dealers, they would not have a sober man in either in a short time. If the House was to take the power out of the hands of a commandant of marines, or the captain of a ship, to keep such characters out, they would repent it. They all knew that the men employed in this species of trade, were of the worst description. When a man was fit for nothing else in London, he became a coal-merchant; and so in the sea-ports, when a man was fit for nothing better, he became a seller of gin or whisky. There would not be a sober man in a ship in three days, if such characters were to be admitted into it.
§ Mr. Bernaldid not differ from the gallant Admiral as to the impropriety of the House interfering with orders, whether issued by civil, military, or naval authorities, when they contained regulations authorized by the laws of the services. He was as little disposed as the gallant Admiral to ask the House to interfere with the orders of a commander of a ship, or 1200 the general placed at the head of a barrack. But the gallant Admiral was mistaken in supposing that it was an order of that description that was complained of in this instance. The petitioners stated that which was a fact, that from time immemorial, certain tradesmen and inhabitants resident in Chatham, had been allowed the liberty, or the license if they would, of trading in the Marine Barrack-yard, with the persons residing there. That was their statement, and he (Mr. Bernal), as Member for the neighbouring town of Rochester, could state that he believed that representation to be true. Of course the commanding officer of the barracks had a right to issue what orders he pleased respecting their admission, but it was not of that the petitioners complained. They complained that by order of the 19th of January, all those who had been in the habit of resorting to the barracks for the purposes of trade had been excluded, with the exception of two or three pawnbrokers and slopsellers who had voted for the gallant Admiral, the present Member for Chatham. If any disreputable conduct had been discovered amongst this class of persons, or if they had been guilty of any irregularity, they could not complain of the order. All that the petitioners asked for was, that there should be a fair and impartial exercise of the power vested in the hands of the commanding officer. They sought for no more. He must contend that this question involved a most important constitutional point—namely, how far the military authorities of the country were at liberty to do acts in the exercise of their authority, that would have the effect of abridging the franchise of Englishmen. Thus stated, it would be seen at once that this question involved a constitutional point of the utmost importance. He was glad to find this matter brought before the House. If voters were not allowed to exercise their franchise freely and conscientiously—if, in short, such practices as the one complained of in this petition should be permitted, all freedom of election was at an end. It would, under such circumstances, be a perfect farce. He believed that Colonel Tremenhere was a respectable and distinguished office, but that had nothing to do with the point in question. The House was to look to the principle involved in such a proceeding as this; and neither of the gallant Admirals had 1201 touched upon the real point at issue. In the present case, the charge was, that a military officer had exercised his military jurisdiction with a view to endeavour to prevent a large portion of the inhabitants of the borough from voting as their consciences might induce them. He trusted that his hon. Friend would not allow the matter to drop; and that the House would take it fully into consideration. In justice to the officers, as well as the inhabitants, the whole matter should be investigated, and the circumstances explained, and contradicted, if they could be contradicted. He was sure that the House would be eventually obliged to deal effectually with this real grievance, and to come to some strong Resolution, the carrying of which would have the effect throughout all England of setting this question finally at rest. It was equally important to Gentlemen on both sides of the House that the question should be settled. Whatever set of men might be in the Government, he trusted that Parliament would be always ready to put down illegal and unconstitutional interference with the freedom of election.
§ Lord Ebringtonrose merely in consequence of the reference made to him by his hon. Friend opposite (Sir R. Inglis), regarding the opinion he had given with respect to the conduct of an officer at the Devonport election. He begged to state that the case in question was totally distinct from that to which his gallant Friend, the Member for Devonport, had just now alluded. The case to which his gallant Friend alluded, was that of an officer of marines, not a magistrate. The case whereon he (Lord Ebrington) had been called on to give an opinion, was in consequence of a representation that had been made to him by Captain Foot, of the navy, that his brother magistrates had declined to act with him on the Bench, on account of his soliciting the votes of certain licensed victuallers for Sir E. Codrington, and Sir G. Grey. Captain Foot sent him (Lord Ebrington) the whole correspondence on the subject, as well as the statement of the licensed victuallers, and after a careful examination of them, it was his (Lord Ebrington's) opinion, that there was nothing in the documents containing the slightest imputation on the character of Captain Foot as an officer or a man. With regard to the petition now before the House, he was not one of those who 1202 desired to carry the interference of that House in matters of military government beyond its just limits; but he must at the same time protest against the doctrine laid down by the gallant officer opposite, that the orders given by an officer under particular circumstances, might not become matter for inquiry on the part of that House. He considered that where any regulations so issued had reference to the exercise of the elective franchise by any individual, or came to interfere directly or indirectly, with the free exercise of that franchise by any individual, it was the bounden duty of that House to protect its own privileges, and the privileges of the electors. He was sure that it was only by maintaining that doctrine to the fullest extent, and acting upon it fully and fairly in every case, that they would do their duty to their constituents, or maintain in the face of the country and of the people of England, that national respect and good opinion which it should be the common object of all men, of all parties, to secure for that House.
§ Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, that they never could maintain the freedom of election unless they dealt out a measure of censure, or of punishment if necessary, in cases of this kind. They might express as often as they pleased in general terms their condemnation of intimidation, but to point out a particular case to public opprobrium was the surest way to prevent a repetition of the offence.
§ Sir Edward Knatchbulldid not rise to oppose the motion, for if it should appear that there had been any illegal interference on the part of the military, or any other authorities, with the exercise of the elective franchise, it was the undoubted right of that House to interfere to protect the freedom of election. In discussing the question raised by this petition, he would not go into the case of the Devonport election, referred to by the gallant Admiral. That case had been fairly set at rest, and that the imputations in that instance cast upon the officers, could not be supported. With regard to the present case, he regretted he was not in his place when the petition was presented, but having since read it, he would suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of postponing it for two or three days, in order that he (Sir E. Knatchbull) might have a personal communication with the gallant Officer against whom the allegations were 1203 made, and which allegations it was impossible for him to contradict or answer on the present occasion. It was rather hard that such grave imputations should be cast upon a gallant Officer without notice having been given to him. It was not just or correct to assume that charges of the kind were well founded. That was unfair. It was not only in the town of Chatham, but in other parts of the county of Kent, as the hon. Member (Mr. Hodges) was aware, that charges of this kind had been made, and could not afterwards be established. The hon. Member knew that he himself had been misled in a similar case. Having made charges against an hon. Friend of his, which the hon. Member, upon following up the inquiry, found were erroneous. He had a right, therefore, to assume that the same might be the case in this instance. It was going rather far to assert, that an order issued eleven days after an election, had been issued in consequence of that election. He trusted that the House would consent to the postponement of the case for a few days.
§ Sir Thomas Troubridgesaid, that this was not the only case of intimidation that could be brought forward in boroughs situated like Chatham. This was a very important case, which ought to be taken up by the House; and he hoped that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Devonport would be followed, and that a Select Committee would be appointed to take it into consideration. He did not consider it the part of an officer either in command of a ship or marines, to give an order that would have the effect of intimidating individuals from giving their votes freely. As it appeared to him, the gallant Admirals opposite had altogether fought shy of the question. He himself could lay before the House a similar case of intimidation, the circumstances of which he should be almost ashamed to detail. He had no doubt that Colonel Tremenhere was a gallant officer, but applying himself to the general principle of interference with the votes of electors, he would say, that it should not be put by or put down by any side wind in reference to the character of an individual. It was the imperative duty of the House to maintain the free exercise of the elective franchise, and whenever a Motion was made to appoint the Committee suggested, he should give it all the support in his power.
§ Sir John Campbellwas of opinion that the House was bound to interfere in this case. He thought there should be a Select Committee appointed to investigate the whole matter, and to examine witnesses on both sides, in justice as well to Colonel Tremenhere as to the petitioners. The allegations contained in the petition went to prove a direct interference with the elective franchise. It appeared on the statement of the petitioners that eleven days after the election an order was issued, which was in substance that all tradesmen who had voted for Captain Byng should be excluded from the Marine Barracks, and this fact, coupled with the declaration alleged to have been made by Colonel Tremenhere to an elector previous to the election—namely, that "if Chatham should not return Admiral Beresford he hoped the Government would adopt such measures as would shut up half the shops in the town," amounted in his opinion to a direct interference with the freedom of election. [Sir Edward Knatchbull. The allegation is not true.] He did not say it was true, but it was alleged in the petition, and he was only suggesting that they should give an opportunity of investigating the matter, and affording Colonel Tremenhere the means of disproving those allegations. Until he did so they must suppose that they were capable of proof. He (Sir John Campbell) sincerely hoped that the charge might be refuted; but this he would say, that it was a charge which the House, in justice to itself and to the country, was imperatively bound to investigate. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member for West Kent would give notice for an early day for a Motion for the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the subject.
§ Sir Richard Musgravethought the matter highly deserving the attention of Parliament. He could state that in his own county (Waterford) many cases of intimidation had occurred, and that the inhabitants, at a public meeting, had come to a determination that nothing but the ballot would protect the electors.
§ Mr. Hardywas of opinion, that if the facts should be substantiated, that it would be the duty of the House to address his Majesty to remove this officer. He must say, however, that it was a great hardship on the gallant officer that an opportunity had not been given him to meet it in the 1205 first instance, as in that case, probably, this discussion would have been unnecessary. If the question had been postponed such an opportunity might have been afforded to the gallant officer. If there was to be an inquiry, it ought to be entered upon speedily.
Mr. Hodgescould assure the hon. and gallant Officer opposite (Sir John Beresford) that nothing was further from his intention than to cast any imputation upon him. He had not alluded to him further than he was necessarily alluded to in the petition. With regard to postponing the discussion on the petition, it was a matter of indifference to him. He had mentioned to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Knatchbull) yesterday, that he had such a petition, and that he intended to present it to-day, and the right hon. Baronet never hinted to him the propriety of deferring the presentation of it. If the right hon. Baronet had done so, or if the right hon. the Member for the county of Edinburgh (Sir George Clerk) had done so, he would have postponed it to another day. The right hon. Baronet had alluded to some allegations which had been made by him (Mr. Hodges), from the hustings at the last election. He, on that occasion, did complain of intimidation and improper influence having been resorted to, but he expressly acquitted his hon. colleague of having any knowledge of such things. In fact, he did not allude to his hon. colleague at all then. He had since made a diligent inquiry into a number of those cases, and he was bound to state that it would be impossible for the Committee of his hon. colleague to give a guarantee to those persons if he brought them forward; he was quite sure it would be their absolute ruin if he were to do so. He had already expressed his satisfaction that a petition had been forwarded like the present, bringing the case of intimidation before the House in such a way that the individuals coming forward to complain would not be ruined, which would be the case with the individuals in the instances alluded to by him at the hustings at Kent, if they should appear to substantiate the charges which he, on their authority, had made. The gallant Admiral opposite had not been sparing in his abuse of those persons trading in Chatham. He spoke of Jews and Gentiles, and whisky-sellers, and gin-sellers, and would seem to insinuate that they were persons of the lowest 1206 description. Now, many of them were possessed of large capital, and were highly respectable tradesmen. He trusted, therefore, that their character would not suffer from the statement of the gallant Admiral. He (Mr. Hodges) had no personal motive in bringing this matter forward, he brought it forward on public principle. He knew nothing of the gallant Officer implicated in the petition. In fact, he did not know of his existence until he saw his name in the petition. As far as he could collect, it appeared to him that it was the general desire on all sides of the House that justice should be done as well to the gallant Officer as to the petitioners, and that with that view the matter should be referred to a Select Committee for investigation. Under those circumstances he would withdraw his Motion for referring the petition to the intimidation Committee, and give notice that on Tuesday, he would move, that it be referred to a Select Committee.
§ Petition to be printed.