§ MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he would now beg to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice, for an Address to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to issue a Commission to inquire into the state of the borough of Canterbury. He did not think that it would be necessary for him in so doing to detain the House at any great length. He was not going to propose to the House, as he did in the case of Great Yarmouth, to disfranchise any portion of the electors of the city of Canterbury, but he was going to request the House to coincide in the opinion which was entertained by every Member that tried the Canterbury Election Petition—that further inquiry was necessary. He thought his course was very much cleared by the consideration that there existed a general desire on the part of that House to put an end to bribery and corruption. [An Hon. MEMBER: It's all humbug.] An hon. Gentleman said it was all humbug. At all events, the Election Committees that were appointed by that House had hitherto done their duty. In those societies which he had heard the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) describe as clubs and coteries, people certainly spoke lightly with reference to bribery and corruption at elections; but he (Mr. K. Seymer) believed that no hon. Member would stand up in his place and assert that electoral corruption was not a monstrous and, he must add, a growing evil. Whatever they might think, the great body of the 205 middle classes of this country, who stood aloof from these corrupt proceedings, who were neither in a position to take nor to offer bribes, viewed the whole system with increasing disgust. If it were always advisable that the House of Commons should take the lead rather than lag behind public opinion, he could conceive no question on which it would be more dangerous for them to be behind with reference to public opinion than this question of electoral corruption. It might be very convenient for those gentlemen who were retained to manage electioneering affairs by the two great political parties, to have in their pockets a list of the boroughs for which Gentlemen, by the judicious expenditure of money, might expect to have a fair chance of being returned; but he trusted that the great body of that House would have no sympathy with the convenience of these gentlemen. Whether or not we had improved upon what were called the good old times, this at least was certain that we had made one step in advance as far as the moral sense of the country was concerned. That moral sense had undoubtedly been quickened on certain subjects. Certain scandals which, if they had occurred long ago, would have created but little sensation, would not now be tolerated by the moral sense of the country. And this they must admit, that every sore place in our social system, like the late proceedings at Canterbury, was brought into such notoriety by the publicity given to it by the press, that it was quite impossible that the claim for amelioration and amendment, if possible, could be resisted. He trusted that on the present occasion he should receive the support of hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side of the House. Those hon. Gentlemen had their own views with reference to bribery and corruption; but still he thought they would admit that as Parliament had, in the late Session, passed a measure for the prevention or punishment of bribery and corruption, that measure ought to have a fair trial. He was aware that many of those hon. Gentlemen would say that the measure was imperfect, and that it was not improved by the process which it underwent in another place. Perhaps, he was disposed in some measure to agree with them; but the noble Lord the Member for the City of London (Lord John Russell) accepted the measure as a step in the right direction, and he (Mr. K. Seymer) trusted the noble Lord and his Friends would 206 take advantage of, that the first opportunity offered to them, of putting that Act into operation. And with regard to the hon. Gentleman sitting on his own (the Opposition side) of the House, he thought that they were especially bound to support the proposition he now brought forward. Hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Opposition side of the House had no great faith in the propositions made by hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Ministerial side with reference to putting an end to corruption. They had no great faith in the ballot. They doubted very much whether the lowering of the franchise would improve matters at all. That doubt was not at all diminished by the recent investigations. But holding, as they did, these opinions, he thought that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House were especially bound to take care that such powers as they had, and which had been so recently conceded to them, should, on every fitting occasion, be put in force. He thought they were bound to recollect that there were thousands of persons in this country who at the present moment were not admitted to the elective franchise, every one of whom was justly and proudly conscious that if he were admitted to the franchise, he would not abuse it as it had been abused by a portion of the electors of Canterbury. And whether it might be advisable or not to disturb the existing arrangements in order to admit such persons to the franchise, he thought the House would admit that they should show no tenderness to those possessing the franchise, who systematically abused it. That abuse, if not checked, would continue until such a storm of indignation would arise as might sweep away the whole of the present system, and, perhaps, injure permanently some of the institutions of the country. Having made those preliminary observations, he would proceed to state shortly what took place at the Canterbury election. He would not trouble the House by reading extracts from the evidence, he would simply make some reference to certain pages of the Report, in order to enable hon. Members to verify his statement. There were, then, in the city of Canterbury, two parties, as was the case in almost all boroughs, designated the "Blues" and "Reds." He should call them by those names on the present occasion; hut he begged to remind the House that in doing so, he wished to avoid all party discussion; 207 and he must say that he believed he would be paying too great a compliment to a considerable portion of the electors of Canterbury to suppose that they had any particular political opinions. They were neither Whig nor Tory, Liberal nor Conservative, Protectionists nor Freetraders. He believed that even the cry of the big loaf, necessarily popular as that cry was, would have very little effect upon a certain class of the electors of Canterbury, unless you tendered them "a colourman's ticket." On the last occasion, the "Blue" party had abstained from those illegal practices on which the Committee had reported, and consequently they were, he would not say ignominiously defeated, because, of course, defeat by such means as were employed against them was no discredit to them—but they were most decidedly defeated. It appeared that the head-quarters of the "Red" party were at the offices of a Mr. Ward; and the course usually pursued by them was this—an elector went to the Committee sitting at Mr. Ward's, and, on promising to vote for the candidates of the "Red" party, he asked to have his name put down as a messenger. It seemed that the legal authorities who managed these matters at Canterbury considered that it was no objection to an elector to have his name put down as a messenger. Provided the employment was bonâ fide, and the pay not extravagant, it might probably, by most people, not be considered to be bribery; though, on a scrutiny, the vote of such an elector would most probably be struck off. The elector thus promising to give his vote had not only a right to put down the name of any one he chose as a messenger, but he was entitled to ask for two colourmen's tickets for any parties he pleased. Colourmen's tickets were formerly given to the electors, but in the course of time that was found to be a dangerous practice, and to be clearly illegal, because the employment of colourmen was found to be but a colourable and not a bonâ fide employment. Therefore, for some years past, the electors who had promised their votes ask for colourmen's tickets—that was to say, each of those electors asked to be allowed to recommend two persons, each of whom received, at some period after the election, 10s. If the elector voted for one party, he got one colourman's ticket, if he voted for two, he got two. It had 208 been proved that persons who had promised their votes to the "Blue" party found that there were not any colourmen's tickets to be given at the last election. One man who was examined before the Committee said he never felt more insulted in his life than when the chairman of the Committee of the "Blue" party told him that he should not have a colourman's ticket. He said, "I never was so treated in all my life; he turned his back upon me, and said he would not give me a colourman's ticket." Smarting under that indignation, he went to the "Red" Committee, who gave him a colourman's ticket. Voters having received information to go to Mr. Smith's, those persons who had been so recommended received colourmen's tickets. Those tickets were looked upon as valuable securities; they were in circulation in the borough of Canterbury at the time of the election, and they were regularly discounted in the market. They were sold for 8s. a piece. One man said he could have bought dozens of them in the market at Canterbury. That would be found in the evidence of James Wilson, page 37. The holders of those tickets, on the day of nomination, went to Mr. Smith, who punched the tickets, and gave them back to the holders. When so punched, on being presented, the holder was furnished with a shilling's worth of refreshment. The same process was repeated on the day of polling. He mentioned that to show how complete the system was. Several of these tickets, marked by a railway punching machine, were produced to the Committee. If those refreshment tickets had been given to electors who had been proved to have lived at some distance from Canterbury, he should not have thought very much of the matter; and he would repeat what he had said on a previous occasion, that he thought that, in counties, and boroughs much resembling counties, the giving of some moderate refreshment to distant electors going to poll was not objectionable—provided always that it were so managed as not to become a source of corruption to publicans. He very much feared that in this case of the city of Canterbury these refreshment tickets, small as they were in amount, did afford means of corruption to publicans. He believed that it went further, for they had evidence that in one case, at all events, groceries were furnished on the presentation of one of the tickets. 209 That was a point which he trusted the Commissioners, if they went down, would carefully investigate. These colourmen's tickets were punched each time they were taken to Mr. Smith. After a certain period each holder was paid 10s., on the pretence of having been a colourman. But the employment was entirely colourable, for it was proved that a boy named Albert, six years old, received one of these tickets. They were saleable at a very small discount during the election. Nobody could pretend to say that the employment was bonâ fide. Perhaps some hon. Members would ask, what benefit did the elector receive from all this? Well, in the first place, he had the privilege of recommending two men to the "colourable employment" referred to. That might not be a case of illegal corruption; but they would find that in some shape or other the elector received an actual benefit, and in some cases in a very remarkable manner. It was proved before the Committee that the ticket was made use of for recovering small debts. A man to whom money was owing procured a recommendation for a colourman's ticket, and he accepted the ticket from his debtor as a payment of 10s. In the same way a man who himself owed small sums of money, not being able to pay his creditor, told him he would get his name put down as a colourman, and thus have the means of discharging his debt to the extent of 10s. There were others who put down fictitious names, and presented themselves and received the money. It might be said that these sums were trifling, and why should the House think much of such trifles? But in reply he would say that they were the very condition on which these voters voted. They were the inducements to them to forfeit their promises. They were the inducements to vote in a manner contrary to their political principles, if they had any political principles, but he did not believe that they had any. Those small sums were inducements to vote or to abstain from voting; and, so far from thinking that their insignificance was favourable to the voter, he thought, on the contrary, that the acceptance of a small sum was more damaging to him than if it were a large one. The smallness of the bribe showed the light estimation in which these persons held the elective franchise. If a poor voter were tempted by a wealthy candidate, or by his agent, with a sum which to that poor voter might seem almost fabulous; and if he yielded to the 210 temptation, we should have some sympathy with the voter, and our indignation would be directed chiefly against the tempter. But in this matter the reverse was the case. The electors held so cheaply that franchise with which they were entrusted by the Constitution, that they were willing to barter it for less than a few shillings. That state of things appeared to him to be intolerable. It was quite necessary that electors who valued so lightly the elective franchise, should no longer be allowed to disgrace this country. A witness of the name of Allen Englemen (whose evidence would be found at page 52) was called before the Committee. He gave a history of all the elections that had taken place at Canterbury for many years past. That witness abstained from taking part in the last election. He stated that there had been a system of bribery, by means of these small sums, carried on at all the elections for many years past. You would always, in these corrupt boroughs, find expressions escaping from the voters which conveyed a stronger impression to the Committee as to the extent of corruption carried on there, than perhaps the witnesses intended. Such expressions as these were to be heard, "Oh! I expected to be treated as all the other voters." "Why, what did you expect?" might be asked of them; to which they replied, "Oh! I thought I should have a freeman's rights." Such expressions were made by the witnesses as showed the necessity of further inquiry. That was the case with regard to all the election petitions which he had inquired into. Such expressions were used as showed that a great deal remained behind which required further investigation. There were other cases of a different nature proved before the Canterbury Election Committee. It was proved that one elector went into a public-house, where he found 4l. lying for the vote which he had given. In fact, he made no secret of the matter. He said that he asked for the 4l. as the price of his vote. There were two other voters, of the name of White, who, after the election, went into an unoccupied bed-room, where one found 5l., and the other 3l., lying for his vote. At first these gentlemen said that they did not know what those two sums were there for; but, however, on being a little pressed, they said they supposed they were the price of their votes. The agency in those cases could not be proved, owing to the absence of a 211 very important witness. That witness had received the Speaker's summons, and notice of the time at which the Committee sat, but he could nowhere be found. The Committee would probably have thought it their duty to make a special Report on that subject; but they thought that that and the other branch of the Legislature would agree that the whole proceedings at the late election for Canterbury should be thoroughly investigated. He thought he had stated enough to show what was the system of bribery carried on at the late Canterbury election. Indeed, the number of these colourmen's tickets, that is, the number of persons bribed, were stated to amount at least to 350. The Committee, of course, did not go into all the cases in this long list, but from all that passed before them they had come to the conclusion that the number of persons bribed was very great. He would now refer to the proceedings which must be adopted in this case. The House was aware that the Act required that no further proceedings should be taken without the concurrence of the other branch of the Legislature. He certainly thought that the delay which was occasioned by the necessity of both Houses agreeing in an Address to the Crown was not desirable. He thought it a pity that such a provision was made, because he feared it might lead to delay. They should not unnecessarily delay for one day the issue of writs to those boroughs in which malpractices had taken place. They should proceed as quickly as possible to judgment—to inquire what punishment should be inflicted on the corrupt voters, and permit the honest electors the free exercise of their constitutional rights. He had not thought it his business to inquire into the character of the former elections for Canterbury, but he understood that the last election was uncontested. If that were the case, the proceedings of this case would very soon cone to an end, for the Commissioners would only be enabled to inquire into the proceedings of the last election. If he understood aright the Act of Parliament which was passed last Session upon this subject, whenever the Commissioners found a pure election they were bound to stop there; and it was not very likely that bribery would take place at an uncontested election. The Act should have extended to the last pure contested election, and not the last pure election; but they must take the law as they found it. He, therefore, 212 apprehended that the investigation of the Commissioners would be confined to the last election. There was only one other point to which he would refer. He was told that they had no locus standi, because the Committee had omitted in their Report to use the word "extensive." He should really be extremely sorry if, through any inadvertency of his (which he could only attribute to his ignorance as a layman, unskilled in legal technicalities), the electors of Canterbury should escape that investigation which he thought was their due. But he could hardly think that that objection could be seriously taken. Of course it depended upon whether the word "extensive" must actually occur in the Report of the Committee. The Committee reported that a system of bribery had prevailed at the last and at the previous elections for the city of Canterbury. Those words appeared to him to include the word "extensive;" but that was a question which he would leave to the decision of gentlemen learned in the law. He had discharged his duty in bringing the matter before the House, and he would now leave it to the decision of hon. Members.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed.
§ MR. MALINSsaid, it appeared to him that the justice of the case would not be met if the inquiry were to be limited to the proceedings at the last election. The Committee had evidence to show that during the last fifty years the coloured ticket system was adopted equally by both parties at those elections; and although the candidate on the blue side at the last election appeared to have abstained from taking part in this system, he was inclined to think that, generally speaking, the red party was not more guilty than the blue party. It was perfectly clear to the Committee that the practice of using the coloured tickets had prevailed only amongst the lower classes; for not a single 10l. householder was proved to have so offended. The practice was limited to freemen of the lowest class, and a more miserable class than they were it was impossible to conceive. He thought that the House would come to the conclusion that the best possible remedy against such practices was to prevent for the future the franchise being continued or extended to those humble classes whose poverty exposed them to those temptations.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it was far from his mind to oppose the Motion of the 213 hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer), or to express any decided opinion as to whether or not the House was really anxious to put down bribery and corruption. He confessed that he was not competent to form any opinion upon that point. He would, no doubt, be able to form an opinion on it if he could see a good Reform Bill on the table of the House. Until he saw that, and witnessed the manner in which that House would deal with it, he would not express any opinion as to whether they were really anxious to put down corruption. He thought that a good new Reform Bill would tend to clear up all those difficulties of which they so much complained. He wanted to see how hon. Gentlemen opposite would deal with a Bill which would greatly extend the franchise, and which would provide that no constituency should be under 20,000 electors. He was quite satisfied that such a measure as that would effectually put down bribery and corruption; for it would then be a hopeless task to resort to such practices. He could not at all concur in the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Mains), when he recommended the withdrawal of the franchise from the lower classes. He (Mr. Duncombe) denied that the franchise should be confined to the wealthy. He also denied that the poor were more corrupt than the higher classes, who simply required a larger bribe on those occasions. There were similar Reports made at the commencement of the former Parliament, and he was afraid that the disclosures at the recent general elections would end in the same way unless they exerted themselves to induce the present Government to introduce a sound and efficient new Reform Bill. At the commencement of the late Parliament there were thirty-three petitions tried —some of them involving objections to want of qualification in the Members returned, others complaining of the polls being closed before the proper time; but there were twenty of them which resulted in the unseating of Members for bribery and corruption. Out of those there were ten upon which special Reports were made. The hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer) said the Election Committees bad nobly done their duty—he supposed the hon. Member meant, in unseating Members and making special Reports. He was afraid, notwithstanding, that all this virtuous indignation was too good to last. 214 In Great Yarmouth the Members were unseated, and the Committee reported the existence, during the election, of systematic bribery and treating, and recommended the disfranchisement of the freemen. In Lynn Regis there was a special Report against a Mr. Atwood. In Carlisle there was a Report of extensive bribery and treating, under the guise of what was called travelling expenses. In Bewdley there was treating and corruption reported; all the beer-shops in the town were kept open at all hours during the election, and drink given away to a large extent. As regarded the borough of Harwich there were three petitions. Three times were the Members unseated, once for bribery and corruption. It seemed that that was so old and so incorrigible a sinner that the House at last gave up dealing with it. In Lincoln, treating and bribery were charged. There was Derby, too; that place had come again before them in the present Parliament. Why was not the case of Derby taken up by the last Parliament? It was reported upon by the Committee as having been guilty of the same practices at the last election as had been proved against it at the prior election, and, as it was stated, with the full knowledge of its then representatives. He (Mr. Duncombe) supposed that that part of the Report referred to the Right Hon. Edward Strutt and his former Colleague. In Leicester the Members were unseated for bribery and corruption. At Aylesbury the Report charged the borough with an extensive system of treating. And at St. Albans, which was the last election reported on, the offences perpetrated were so notorious that it was unnecessary for him to remind the House of their nature or character, further than that the borough was disfranchised. Well, the other day the House passed a Resolution that no writ should issue where the Members were unseated, without seven days notice. It appeared that one of the Members returned at the prior election for St. Albans was declared to be duly elected, although the borough itself was disfranchised for its notorious corruption; so that, in fact, they had sitting in that House during the late Parliament an hon. Member without a constituency. Now he thought they knew quite enough about Canterbury without a Commission. His (Mr. Duncombe's) only hope for a cure of those evils was in a good Reform Bill, which the noble Lord the 215 Member for London had promised to bring in. The noble Lord must, however, be aware that the Bill of the last year would not do now. He confessed he had great confidence in that Bill to be introduced by the noble Lord, in consequence of the speeches made recently by some of the leading Members of the Government to their respective constituencies. One of those speeches to which he would refer, was that made by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham). Ever since the Reform Bill had passed, he (Mr. Duncombe) had made more Motions on the subject of the insufficiency of the Reform Bill, than, he believed, any other Member of that House. One of his fiercest antagonists on those occasions was the right hon. Baronet. But it appeared, by the recent speech, that the right hon. Gentleman had drawn his sword in favour of reform, and had thrown away the scabbard. The right hon. Baronet told his constituents that he was neither a Russell man nor a Derby man—that he would not be responsible for the Bill introduced by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell)—that it was most objectionable in many of its provisions—that such a Bill only added littleness to littleness, corruption to corruption. "No, my friends," said the right hon. Baronet, "we will begin de novo where we left off." Well, then, where did they leave off? At Schedule A he would say; well, then, let the Government begin at that, and let the country have new schedules from A downwards. Let them shorten the duration of Parliaments, and give the protection of the ballot to the voters. They wanted none of those Commissions of Inquiry for Canterbury or other places.
§ MR. DEEDESsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of opposing the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. Seymer), but to render what he conceived an act of justice. He understood his hon. Friend to say that a large number of the electors had from time to time availed themselves of colourmen's tickets at the elections for Canterbury. He (Mr. Deedes) ventured to say there was a great number of highly respectable men in that city, who would rejoice as much as any hon. Member in that House to see the representation there purged from the iniquities which they so much lamented, and who readily would assist in attaining that most desirable object.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he was not aware, 216 until he read the particular Motion of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire, that it was necessary to insert in it the names of the Commissioners proposed to conduct this inquiry. He observed that Mr. Frederick William Slade was the first Commissioner named. Now, he (Mr. Bouverie) had the honour of being acquainted with this gentleman, and had gone on the same circuit with him. Mr. Slade was the chief Commissioner in the St. Albans Election inquiry, which he conducted with great fairness and ability. He was also a lawyer of very great reputation. Nevertheless, he (Mr. Bouverie) objected to that gentleman being a Commissioner in the present case, because a most respectable inhabitant of Salisbury, for which place Mr. Slade was a candidate in the same interest as hon. Gentlemen opposite at the last general election, had seen a letter written by Mr. Slade to his clerk desiring him to go down to St. Albans to procure the services of some prizefighters for the Salisbury election. Now, if the present inquiry was to be judicial and a proper one, the Commissioners ought to be gentlemen not liable to such imputations. He, therefore, should propose to substitute the name of John William Alexander, Q.C., a gentleman of the same line of politics, for that of Mr. Slade.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, that the Act of Parliament placed them in an awkward position, in requiring that House to agree to the appointment of certain gentlemen as Commissioners. He thought it would be advisable to give notice of the names the hon. Members meant to propose, in order to afford the House an opportunity of considering them.
The ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, that the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Seymer) had done him the honour of applying to him, as Attorney General, to give him three names of gentlemen whom he thought duly qualified to serve as Commissioners in this inquiry; for the Address emanating from the House of Commons, rendered it necessary to have those names inserted, He (the Attorney General) accordingly gave him the names of such men as he approved of. He took that of Mr. Slade in the first place, because he knew him to be a man of the highest and most unimpeachable honour, although he was politically opposed to him. He (the Attorney General) knew well that in the whole round of the legal profession he 217 could not select a man who would discharge whatever duties were entrusted to him with more honour or ability. In the next place, he was induced to name Mr. Slade as First Commissioner, because he had been at the head of the St. Albans Election Inquiry Commission, where he discharged his duty most faithfully and efficiently. As to the story brought forward by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), he (the Attorney General) now for the first time had heard of it. He knew nothing whatever about it; and he must say that when they knew that a man had discharged his duties—similar to those which he would have to discharge in the proposed inquiry—faithfully and efficiently, he did not think that any idle gossip should induce the House to interfere with his nomination. He felt the warmest affection for this gentleman; he was acquainted with him for a period of twenty years, and he never knew anything of him that was not to his honour and credit.
§ MR. PHINNsaid, he also had served with Mr. Slade on the St. Albans Election Commission, and he could bear his humble testimony to the extreme zeal, ability, and impartiality with which he discharged his duties. He felt that he would not be doing either Mr. Slade or himself justice if he did not say so much. With regard to the story in connexion with the Salisbury election, he could state that, during the election, Mr. Slade's rooms were visited, in his absence, by his opponents, and, as there was some suspicion that his private papers were overhauled, the letter was written, and put as a ruse in the way of the intruders; but the whole affair rose, he believed, out of a joke. He was sorry that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock should have made the statement, without giving Mr. Slade an opportunity of explaining the whole facts of the case.
§ LORD JOHN MANNERSIt has occurred, Sir, to me, that if we agree to this Address we shall address Her Majesty in terms which are not consistent with the facts of the case. The Address states to Her Majesty that the said Committee have reported that bribery extensively prevailed at the last election for Canterbury—the fact being that the Committee have not reported to that effect. I quite admit that the words of the Report may amount to "extensive bribery;" but the actual strict fact is, that the Committee have not in so many words reported that they found that bribery of that nature prevailed at 218 the last election. I should therefore wish to have the opinion of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London on this subject—whether he thinks it right that we should address Her Majesty in terms which we are not justified in using?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLMr. Speaker, the point to which the noble Lord alludes struck me some days ago, and I endeavoured to obtain the best opinions that I could with regard to the course which the House should pursue. I was informed that though the words in the Report of the Committee were not "extensive bribery," as the Act requires; yet, as the words "system of general bribery and corruption" were in the Report, they would be quite sufficient to authorise an Address stating that bribery had extensively prevailed. And therefore the proper course for the House of Commons to pursue, world be to make the statement which is contained in the Motion of the hon. Gentleman. That being the case, I certainly can have no difficulty in supporting the Address to Her Majesty. At the same time, it would be desirable if, in future cases, the Committee who wish to put the Act in force would use the very same words as are contained in the Act of Parliament. Having said thus much, Sir, in answer to the noble Lord, I wish to say that I agree very much with some of the observations which the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion made upon this case. I agree with him that it is to be regretted that under this Act, if they should find that the previous election was not a pure election, they cannot go back to any previous election which may have been as corrupt, or more corrupt, than that into which they have been appointed to inquire. I believe that this House decided that the Commissioners should have power to go back to past elections. The alteration was made in the other House of Parliament. There was another alteration made with respect to allegations as to treating. The hon. Gentleman opposite has shown that it is a matter of regret that treating cannot be made a subject of Motion in this House, and that Commissioners cannot be appointed to inquire into charges of regular and systematic treating. In the Report brought up this evening by the right hon. Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) we find that treating has prevailed as an extensive system of bribery. I thought last year that it was far better to agree to the 219 amendments made by the Lords than to allow the Bill to be endangered by this House insisting on throwing aside those amendments. But it is a matter, I think, for the consideration of the House, whether they may not still propose to amend that Act by introducing a Bill containing those two provisions, which, as I have stated, were unfortunately altered in the other House. I do not wish to enter into any of the questions which have been started; but I shall be ready to vote for the Address as it now stands; and I really hope that this Act, though it cannot be applied to other cases, may be found sufficient in many cases, and may tend to purify our representation.
§ MR. REPTONsaid, he would willingly bear testimony to the ability and impartiality with which Mr. Slade conducted the inquiry into the St. Albans election.
§ MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that he did not mean to say anything affecting the character of Mr. Slade. He merely thought it right to state that which he considered was an objection to his appointment in the present case.
MR. HUMEsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Bouverie) would throw no obstacle in the way of the Motion; at the same time, he must say he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Duncombe) that these proceedings were nothing better than a mere waste of time; for there was not a man in that House who was not now as much convinced of the rottenness of the system as he would be after an inquiry had been made. Conscientiously he could declare that ever since he had been in Parliament he had never seen an honest intention manifested on the part of that House to put an end to bribery at elections. So far from that, the application of the very means which would have proved effective for that purpose, had been always prevented by it in some way or other. The only useful aspect in which he regarded these inquiries was, that they tended to expose the system which now prevailed. They had lately witnessed the entire destruction of the elective franchise in a neighbouring country; and let that House take care that they did not destroy it in this country by permitting the longer continuance of the corrupt system to which he alluded. The noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) had often expressed his anxiety to propose a remedy. One was within his reach, and it rested with the noble Lord to adopt it. Un- 220 doubtedly something ought to be tried, so that the elective system in this country might cease to be a scandal in the eyes of the civilised world.
§ MR. STRUTTsaid he wished to correct a mis-statement made by the hon. Member for Finsbury (he was sure un-intentionally) with respect to the Derby election, in the last Parliament. The hon. Member mentioned him (Mr. Strutt) by name, and had said that the Committee had reported to the House that the acts of bribery and treating proved to have taken place at that election had been committed with his knowledge. He would read to the House the Resolution actually come to by the Committee:—
That it was not proved to the Committee that the said acts of bribery and treating were committed with the knowledge or consent of the right hon. Edward Strutt, or of the said hon. Leveson Gower.Perhaps the House would pardon him, under the present circumstances, if he stated the course he took upon that Report being made to the House. He immediately published an address, stating explicitly and unequivocally that those acts had been done not only without his knowledge, but contrary to his expressed wishes and intentions; and the House would readily believe, when he told them that the whole of his share of the expenses of that election, notwithstanding the largeness of the constituency, and the hotness of the contest, was but 450l., that he was not led by that expenditure to have the least idea of anything wrong having been going on.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEbegged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon for having made this mistake; but what he stated to the House he had read in a small book in which all the decisions of the last Parliament upon Election Petitions were collected together, and where he read that bribery was proved against the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleague, with their consent or knowledge. It was a misprint no doubt, but he had certainly read it. He confessed that he had not looked into the official documents upon the subject.
§ MR. WALPOLEsaid, they were now about to put into execution a new Act of Parliament, which was passed into a law only last year, and in taking the first step to put it into execution he thought it behoved the Hones to be careful how they acted in the matter. The Report which had been made to the House by the Committee was, that a system of 221 corruption by means of coloured tickets prevailed at the last election in behalf of the sitting Members, and also at previous elections, for the City of Canterbury generally. Now the word "generally," in that Resolution, seemed to point to a system which came within the terms of the Act of Parliament, and amounted to the same thing as if the word "extensive" had been used; but he submitted to the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that it would be better to recite in the Address the exact words of the Resolution the Committee came to. Another point to which he desired to draw the attention of the House was, that since this was the first time an application was made of the new Act, and though no substantial objection appeared to be taken to the names of the Commissioners who were to be appointed in this instance, he certainly thought that when notice of such a Motion was given in future, accompanying that notice there should be the names of the Commissioners proposed to be appointed; for it was only right that the House should have the opportunity of considering the propriety of nominating the persons selected to conduct the inquiry.
§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought that in the Address to the Crown the House ought to follow the terms of the Act of Parliament, and to see whether the Committee had substantially reported the facts in the manner required by Parliament. But if the House was satisfied that the Committee reported that extensive and corrupt practices existed at the last election for Canterbury, surely they were fully justified, in mere form, in inserting the words in the Address. If, however, those words were not inserted, was the House prepared to say that objections might not be taken of a legal character to the inquiry upon the ground that the Address to the Crown did not state the precise fact which was required by the Act of Parliament. In order to preclude the possibility of objection to the legal power and authority of the Commission, the Address ought to be a literal copy of the words of the Act of Parliament. But at the same time it was very desirable that Committees hereafter, when they made Reports upon which Addresses for Commissions were to follow, should follow the exact terms of the Act, in order to prevent doubt. He also thought that the names of the Commissioners ought to be included in the notice of Motion. In con- 222 clusion he must add that he was not satisfied that it was right to treat so lightly such charges as that made by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie) against one of the proposed Commissioners. It would certainly, in making another selection, be well to avoid gentlemen who had themselves recently passed through the ordeal of a contested election, and might not themselves be quite free from imputation.
MR. HEADLAMwould suggest that the Address should contain the finding of the Committee—namely, that a system of corruption had prevailed, and that it amounted, in the opinion of the House, to corrupt practices.
§ Resolved—That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as followeth:—
§ MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
§ We Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the
§ Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to Your Majesty, That a Select Committee of the House of Commons, appointed to try a Petition, complaining of an undue Election and Return for the City of Canterbury, have reported to the House, that Corrupt Practices have extensively prevailed at the last Election, and at previous Elections for the City of Canterbury.
§ "We therefore humbly pray Your Majesty, that Your Majesty will be graciously pleased to cause Inquiry to be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Act of Parliament, passed in the sixteenth year of the reign of Your Majesty, intituled, 'An Act to provide for more effectual inquiry into the existence of Corrupt Practices at Elections for Members to serve in Parliament,' by the appointment of Frederick William Slade, Thomas Chisholm Anstey, and William Burcham, esquires, as Commissioners, for the purpose of making inquiry into the existence of such corrupt practices."
§ Resolved—That the said Address be communicated to The Lords, at a Conference, and their concurrence desired thereto.
§ Ordered—That a Conference be desired with the Lords on the subject matter of an Address to be presented to Her Majesty under the provisions of the Act of the 15th and 16th of Her present Majesty, cap. 57.
§ Ordered—That Mr. Ker Seymer do go to the Lords, and desire the said Conference.