NEW WRIT FOR KINGSTON-UPON-HULL. (Hansard, 12 August 1859)

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, he had not seen it; and perhaps it would be better if the hon. and earned Gentleman read it to the House.

§ MR. MALINS
then read the official copy of the Report, which stated, amongst other things, that at the last election for Hull, 487 persons were employed by Mr. Hoare, and 493 persons on behalf of Messrs. Clay and Lewis, as messengers, amp;c.; that more than 300 of the persons employed by Mr. Hoare were voters for the borough, and were paid by his agents for such employment sums varying from 2s. 6d. to £3 5s. The paragraph to which he wished particularly to call attention was this:— That it does not appear to the Committee that any act of bribery was committed with the knowledge or consent of the said Joseph Hoare, Esq., who appears to the Committee to have always 1388 shown the greatest anxiety to check any irregular proceedings in the conduct of the election. The Report, it would seem, did not in terms find Mr. Hoare guilty of bribery either by himself or by his agents, and it was only by inference that they could collect that any act of bribery had been committed at all. There could not have been a more explicit acquittal of the late hon. Member for Hull, and unless he had been declared guilty of bribery by one or the other this Sessional Order did not apply. If there had been any doubt upon the question he should not have brought it before the House without the two days' notice, and this being the last day of the Session that notice would be impossible; and therefore the question really was whether they should suspend the writ for six months or issue it now. For suspension of the writ there ought to be a strong and clear case made out. He was not aware that the Committee had made out a case for suspension, and indeed four of those hon. Gentlemen were distinctly of opinion that the writ ought to be issued. Under these circumstances what was there to prevent the issuing of the writ? It was clear that unless the Committee made a special Report the writ ought to be issued; but no special Report had been made, and therefore he trusted the House would be of opinion that the Sessional Order was no obstacle to the issuing of the writ. No doubt practices had prevailed in the borough of Hull, such as the employment of messengers, which were objectionable. But that was not done with corrupt motives, and no doubt those practices would after this Report be put a stop to. If this writ should be issued there would be no danger of similar practices being resorted to at the next election. The hon. and learned Member concluded by moving the issuing of the writ.

§ MR. PULLER
said, he had no authority to express on behalf of the Committee any opinion, one way or the other, whether this writ ought to be issued. They did not take that question into consideration. The Committee wished that the evidence should be printed, and that he would move; but, speaking for himself, he did not wish to 1389 interpose any obstacle to the issue of the writ. Indeed, having regard to the interests of the borough it was very undesirable that it should be kept in suspense for six months.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
was in hopes that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had been Chairman of the Committee, would have explained to the House why the Report of the Committee was couched in these terms. The Report did not say, as was usual in other Reports, that Mr. Hoare had been unseated on the ground of bribery, nor was there any distinct statement that Mr. Hoare had by his agents been guilty of bribery. It appeared to him that the only possible inference that could be drawn from the Report was that Mr. Hoare was unseated on the ground of bribery through his agents; while at the same time it was reported— what was very creditable to him, but not so unusual a remark in reports of Election Committees as the hon. and learned Member for Wallingford supposed—that Mr. Hoare had done his utmost to prevent bribery. If the Chairman had told them that the Committee had come to the conclusion that Mr. Hoare was not duly elected, yet it was not on the ground of bribery, the Sessional Order would not have stood in the way, and the writ might have been issued at once. But he could not put that construction on the Report. Mr. Hoare must have been unseated on the ground either of bribery or treating. Treating was not suggested, and therefore, considering the only influence that could be drawn from the Report, the Sessional Order was not to be set aside merely for considerations of the convenience of the borough.

§ MR. CLAY
said, there could be no doubt it would be a great inconvenience to violate the Sessional Order; but it would be a greater to keep the borough in suspense for six months. The object of that Order was that the House should not be taken by surprise in issuing a writ to a borough, which had been proved to have misconducted itself, or whose conduct might appear to call for inquiry. But he had no hesitation in stating, from his own personal knowledge, that this was not the case in the present instance. With regard to the hon. Gentleman who was yesterday his colleague, he felt certain not only that that Gentleman had no cognizance of bribery, but that he had done everything man could do to make his agents respect the 1390 law. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Wallingford had done but scant justice to the borough when he said that this employment of messengers was a continuation of old corrupt practices in the borough. He believed no man knew more of electioneering practices in Hull than himself, and he could assure the House, upon his honour, that there was no place in the kingdom where there had been so great an improvement in electioneering practices as in the borough of Hull. They were not a continuation of old practices but the ghost and pale reflection of old practices. There had been a rapid improvement of late years; and it would be a great hardship that his constituents should be for some months deprived of a Member, and exposed to all the excitement of a contested election merely because the period of the Session rendered it impossible to give the notice required by this Sessional Order.

§ COLONEL GREVILLE
, as a member of the Committee, concurred with the Chairman in the opinion that there was no ground for withholding the writ. He occupied a peculiar position respecting this application, for had he been present to be sworn on the Wednesday this Election Committee might have met On Thursday morning, and the proceedings might have terminated two days ago. As it was, they did not meet until the Saturday morning, and though they sat for ten hours it had been found impossible to finish in time to give the requisite notice. If the writ were not issued now, it would be tantamount to a six months' notice, and this, he thought, would be hard measure to the constituency.

§ LORD HOTHAM
said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir George Grey) regretted that Hull should be put to inconvenience; and he also regretted that there should be a postponement of the writ for six months; but let him (Lord Hotham) ask the right hon. Gentleman where was the necessity for that regret? Hon. Members had assumed that to-morrow would be the last day of the Session; but the Session would not be closed until the business of the House had been disposed of, and he imagined that to keep the representation full was one of its first duties. If Her Majesty had intended to prorogue Parliament in Person he would not have interfered: but as it was understood that it was to be prorogued by Commission he saw no inconvenience if the prorogation were postponed 1391 until Monday or Tuesday. There was no question whether the writ should he issued; but it was one as to a point of form, and although he should be sorry to keep the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker in the Chair a moment longer than necessary, still he felt sure that that right hon. Gentleman would not grudge coming down to the House on Monday for an hour or two to dispose of this business. He, therefore, put it to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir George Grey) whether he did not think that on the part of the Government this course should be departed from?

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
was of opinion that to postpone the prorogation of the Session for the purpose of issuing the writ would not be a desirable course to pursue, inasmuch as the day for the prorogation had been fixed by Her Majesty for tomorrow. The best plan he thought which could, under the circumstances, be adopted would be that the hon. and learned Gentleman should give notice that he would move the issue of the writ to-morrow, and at the same time move the suspension of the Sessional Orders, so that one day's notice might serve instead of two.

§ MR. MALINS
said, he should have given two days' notice if circumstances had admitted of his doing so; but as matters stood he would withdraw his Motion, and give notice that to-morrow he would move the suspension of the Sessional Orders, and also the issue of the writ.