§ MAJOR EDWARDS, in rising to move a new writ for Wakefield, said, that it would be in the recollection of the House that about a fortnight ago the hon. Member for Finsbury gave notice of his intention of moving that the new writs for Wakefield and Gloucester should be issued. He could not understand what motive induced the hon. Member to abandon his intention, and submitted the Motion to the House because it was generally expected to be proceeded with, and most of the Members had made up their minds how they should vote. He knew nothing of Gloucester, but he felt it incumbent upon himself, from his knowledge of Wakefield and his intimate connection with the West Riding of Yorkshire, to take some decided step with regard to that borough. This important constituency was composed of interests that ought no longer to remain imperfectly represented in that House. It was not a small hamlet but a large and important town, with a population of more than 20,000. Its com- 98 mercial and manufacturing interest were increasing immensely year by year, and it was the great emporium of the corn trade in the north of England. The writ was suspended in 1859, and Wakefield had in consequence been without direct representation for two years. He need not say that a constituency of such importance must feel the want of a representative very keenly. ["Hear, hear!" and a laugh.] Hon. Members might laugh, but there were few constituencies in the country who were more entitled to be represented in Parliament than the constituency of Wakefield. This was what he termed capricious legislation. The writ had been withheld without any definite Motion, or any decided act on the part of the Government. Other writs have been suspended, but were reissued within a shorter interval. Their temporary withdrawal of the privilege had the desired effect, and no ground of complaint against them had since been preferred. A very small proportion after all of the electors had indulged in the practices that had created so much scandal, and he thought it but an act of juctice to the majority that the writ should no longer be withheld. Why suspend the legitimate action of the Constitution for a longer time than is absolutely necessary? The House had already expressed its abhorence of certain practices, and that object having been effected, and the guilty section of the constituency having received a wholesome lesson, why should the House inflict this punishment for an indefinite period? Being an inhabitant of the West Riding he had been often called upon during the last two years to transact Parliamentary business connected with Wakefield, and he should now be glad to have that duty taken off his hands. Again, he insisted that Wakefield, having been deprived of a representative for two entire years, it had suffered sufficiently for the malpractices of a very small portion of the community, and therefore, he hoped the House would agree to his Motion.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the Electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Wakefield, in the room of William Henry Leatham, Esquire, whose Election has been determined to be void.
MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he thought it impossible that so important a question could be discussed at that hour (quarter 99 past one o'clock), and he, therefore, begged to move the Adjournment of the House.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he believed that they might discuss the question very well in half an hour. He was most anxious that the writ for Wakefield should be issued, not from any particular virtue that the constituency possessed, but because he did not conceive that Wakefield was in a different position from a vast number of other boroughs. He did not believe that the House had ever been in earnest in attempting to put an end to bribery and corruption. He should support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the case of Wakefield could not be disassociated from that of Gloucester. It might be argued that bribery and corruption were to be found in many boroughs; but in Wakefield and Gloucester there had been detection and conviction. There was on the table a Bill which he regretted he had not been able to bring under the consideration of the House at an earlier date, and which contained a clause providing that in boroughs which were in the position of Wakefield and Gloucester the writ should be suspended for five years. The Government did not feel justified in making that clause retrospective, but it would be competent for the House to do so in Committee. Believing that the question was too large to be dealt with at that hour he should support the Motion for Adjournment.
CAPTAIN JERVISobserved that the House had had two years to consider the question, and they were as competent to come to an opinion on it now as they would be at any future time.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was of opinion that any borough that had been proved to be guilty of bribery and corruption should be disfranchised. He should, therefore, support the proposal for adjournment.
§ MAJOR EDWARDSsaid, that the Government in their overpowering strength had determined not to issue the writ. He had nothing to do with Gloucester; but as the inconvenience of the suspension had been excessive in Wakefield he could not consent to the adjournment.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 98: Majority 22.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. P. W. MARTINsaid, the House 100 had now been sitting eleven hours and a half. He was not prepared to sit there alt night while the whole of the blue book on the last Wakefield election was read. He, therefore, moved that the debate be now adjourned.
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, there was really nothing to discuss. He should support the Motion for the issue of the writ.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had some difficulty in accepting the division just taken as indicating the opinion of the House that the writ should issue. In the first place, there was but a limited attendance of hon. Members, at all events, for a question of so much importance, and a large number of Members must have been in a state of uncertainty whether a vote of this kind would be taken at so late an hour. If the House were determined to divide on the question, they ought to be reminded of the finding of the Commissioners on the last Wakefield election. They found that 98 persons committed corrupt practices and were guilty of acts of bribery in respect of the votes of other persons. They found that 86 persons committed corrupt practices and were guilty of acts of bribery in respect of their own votes. They found that 12 of the last-named 86 were guilty of acts of bribery, not on one side only, but on both. That was the picture drawn by the Commissioners, and the question was whether two years' suspension of the writ was a sufficient visitation for such a state of things? Hon. Gentlemen opposite who were now so anxious for the writ to issue forgot the arguments they advanced a short time ago, when the question of reviving the franchise of Sudbury and St. Albans was discussed. They then said that the House was proceeding with injustice and partiality, and that the same measure that had been meted to St. Albans and Sudbury ought to be visited on other delinquent boroughs, such as Wakefield and Gloucester. The House was then told it was too lenient to Wakefield and Gloucester, and now it was told it was too severe. He fully recognized the right of the hon. Gentleman (Major Edwards) to bring the subject before the House, and the issue of the writ was a matter peculiarly within the province, not of the Government, but of the House itself. He thought it likely that the leading Mem- 101 bers of the benches opposite would like to be present on a matter of such importance. That was a courtesy due to them, and he was surprised that so little regard for the opinion of those who presided over their deliberations was paid by hon. Gentleman opposite. If the House on the present division thought fit to re-affirm its former vote he should not object to the issue of the writ.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he saw no reason for delaying the issue of the writ.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that before hon. Members went to a division, they ought to afford to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Serjeant Pigott) an opportunity of stating the reasons on which the Commissioners had based their Report. If the House was ready to go into the discussion at that hour (a quarter to 2 o'clock), the Members of the Government would not object to the lateness of the hour. It was, however, due to his hon. and learned Friend to hear what he had to allege in support of the view taken by the Commissioners.
§ MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, there was no question that Wakefield and Gloucester were corrupt, but other boroughs were equally so. He saw in the House the Members for Hull, Norwich, Beverley, and Berwick-on-Tweed, and there were plenty of places equally corrupt with them.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 77; Noes 85: Majority 8.
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he would move that the House adjourn. It was impossible that the matter could be discussed at that time (nearly two o'clock). He considered the conduct of the Government excessively weak on this subject. They ought to have decidedly indicated to the House the course to be pursued.
MR. SERJEANT PIGOTTsaid, he had no wish, so far as he was personally concerned, for the adjournment; but there was a strong opinion that the writ should not be issued; and, whether issued or not, that there should be time for the discussion of a question which was said to involve the principle of purity of election. The discussion could not conveniently be taken at that hour, and it ought to be borne in mind that the House had already been sitting for twelve hours. A question of that importance ought not to be dealt 102 with in a corner and in the darkness of the night, when three-fourths of the House were not present.
§ MAJOR EDWARDSremarked, whether the House was full or not, he had given seven days' notice of his Motion; and he must say that he had never seen during the present Session so full a House at that hour in the morning. He thought that after what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had just said, the Government were now bound to proceed with the discussion of the Motion.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he hoped the Government, which had so often shown a desire that the House should proceed with the business before it, when hon. Members desired to adjourn, would yield to the majority which had just been declared.
§ MR. CLAYsaid, he was rather surprised at the opposition which was offered to those on his own side of the House by an hon. Gentleman who annually proposed his own nostrum for purity of election.
§ MR. BONHAM CARTERsaid, he thought it was very evident that the supporters of the original Motion had already made up their mind as to how they should vote, no matter what discussion might take place. He hoped the adjournment would be agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONasked the House seriously to consider the Vote which they would give on the present occasion. What was the position in which the House stood in respect to the matter at issue? They were called upon to come to a decision with respect to a borough in whose case it had been declared that a number of persons had been found guilty of bribery and corruption. His right hon. Friend the Home Secretary had now a Bill before the House dealing with bribery and corruption at elections, and yet, pending that Bill, at two o'clock in the morning the House was called upon to issue a writ, the issue of which would practically preclude the extension of any penal enactment to the borough in question. Such a proceeding would, he thought, to say nothing worse, be liable to great misconstruction on the part of the public. Under these circumstances he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would not persevere in the course which they were taking.
§ SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, the noble Lord's observations might have done very well before the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Se- 103 cretary on the part of the Government, that he would not oppose the progress of the discussion after the last division; but after that the Government ought to keep their promise.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, he would go on dividing all night rather than the proposal for the issue of the writ should be carried by a majority that was evidently packed.
§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked, whether the House of Commons was to be controlled by a rash phrase uttered by a Secretary of State? It was one of the weakest expressions he had ever heard from the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, although the right hon. Gentleman had promised the Government would not oppose the progress of the discussion after the last division, the House ought to take no notice of that, but insist upon the adjournment.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ The House divided:—Ayes 74; Noes 81: Majority 7.
§ Original Question again proposed.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, after what had taken place he should suggest the House might allow the Resolution to be put.
§ MR. LOCKEsaid, the great question of purity of election was the real question at issue, and it seemed to him that hon. Members forming the majority did not care anything about it; he should, however, give them another opportunity of reconsidering their decision.
§ VISCOUNT INGESTREsaid, he wished to know whether the Government were to be believed or not, after the conduct which had been pursued by one of their Members that evening?
§ MR. AYRTONsaid, that in the absence of the distinguished leaders on the other side, he would put it to the hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they would not be satisfied with the triumphs which they had already obtained, and gracefully agree to an adjournment.
MR. H. BERKELEYsaid, he was ready to admit that it would suit the dignity of the majority if they were to yield. He believed that on a future occasion they would find themselves strengthened in dealing with the question at issue.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, especially as it was doubtful whether, technically speaking, seven days' notice had been 104 given of the original Motion, as it was given only on Friday last for the following Monday, and that the first day in which it appeared on the paper was Saturday as for Monday.
§ SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, whether the technical objection was sound or not, he would advise his hon. and gallant Friend to accede to the wishes of the minority.
MR. LYGONappealed to the Government, as the debate could not continue much longer, to fix a day when the sense of the House might be taken on the question under consideration.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that looking to the position of public business, he could not fix any day for the future discussion of the question.
§ SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he considered that sufficient notice in compliance with the order of the House had been given.
§ MR. SPEAKERruled that sufficient notice had been given.
§ MAJOR EDWARDSannounced his readiness to consent to the adjournment of the debate until Friday next.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
§ Debate adjourned till Friday next.
§ House adjourned at Three o'clock till Monday next.