HC Deb 01 June 1875 vol 224 cc1237-45
MR. WHALLEY

, in rising to move— That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a New Writ for the electing of a Member to servo in this present Parliament for the City of Norwich, in the room of Jacob Henry Tillett, esquire, whose election has been determined to be void, said, he might explain that he was anxious to act with full deference to the views and wishes of the Attorney General as to any action that was to be taken in regard to the Report of the learned Judge who recently tried the Petition against the return for the City of Norwich. He might, however, state that many earnest communications had been made to himself personally; but he refrained from taking action until he was satisfied that there was good reason to believe that the interests of the constituents were likely to be prejudiced and compromised by the suspicion hanging over them of general corrupt practices. There was also another reason—namely, that a number of the honest and respectable inhabitants of Norwich were exceedingly anxious to give their verdict, on a certain question, and he presumed the House might infer what question it was from the circumstance of their having communicated their wishes to him. At all events, he thought it was a most serious thing to keep the issue of the Writ suspended when a Report had been made by the Judge who tried the case, which was utterly inadequate to justify a general statement that extensive corruption existed. The case of Norwich was entirely different from the case of Boston. The gentleman in possession of the seat gave up the contest at an early period in the inquiry, and he (Mr. Whalley) did not see how he could be charged with general corruption, treating, and bribery. He had the highest authority for stating that there was no analogy between the case of Norwich and that of Boston. In the latter case the whole borough was examined; whereas in Norwich only two wards were gone into, and those not exhaustively. Therefore, he hoped a lenient view would be taken by the Attorney General, and that he would not enforce strictly any power or discretion he might have in the matter, so as to disfranchise an important constituency. Under those circumstances, he had ventured to place this Notice upon the Paper; but, at the same time, he was ready to acquiesce in any suggestion which the Attorney General, having regard to the convenience of the House, might make in the matter. The evidence, which was ordered to be printed, had only, he believed, been issued that morning.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a Now Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the City of Norwich, in the room of Jacob Henry Tillett, esquire, whoso election has been determined to be void."—(Mr. Whalley.)

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

I must express my great surprise that the hon. Member should have brought this Motion under the consideration of the House; for, Sir, after you had taken the Chair this evening, the hon. Member came across the House to me and expressed his intention to postpone his Motion until Thursday. I left the House under the impression that he would act according to his promise; but to my surprise I was informed a few minutes ago in the Lobby that the hon. Member was rising to move the Motion which he had promised he would postpone until Thursday.

MR. WHALLEY

I rise to explain. The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is quite correct, but it has no application to what I did. I stated that I wanted to make an application on a former occasion, when you, Sir, intimated that I must not rise to address the House without concluding with a Motion, and I stated that I would make the Motion with the intention of postponing it till Thursday if the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed a wish to that effect.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

It is within the knowledge of every Member of the House that soon after the Report was made by the learned Judge I moved that all the evidence taken in the case should be printed and laid upon the Table, in order that every Member should have the opportunity of forming an opinion upon the evidence. That evidence was only delivered to hon. Members this morning, and I am bound to admit that up to the present time I have not had an opportunity of reading it through; but it will be one of the first duties I shall have to discharge, and I apprehend that certain duties in connection with this matter will then devolve upon me as Attorney General, and I shall be prepared at the earliest possible moment to state the course which I propose to pursue.

MR. WHALLEY

May I ask the permission of the House to withdraw the Motion. ["No!"] for the purpose of bringing it forward on Thursday? ["No!"] Then, if there is a wish that it shall not be withdrawn it shall not be withdrawn.

DR. KENEALY

said, he had heard the decision which the Government had come to with great surprise, and, he must add, alarm. He could hardly conceive a more flagrant violation of the Constitution and of the rights of the people than that an important constituency like Norwich should be disfranchised, even for 24 hours, without good cause assigned. He appeared as the exponent of the views of a great number of the citizens of that borough, who felt most bitterly that they had been treated unjustly by the Government, or, at all events, by the party in whose ordinary duties it would fall to move for a new Writ. An order was made by the House on the 13th of May that the evidence in the case should be printed; yet, for some reason which had not been explained, it was not placed in the hands of Members till the 1st of June. Now, considering what The Times newspaper and other great public establishments could do, he could not imagine that any good reasons could be alleged for the printing and publishing of that Re-port occupying from the 13th May to 1st June, and he must say he thought it unfair to the great constituency of Norwich, considering the serious imputation that was cast upon some of the electors by the Report of the learned Judge, that greater expedition should not have been shown in the presentation of the Report to the House. He could, of course, hardly hold the Government responsible for what appeared in what was called "the usual channels of information;" but undoubtedly a fortnight ago it was alleged in some of those Delphic Oracles which were supposed to be inspired by high authority that it was not the intention of the Government to move for a Royal Commission in this case. If he had had the slightest intimation from the Attorney General of the intention of the Government to move for a Royal Commission he should not have said a single word. For his own part, he should be extremely glad if a Royal Commission were issued, because he believed it would expose the practices of both sides in the constituency of Norwich, Whigs and Tories alike, and it would have a most salutary effect in furnishing a very great example to the world that no matter what offices certain Members might obtain by corrupt practices, a Royal Commission would unmask those practices and necessitate the removal of those Members from their offices. He should be extremely glad to hear that a Royal Commission was to be issued, but he believed no such intimation would be made; and he must therefore put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman—than whom no man stood higher in the profession—whether he was asking for a postponement and opposing this Motion with a bonâ fide intention of having a Royal Commission, or whether he was doing so to gain some Party end? He could hardly imagine that the hon. and learned Gentleman had such a purpose as that; but after the strong pressure which had been put upon the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and himself by the constituency of Norwich they could not rest until this matter was settled, as it must be within a very short time. It should be clearly understood that the citizens of Norwich, as a body, did not dread a Royal Commission, and that the Report of the learned Judge applied only to a small, contemptible, and disgraceful minority in the city. He had recently had an opportunity of experiencing what the feeling of the citizens of Norwich was. [Laughter.] He was pleased to afford some hon. Gentlemen an opportunity for mirth; but it would not deter him from continuing his observations, and he was assured, upon the highest authority, that no fewer than 4,000 honourable electors abstained from voting at the last election in consequence of the prevalence of corrupt practices among a small minority. He believed that corrupt practices were confined to that small minority; and it was a most serious thing to deprive a great city of the right of returning a Member to Parliament upon the mere supposition or idea that a Royal Commission was going to be issued. He repeated that he did not believe there would be a Royal Commission, and if there should not be it was a most serious tampering with the Constitution and with the rights of the people—a tampering which he was sorry to see carried on by the Ministerial side of the House, because he believed that they were more sincere guardians of the old Constitution of the country than their political opponents. He was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough would renew this subject, and he hoped the Attorney General would be prepared then to state whether there would be a Royal Commission or not.

MR. COLMAN

said, that was not a fitting time for him to enter into the question of the Report of the learned Judge who tried the Petition, and he therefore rose simply to state that, knowing, as he believed he did, as much of the views of all classes of the constituency of Norwich as the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, or as the hon. Member for Peterborough, he had not received from any one of them any intimation of a desire to forestall in any way the decision which Her Majesty's Government might feel it their duty to arrive at.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, he scarcely thought when he saw the Notice of the hon. Member for Peterborough upon the Paper, that he was in earnest upon the subject; because after such a Report as that presented by the learned Judge, it was difficult to understand how he could be serious, and more difficult still to understand how he could move the issue of the Writ without further comment. It must be borne in mind that the Report in one of its paragraphs concluded by the expression of opinion that there was reason to believe corrupt practices did prevail at the last election. That was the reason why the evidence was laid before the Attorney General, and why the House had ordered it to be printed, and he (Mr. Yorke) gave Notice of an Amendment because he did not think that a "Writ should be issued before the House had had time to consider that evidence. The Amendment of which he gave Notice was as follows:— That the Writ for the election of a new Member for the city of Norwich he suspended until after the Report of the Select Committee on Corrupt Practices Prevention and Election Petitions Acts has been received by the House. He thought it important that, inasmuch as they had at the present time a Committee investigating those questions who were about to Report, they should have the benefit of that Report before any further action was taken upon the matter. He found, however, that that Report had that day been laid upon the Table, and with the permission of the House he would amend his proposed Amendment by leaving out the words "until after the Report of the Select Committee on Corrupt Practices Prevention and Election Petitions Acts has been received," and substituting the words, "Until the evidence taken on the trial of the Norwich Election Petition has been considered by the House." Inasmuch as the evidence had only been printed that morning he thought it would be better the matter should stand over for a few days, and then no doubt the Attorney General would be able to do his duty when the proper time should arrive.

Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "the Writ for the election of a new Member for the City of Norwich he suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the Norwich Election Petition has been considered by the House,"—(Mr. Yorke,)

—instead thereof.

MR. INGRAM

complained that Boston had been introduced into this question, and said it was unfair of the hon. Mem ber for Peterborough to insinuate that he had the authority of one of the Commissioners for saying it stood in a worse position than Norwich. [Mr. WHALLEY said, he did not name his authority.] He (Mr. Ingram) understood he had said one of the Commissioners. The words in the Report on the Boston inquiry were precisely the same as in the present case, and then he was given to understand that the Government had no option but to move an Address for an inquiry. The constituency of Boston were perfectly prepared to undergo the ordeal of a Royal Commission.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, he thought it was greatly to be deprecated that, while the question of issuing a Royal Commission with reference to Corrupt Practices at Norwich was still under consideration, Members of the House should come forward and take the course which had been pursued by the Members for Peterborough and Stoke-on-Trent for reasons which were perfectly obvious. The action of those Members had been taken for the purposes of an electioneering move and in order to gain a certain amount of popularity with a section of the electors by appearing to be the only people who were the guardians of the constitutional rights of such electors. He ventured to say that not only the hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. Colman), but every Member of that House, was as anxious to preserve the constitutional rights of the electors in general and of the electors of Norwich in particular as the Member who had brought forward this Motion. It was an abuse of the position of a Member of the House to make a Motion which was obviously not made, and could not be made, in the interest of any true and just cause, but was intended solely for the purpose of furthering the fortunes of a particular candidate.

DR. KENEALY

I rise to Order, Sir. ["Order, order!"] I have always understood that it is contrary to the practice of this House to impute undue or dishonourable motives to Members, and I submit that the hon. and learned Member is now imputing such motives.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. and learned Member has made no charge of dishonour, and is in Order in the remarks he is making.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, he had no desire to say anything more upon the point. Every hon. Member in the House knew what had been done in this matter, and he should leave them each to form his own opinion. He must, however, at least enter his protest against the time of the House being taken up with the suggestion that particular Members, and only those Members forsooth, cared for the Constitution and the constitutional rights of electors.

MR. GREGORY

said, he wished it to be understood that the House by assenting to the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. E. Yorke) was not prejudging the question of whether the Writ should or should not issue when the proper time came for considering the question.

MR. WHALLEY

said, the Speaker had decided that the hon. and learned Member for Durham (Mr. Herschell) was perfectly in Order in imputing to another Member that he had made a Motion without true and just cause. The hon. and learned Member for Durham said he had simply risen to make a protest; but he could surely have made that protest without imputing wrong motives to others. He (Mr. Whalley), for his part, would content himself with a protest and with standing upon his own character and position. He protested against the hon. and learned Member's imputation of unworthy motives, and also, as far as the Forms of the House would allow him, against the rule which had enabled him to make it. He begged to declare that he had not acted from any unworthy motives. The electors of Norwich had written to him.

MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to know whether the hon. Member has the right to make another speech?

MR. SPEAKER

ruled that the hon. Member was in Order.

MR. WHALLEY

felt bound to say that from the communication he had received it was plain that upon a particular question the electors of Norwich had no confidence in their present Representative. Those electors desired that their own views upon this particular question should be laid before the country. Surely, then, in laying this point before the House it was too much to impute to him (Mr. Whalley) the motive of acting for electioneering purposes. The electors of Norwich had a perfect right to express their opinion upon the question referred to in their own way. He hoped the Attorney General would be quick in coming to a decision, for if there were more needless delay, as there had been, or if the law were strained by the Attorney General in order to get a Royal Commission, it might be said that the object was to prevent the citizens of Norwich from exercising their privileges in a manner not in accordance with the feelings of the majority of Members of that House. He again ventured to offer his protest against the language that had been used. He should not condescend to say any more. He maintained that he had not been actuated by any motive which was inconsistent with his position as a Member of that House.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

"Words added.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to. Ordered, That the Writ for the election of a new Member for the City of Norwich be suspended until the evidence taken on the trial of the Norwich Election Petition has been considered by the House.