PENRYN ELECTION—SIR C. HAWKINS. (Hansard, 22 April 1807)

Mr. Atkins Wright
moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate upon the Special Report of the Penryn Election Committee.

§ The Speaker
stated, that the question in 510 the debate to be resumed, was, That the house do agree to the first resolution of the special report of the committee, namely, that sir C. Hawkins, by himself and his agents, was guilty of bribery and corrupt practices, with a view to influence the last election for Penrhyn,—On the question being put,

Captain Herbert rose .
He said he was disposed to allow the special report of a committee every due weight and authority; but was of opinion, that the house had the right to inquire into and discuss the grounds of that report. If a special report were final, then the first proceeding of the house would be to order a prosecution. But the house, on the contrary, ordered the minutes of the evidence to be laid on the table, in order to examine whether the report was borne out by that evidence. It was for the house to consider, whether the mortification of the person concerned, and the penalties to which he was subject, were not sufficient punishment without any further prosecution. Besides, unless the evidence were such, as to be satisfactory to the minds of a jury, the question ought not to be sent into a criminal court, because the acquittal by a jury, would take from the weight of a decision by a committee of that house. The hon. gent. then proceeded to comment upon various parts of the evidence to shew that the hon. bart. had not been intentionally guilty. He shewed that the evidence of Stona and Moon was contradictory with respect to the agreement, and that there was no evidence whatever that could be made the ground of a decision in a court of law. There was no proof of any agreement, or that any agreement had been acted upon: and he put it to the house whether, upon this doubtful evidence, they would, by agreeing to the resolution, prejudge a question that was to go to a jury. It was not unusual with the house to pass over special reports of committees, for instance, in the Berwick and Cricklade cases. And upon these grounds he moved an amendment, that the debate be adjourned to this day three months.

§ Lord A. Hamilton
had attended particularly to the evidence for the last five weeks, and declared the impression upon his mind to be the very reverse of that stated by his hon. friend. This appeared to him one of the strongest cases that had ever been brought before parliament. He had served upon many committees, and knew the scrupulousness with which their reports were 511 drawn up. There was no case in which greater confidence should be placed in the report of a committee than when it went to criminate a member of that house. The speech of his hon. friend was not in mitigation, but for the complete abandonment of punishment. He should therefore vote for the resolution.

Captain Herbert ,
in explanation, asserted that he was authorised to state, that no agreement existed at the late election, and declared upon his honour, after every inquiry he could make, that no such agreement existed at that election.

Mr. Lee Keck
argued from the evidence, to shew, that the report of the committee was fully borne out by it. He did not think it just or fair, that the hon. baronet, because he had secured his seat for another place, should be in a different situation from others under similar circumstances, because so far as Penryn was concerned, he was no longer a member of that house.

§ Mr. E. Stewart
contended that the house had delegated its powers to the committee, and that it had then only to determine what proceeding it should adopt upon the report. One fact was certain, that the hon. baronet had agreed to give 24 guineas to each voter, and the gentlemen who had read the minutes would agree that this was one of the grossest instances of barefaced bribery that had ever been brought under the consideration of parliament.

§ Mr. Hurst
explained the reasons that governed his conduct, both in the committee and since. He considered the evidence with reference to the criminal law of the country. The proceedings upon that evidence might be for the expulsion of the hon. baronet, or for a criminal prosecution, and before they should determine upon either, he thought the house ought to consider whether the evidence was such as to bear it out. The evidence of Stona and Moon was contradictory, and if he were to decide, he should say, that neither was to be believed; concluding therefrom that no agreement existed. He had no knowledge of the hon. baronet until after the report of the committee, when in a conversation he had with him, that hon. baronet had declared to him upon his honour, that no agreement was ever entered into by him.

Sir W. W. Wynne
said, that whatever sir C. Hawkins might deny, still, as his agent (who must be considered as an unwilling witness,) had admitted it upon his oath, he could not but believe that there was such an 512 agreement. If the agreement was of a different nature, and not for giving twenty-four guineas a man to the voters, why did not sir C. or his agents produce that agreement which had taken place? Mr. Stona said he burnt those papers; but it was easy to guess what sort of papers those were that people were so eager to burn. He trusted, therefore, that the house acting upon the principle, that he who bought his seat would be most likely to sell his vote, would, with a view to purify itself, adopt the same course that had been pursued in the Cricklade, Shoreham, and lately in the Aylesbury case, and throw open the borough of Penryn, with a view to prevent similar bribery in future.

§ Mr. Windham
said, that he knew nothing more of the present matter than what he had heard and read in the course of this evening's discussion. He thought that too much had been said on the subject of purifying the house in the estimation of the country. We ought always to be actuated by such a motive, but the great object should be first to know our duty, and then to pursue it. Such language seemed rather to suggest, that some victim should be sacrificed for the reputation of the rest. He lamented that the house had not seen reason to hear the indirect evidence which an hon. member had proposed to introduce. He wished then to lay aside all extrinsic considerations; and concluded with saying, that he would not vote at all on the question, not feeling competent to decide upon it.

§ Mr. Whitbread
professed, that he was not in the same situation with his right hon. friend. He had examined the evidence with the utmost attention, and thought the case perfectly clear. But this was not the time to enter into the evidence. The committee appointed by the house had come to a decision, and the house were now to determine whether their resolution should be adopted. They were not calling for a victim, and it was material to come to a decision, for if it was not come to now, it would not come to it at all. What would the country think, should the house blink the present question, and say, in effect, that the offending member shall not be punished?

Mr. Rose
had read the report with attention, and thought the resolution of the committee well warranted by facts. He conceived the house were in the situation of a grand jury, and fully warranted by the evidence to send the matter to a special jury in a court of justice, where it would be tried with perfect impartiality.

§ Mr. Simeon
did not think the discussion ought to be deferred.

§ Mr. Lethbridge
thought that there were grounds for putting the hon. member on his trial, though the opinion of this house was not binding in any other court.—The previous question was then put and negatived.—A discussion then arose on the original question.

§ Mr. Simeon
thought the resolution was not founded on evidence sufficiently clear. He observed that there had been corrupt practices, but he did not think that actual bribery had been proved. He drew a distinction between agreeing to bribe, which he thought had been proved, and actual bribery which he thought had not been proved. In support of this opinion, he commented at considerable length on the evidence in the report of the committee.

§ Mr. Leycester
argued also at considerable length from the evidence, from which he drew an opposite conclusion, and considered that bribery had been made out.

§ Mr. Hurst
repeated his former arguments, and added, that giving the pound notes instead of a dinner could not be considered as bribery.

§ Mr. Swann (member for Penryn) ,
declared, that he never heard of such an agreement, at the time he joined his interest with sir Christopher, and if he had believed that there was such an agreement, he would not have joined him. He would state for himself, and for 162 freemen of Penryn, who voted for him, that they knew of no such agreement, and if they had, they would not have given sir Christopher their independent votes. [A laugh.] He knew the town of Penryn well: they had never asked from him even a single solitary shilling, and he knew they were not corrupt. [A laugh.] As for the business of the one pound notes, it was this: he had always considered it necessary to follow an old custom, which, perhaps, would be "more honoured in the breach than in the observance," of shewing some attention to his constituents. Instead, however, of opening public houses, he found that it was less expensive[...] to distribute small sums of 5 or 10s. a man. When a compromise was made between his friends and those of sir Christopher, it was thought right that sir Christopher should give a dinner; but afterwards, the one pound notes were substituted in the place of a dinner, and were certainly only meant as a mark of attention, and by no means as a bribe, as no opposition was expected in the borough, nor was there 514 a probability of an election soon taking place.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought the house must feel, that after the report of their select committee, they were bound to take some proceedings on it, and order a prosecution. It did appear to him, that there was upon the face of the report sufficient evidence to justify the resolution that the committee had come to. He preferred a prosecution to expulsion, as it appeared to him a little unfair that he should be first punished by expulsion, and then sent to a trial, where, perhaps, he might be acquitted. If he had been returned for but one place, the house could have done nothing more than order a prosecution.

§ Mr. Bankes
said, there was no instance on the Journals of a member being ordered to be prosecuted, and yet allowed to keep his seat. He instanced the cases of Mr. J. Ridge, in the reign of queen Anne; Mr. Carnagie, in the year 1715; and sir A. Grant, who had all been expelled from the house, and afterwards ordered to be prosecuted. The Shepherds, father and son, were expelled and prosecuted for bribery, in the year 1700. If sir Christopher had been returned for but one place, the report of the committee would have immediately deprived him of his seat; and he did not think that he should be in a better situation, because he had been returned for three places.

§ Mr. Fuller
was sorry to differ from the hon. gent. who spoke last; but he thought that nothing was fairer than to send the member to another tribunal, and the house might afterwards act upon its decision.

Sir W. W. Wynne
thought that when a committee had reported any member, of that house to be guilty of bribery, he should be no longer permitted to sit among them.

Mr. S. Bourne
thought, that the house ought not both to inflict the punishment of expulsion, and order a prosecution. He much preferred the latter course, and thought that if he were found guilty upon a trial in a court of justice, his expulsion from that house would be merely a matter of course.

§ Mr. Whitbread
said, that he could easily conceive a case, although he would not say that this was that case, where a person might be acquitted in a court of justice, and yet where the house of commons might be so convinced of his criminality, as to think it necessary to expel him. In the present instance, however, he was for the prosecution.—The gallery was then cleared, but we understood that the resolution of the committee 515 was adopted without going to a division. While strangers were excluded, Mr. Atkins Wright moved, That the Attorney General be directed to prosecute sir C. Hawkins for bribery, &c.; to which motion Mr. Bankes moved, as an amendment, to leave out all the words after "That," and to substitute, "sir Christopher Hawkins be expelled."—After debating some time, Mr. Bankes's amendment was withdrawn. The original motion for an address to his majesty, praying him to direct the attorney general to prosecute sir C. Hawkins, was carried, as were also similar motions for the prosecution of eighteen persons of the committee of the electors of Penrhyn, who had fixed the price for which the votes were to be sold, and who had invited sir C. Hawkins, by a deputation from their body, to purchase them.—It was moved by Captain Herbert, that Moon, an accomplice in the transaction, but who had given evidence before the select committee of the house of commons, should also be prosecuted by order of the house. This motion was resisted on the ground of his having already given evidence before the committee of the house, and of his testimony being essential to the prosecutions that had been ordered.