BOROUGH OF HASLEMERE—PETITION OF JAMES GREENAWAY. (Hansard, 18 June 1817)

Mr. Bankes
objected to the motion for bringing up the petition, on the ground that the individual acknowledged himself guilty of perjury. It also appeared that the matter was before a court of law, and 1041 it would be improper to bring it before the House.

Sir F. Burdett
said, that the petition appeared to contravene no rule; nor did the petitioner state, that he had committed perjury. He stated, that a fraudulent conveyance had been made to him of property, to enable him to vote; and after he had voted, an attempt was made to take that freehold from him. He considered, that if he acquiesced in that demand, he should have been guilty of perjury. Legal proceedings had been commenced against him. Some persons might contend, that this was a breach of trust on the part of the individual. But this man asked for no interference as to the courts below, but humbly prayed, that the House would take the matter into consideration, to prevent the fraudulent exercise of the elective franchise, whereby ignorant persons like himself might be involved in ruin, or in the crime of perjury.

Lord Cochrane
considered all those perjuries at elections, and in courts of law, as emanating from the corruption of that House. There was scarcely a contested election where those who made oath that they neither received nor expected any reward for their votes, did not know at the very time the wages of their iniquity. Unless the House wished the country to be totally demoralized, they were bound to inquire into the present complaint. He would soon bring forward specific instances of this evil, and should not have so long delayed the motion of which he had given notice, but for urgent private business.

§ Mr. Long
said, he was authorized by his noble friend who was mentioned in the petition, to deny that any persecution or legal measures had been promoted by him, against the petitioner. With respect to the petition, he saw no reason for its being received by the House. The petitioner stated, that he was of a very tender conscience, and could not give up the conveyance of the property which he had sworn to be his own. But, if he mistook not, this man had not long since written to him, asking him for a sum of money, and expressing his willingness, notwithstanding the tenderness of his conscience, to give up the conveyance if he received the money. He alluded to the facility with which the hon. baronet received accusations against every person in office, and stated an illustration of it, that he had frequently received letters in his office from persons complaining of grievances, 1042 and threatening, if it was not remedied by return of post, to put the complaint in the hands of sir Francis Burdett. It would perhaps, not only relieve the House from some inconveniences, and the hon. baronet from much trouble, if he occasionally inquired as well into the character of the accusers as of the accused. If he had done so in the present instance, the petition would not have been offered to the House.

§ Mr. R. Ward
said, that by a letter in the petitioner's own hand, so far back as February 1813, it appeared, that he had been in possession of his freehold in 1811, 18 months before the election. If that were so, the petitioner must have deceived the hon. baronet. The freehold was vested in him for life, upon paying a quit-rent. He was in arrears for 3 years. The prosecution was, to recover the arrears. With respect to himself, if the forms of the House would allow, he wished for nothing so much as to have an inquiry on the subject, in order to give the lie to the petition.

§ Mr. W. Smith
said, it did not follow, because the noble lord knew nothing of any hardships having been practised towards this man, that none had been committed towards him by some of his agents. The main question on the petition was, whether it did not contain matter which really called for inquiry? Was not the matter, if true, vitally connected with their privileges? He should certainly vote for receiving the petition.

§ Mr. Brand
said, that if Mr. Ward's statement was correct, the petition, stating a contrary fact, ought to be inquired into for that very reason. If, however, this freehold was in the petitioner's possession 18 months before the election, it was the only freehold of that kind, as he had occasion to know when that subject was before the committee, of which he was a member.

§ Mr. Ward
rose to order.

§ Mr. Brand
contended, he was perfectly in order, for this reason, that the hon. gentleman had asserted that the freehold had existed for a certain period; he, on the other hand, wished to state a fact that militated against that assertion, in order to show the necessity of inquiry. If therefore he was in order, he would proceed to state why he—

§ Mr. Long
maintained, that if it was the practice to state such facts, it was a most inconvenient practice.

§ Mr. Brand
said, this was a most singular dilemma. The committee were precluded from inquiring into the case, and the House, therefore, will not inquire into it. The committee was precluded by the laws of evidence from inquiring. The House will not inquire because the committee had not inquired. He did not wish to state what had come under his observation, since the gentlemen opposite had shown so much delicacy on that point; but to say that any thing in the petition was unfounded, while inquiry was refused, was more an argument against the noble lord than against the petitioner.

§ The Speaker
said, there was a peculiarity in the petition which he thought it his duty to point out to the House. The prayer was different from the circumstances of complaint. If he went into those circumstances, he should go beyond the line of his duty, and disgust the House; but he conceived it right to say, that one part of the petition set forth a grievance as to an individual, while it concluded with praying the House to guard it6 own privileges. It was for the House to judge whether the subject was such as they could or ought to receive, or whether the grievance was merely an ejectment. On the one side, they were not to be misled by the generality of the prayer; nor on the other side to refuse what was fair and just.

Sir F. Burdett
said, he could discover no good reason for the rejection of the petition but the reluctance of the House to hear disagreeable truths. If the circumstances of a petition were such as did not meet the wishes of members, a thousand objections were mustered up against it; while, on the contrary, if they were agreeable, the petition was received without any inquiry, and even against the usual forms of the House. He had no knowledge of the petitioner. He was actuated purely by a sense of public duty; and seized the present occasion, not because it was one of rare occurrence, or uncommon delinquency, but because it was one example of the prevalence of a system of seat-dealing, which he thought himself obliged, as a member of parliament, to expose to the House and to the country. His objection to lord Lonsdale's conduct referred to him not as a private individual, but as a borough-monger. He objected to his sending members to that House to vote away the public money while those whose money was thus voted 1044 away had no influence in the election. The noble earl, he understood, had little property in the district, the representation of which he thus disposed of; while his members had an unlimited power of drawing upon the purses of those who were the principal proprietors. He might not even know of the transactions which took place in his name, but it became the House to inquire and to know.—He had been accused of believing, without sufficient proof, the representations of this petitioner; but unhappily, it did not require a man to be very credulous to believe that a peer who had the power of returning a member to parliament would do so. The character of the parties was not to be taken into consideration at all. He would allow the petitioner to be as great a rascal as those who opposed his petition chose to make him; and he would contend that, on the supposition, he strengthened his ground of attack, on the system which this person was employed to carry into execution. It would appear, that he at least enjoyed the confidence of the noble earl when he received his vote; the worse therefore the agent, the worse the transaction in which he was engaged, indeed, all the branches and transactions of the borough-mongering system were equally bad; there was no conscience, no principle, no justice, truth, or right, to be found in any part of it; and this was only a fan-sample of the whole of which he might say "ex uno disce omnes."

For receiving the Petition	11
Against it	47

List of the Minority.
Brand, hon. Thos.	Hamilton, lord A.
Burdett, sir F.	Curwen, J. C.
Sharpe Robt.	Cochrane, lord
Moore, Peter	Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Parnell, sir H.	TELLERS.
Smith, Wm.	Burdett, sir F.
Wood, Matthew Lord Mayor	Smith, Wm.