EAST RETFORD. (Hansard, 8 March 1830)

Mr. Nicolson Calvert
hoped the hon. Member would allow the Bill to proceed, considering the length of time it had been in the House, and how often it had been discussed, he did not think this an unreasonable request.

Mr. Stewart
said, he must oppose the further progress of the Bill.

Mr. Secretary Peel
put it to the candid consideration of the hon. Member, whether such a course would be advisable, after the numberless discussions the Bill had undergone.

Sir John Sebright
was of opinion, that the Bill had been amply discussed, and ought not to be delayed.

§ Mr. Hume
thought it might as well be stopped then as at any subsequent stage, and, in his opinion, the sooner it was strangled the better: he hoped the hon. Member would persist in his opposition.

§ Mr. Tennyson
wished to state, that he continued as hostile to the Bill as ever, but he would not then join in opposing it. As the hon. Member, however, wished for delay, with a view to further discussing his clause, his wishes, he thought, ought to be the guide of the hon. Member who had brought in the Bill.

Mr. Stewart
rose to propose a clause similar to that which was proposed in the case of Penryn. When that was proposed hon. Members objected to it on account of its applying only to one borough, and expressed themselves willing to vote for some general measure; and yet when a noble Lord, a few nights before, proposed a general declaration applying to all boroughs, the 1394 right hon. Secretary of State objected to it as too sweeping. He told the noble Lord, he might apply it to his own constituents, but he would not concur in applying it to his (Mr. Peel's) constituents, the honest electors of Westbury. It was not fair, to object to a measure, that it was at once both special and general. He would certainly have a general declaration, but he would begin by making it with regard to East Retford. It had been proved in evidence that a peer of the realm had endeavoured to influence the return of a Member to that House. Jonathan Fox, who was examined in March 23, 1828, stated that a large sum of money was paid into Mr. Foljambe's bank by Earl Fitzwilliam, to be applied, he believed, to election purposes. Richard Hannam had stated, that the Duke of Newcastle resided near East Retford, and had considerable property in the hundred of Bassetlaw. The Duke of Norfolk and Lord Manvers had also property in that district. He would not positively assert that either of these Members had endeavoured to influence the return of Members to that House, but it was notorious that peers did use such influence, and they did this now as they had done it when the Duke of Newcastle was a minor. The House, knowing these circumstances might with propriety, he thought, require of any Member returned for East Retford or the hundred of Bassetlaw, that he should declare, before taking his seat, that he had not obtained it by any bribery or corruption. It was said, that by extending the franchise to the hundred, any tendency to corruption would be neutralised; but if it were extended only to those who might be under the influence of peers, instead of being neutralised, the poison might be rendered more virulent. The House would, in fact, open the door wider than ever to that influence, of which they ought to be most jealous. It was on this ground, as corruption had been proved to exist in this borough, that he would apply to it the proposed clause. He would not limit it, indeed, to this one borough, but extend it to every borough or place that might hereafter be proved guilty of corruption. The clause he would propose should run thus, "And be it further enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, any Member who shall be returned to serve in Parliament for the said borough of East Retford, shall, on coming to the 1395 Table of this House to be sworn—make a declaration to this effect, ' I, A. B. do solemnly declare, that I have neither given, nor promised to give, nor intend to give, or promise hereafter, any pecuniary fee, or reward of any kind, in consideration of my election as Member for the Borough of East Retford; and I solemnly declare, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that my Return has not been procured, or promoted, by the influence or interference of any Peer of Parliament.'" To such a declaration no person returned for that borough could, he thought, object, and therefore he moved that the clause be brought up.

Mr. Nicolson Culvert
said, the hon. Member appeared as if he had passed the whole of his life in India, and were totally unacquainted with the nature and forms of our Constitution. With the professed object of preventing bribery and corruption generally, the hon. Member proposed a clause that was applicable only to one borough. He would not object to a declaration of that kind, if it were to be made by every Member; perhaps even if the number of the electors in the borough under consideration were less than 200 he might be disposed to adopt it, because the smallness of their number might warrant the presumption of bribery; but it was ridiculous to imagine that bribery could be extended over a body of electors amounting to more than 2,000. The assumption that the electors of the hundred of Basset law would be under the influence of the peers who lived there had no foundation but the hon. Member's own imagination. On the whole he considered the clause so preposterous, that he was persuaded, were the House as full as the hon. Member had wished it to be, that he would find very few supporters.

§ Mr. Hume
said, the hon. Member, in admitting that he saw no objection to a general clause of this description, had proved that the one proposed had in it nothing preposterous. The hon. Member could not call that absurd for one borough which he would not object to apply to all boroughs. He should like to see the clause, in the first instance, applied to one borough as an experiment. The hon. Member seemed to think that the influence of peers would not be exerted on the electors of the hundred, but the House was acquainted with too many instances of that interference to adopt the hon. 1396 Member's conclusion. Money had been paid to a peer for a seat in that House, and there was, therefore, no impropriety in assuming that it might be paid again. He meant to support the clause, and he hoped the House would do the same.

Mr. Secretary Peel
said, if the same electors as before were to retain the franchise, he should be disposed to agree to the clause, but to them was now to be added 2,000 others, and it would be unfair towards these infant electors to stigmatize their birth by branding them with a suspicion of bribery. Moreover he thought it would be wrong to make any distinction between the Members of that House. They ought all to be placed on the same footing, though he did not mean to say that they ought all to make a declaration of that kind. Seeing no reason for selecting the two Members for the Borough of East Retford from among the 658 who composed that House, and seeing no public advantage likely to result from the introduction of the clause, he should certainly oppose the Motion.

§ Mr. Hume
said, as the constitutional amendments to the Bill had been all lost, it would be better to reject it altogether, and he hoped that all those who had, on any occasion, objected to it, would oppose it on the third reading.

Mr. Robert Gordon
said, he had voted for transferring the franchise to Birmingham, but not being able to obtain that, he had been willing to accept the hundred of Bassetlaw, as preferable to uniting the franchise to the old corrupt borough. The borough of Cricklade, which he represented, had had the franchise so extended, and he was persuaded that it was as independent as any borough in the kingdom. With that experience he thought it would be unwise to oppose the Bill.

Mr. Stewart
said, he differed from the hon. Member, and he should, in the next stage, oppose the Bill.—Motion agreed to.