BOROUGH OF LAUNCESTON. (Hansard, 29 April 1833)

§ Mr. Charles Buller
presented a petition from the electors of Launceston, in the county of Cornwall, complaining that bribery had been used at the last election for that borough, and that they were only prevented from proving it before the House, by the enormous expense which attended the taking of evidence before Election Committees. He must disclaim all feeling of personal hostility against the Gallant General (Sir Henry Hardinge), who had been the successful candidate for that borough. He was most unwilling also to give any pain to the noble Duke (Northumberland), who was said to nominate the hon. member for Launceston. His sole object was, to show that there existed what the petitioners considered a constitutional abuse. The first statement in the petition was highly deserving the attention of the House, that, in consequence of the great and enormous expense which was incurred by Election Committees, they could not prove the existence at the last election of the bribery which the petition alleged. The petition then went on to pray that the constituency might be increased by extending the limits of the borough. The petition also prayed that a Commission should be sent down to inquire into the existence of bribery at the last election, and that the evidence might be taken on the spot. The hon. Member, in supporting the prayer of the petition, stated, that he was aware he made himself obnoxious to those who advocated the "finality" of the Reform Bill; but he for one had never conceded the monstrous principle that any legislative measure was to be final; still less had he ever conceded the still more monstrous principle, that the Members of that House were entitled by any sort of compromise to barter away the rights and privileges of the people. The Reform Bill, he considered, would be a mere mockery to the people of England if it did not, to use the language of Lord Grey in the House of Lords, "put an end to the system of nomination," and introduce in its room that of representation. It was not, however, against the Reform Bill, but against the Boundary Bill, that he urged objection; and it surely would not be said that Lieut. Drummond's Bill was to be a final measure against the whole people. He wished the boundaries of the borough to be enlarged. He almost wished that no assertion had been made as to the existence of bribery, as he wished to confine 724 the attention of the House to a single question of fact, whether Launceston was still a nomination borough? He regretted that the Vote by Ballot had not been carried on a late occasion, as he was of opinion that it would have given the voters some effectual protection. But, from the number of votes in favour of the ballot on that occasion, he did not think that the people of England would be long excluded from that benefit. He must press on the attention of the House the necessity of enlarging the extent of this very limited borough. He did not ask for the Commission solely on behalf of the electors of Launceston, but on behalf of the people of England generally, who were deeply interested in the system of representation, of the state of which the petition furnished some evidence.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
thought the speech of the hon. Member was not so much for the purpose of doubting the legality of the election, as it was to exhibit a desire to attack the Reform Bill. With regard to the Reform Bill, he (Sir H. Hardinge) had opposed it to the utmost; but as it was now the law of the land, he should do all he could to remedy any defect that it had. He did not, however, agree, that it was necessary on all occasions on which the petitioners might happen to be defeated, that they should claim a large extension of boundary. The petitioners were those who opposed him at the election; and the first signature was that of Mr. Howell, whom he defeated; and the next that of Thomas Pierce, who was Mr. Howell's electioneering agent—a gentleman of whom, on a recent occasion, it had been said, that he had redeemed sixty years of Toryism by three years of Radicalism. He (Sir H. Hardinge) most distinctly denied, on behalf of himself, his agents, or his friends, that there was one single instance of bribery or corruption at his election. The House would recollect that a petition had been presented, charging him, his agents, and friends, with bribery; and yet, after waiting three months, and Mr. Pierce being the agent—

§ Mr. Buller
interrupted the hon. and gallant Officer, by saying, that there was no charge of bribery. Indeed, he believed, that there was not the slightest suspicion of bribery against the hon. and gallant Officer.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
read an extract from the former petition, in which himself, 725 his agents, &c., were charged with bribery and corruption, He declared that he held the offence of bribery in so odious a light—every voter being obliged to take the bribery oath—that sooner than have subjected the voters to the offence of perjury, he would have lost his election. Although the former petitioners had had three months, they failed to enter into the requisite sureties; and he had, in consequence, never had an opportunity to declare that he was not the guilty person he had been accused of being. He was prepared—and that was known to his counsel and agents—to meet the charge, and to deny and defy the proof that there was a single case of bribery; and he believed that the reason the petition was not prosecuted was, that the petitioners were convinced they could not bring forward a single case; and they were afraid their petition would be deemed frivolous and vexatious. For several weeks, every Cornish paper had teemed with articles calling for subscriptions in support of the petitions, in order, as they said, "to drive the Conservative from the borough of Launceston;" and with considerable effect, too, for they had got five or six hundred pounds in that way. An hon. Baronet's (Sir William Molesworth) agent (he meant Mr. Woolcomb) had written articles of that kind in a Government paper; and, after subscribing five pounds in his own name, he subscribed twenty-five pounds in the name of a Radical friend to the cause; and he could tell the hon. Baronet, that it was generally said, that the hon. Baronet was that Radical friend. He had now been returned to Parliament eight or nine times, and he had never had any transaction of the nature of that which was asserted by the hon. Member. His agents and counsel knew all the details of the case; he stated them publicly, and they could catechise him if they thought proper. With regard to the influence that was complained of, he begged the hon. Member to recollect what was the influence of the Duke of Northumberland. The Duke had by no means a large property in that neighbourhood, and, therefore, the Duke's influence did not arise from his having a numerous tenantry; it arose from his having been for many years a large benefactor to all the public charities in that neighbourhood; and, on the occasion of the late contest, he (Sir Henry) could only state, that such was the impression 726 of the people of Launceston on account of his benefactions, and the generosity and liberality with which they were dispensed, that they disregarded Mr. Howell, and spoke against him, because he had never made any benefaction to the town. In the year 1828, a review was taken of the benefactions of the noble Duke and Mr. Howell (the one living at a distance, and the other on the spot), when it appeared that the Duke of Northumberland, in the year 1822, subscribed to the public charities, Sunday-schools, and to the poor of the parish, 213l., and towards the improvement and repairs of the town, 334l.; while, in that year, Mr. Howell, being a resident gentleman in the neighbourhood, had not subscribed one farthing. During the six years, between 1825 and 1831, the noble Duke had subscribed 5,233l.; while Mr. Howell had subscribed only 50l.; and that, too, in the year 1831, after the Reform Bill had been brought in. He would state, that it was not the influence of the Duke from property, but it was the influence of a liberal and generous nobleman, exercised on the spot; and if he were to go into details to justify that nobleman's conduct, of which he was sure the noble Duke would rather he should not have spoken, there would be enough to vindicate him, and not merely to clear him from all imputation, but to obtain for him a large share of admiration in every part of the county, similar to that which his conduct excited in Launceston. But, he would say, the Duke of Northumberland had not, in the town of Launceston, one dozen of tenants, and that he had not in the borough of Launceston one-half of the same proportion of tenants as the Duke of Bedford had got in Tavistock. If the hon. Gentleman wished to have examples to justify him in calling for an extension of the constituency, he should look nearer home, and he would find much stronger ones. There was the borough of Tavistock, with its population of 5,600, which returned two Members, yet it polled only 193 at the late election; while Launceston, with a population of 5,384, had only one Member, yet polled 243 votes. Knares borough and Totness stood in the same relative position. He was quite astonished to find the statements of the noble Lord who introduced the Reform Bill, that it would add to the constituency of the boroughs upwards of 110,000. There 727 were sixty-five old boroughs, which at the late election had polled only 83,809, while there had been contested elections in every one, and under the old system those boroughs had polled 95,040. The Corporation of Launceston had also been charged with using undue influence in having a power to license public-houses. There had been only one person licensed since the passing of the Bill, and he was one of those who had signed the petition.

§ Sir William Molesworth
said, without an increase in the constituency, Launceston would be a mere nomination borough—this was not his opinion only, but that of ninety-nine out of every 100 of his constituents. He did not accuse the hon. and gallant Baronet of those practices; in fact, he believed that he was quite unaware of them; but he would assert that they were carried on. In his opinion, the person who caused them was as bad as the person who practised them. There was intimidation at Launceston, and that led to immorality. The chief cause was the Duke of Northumberland, and he was the arch-criminal.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
It is false. If the hon. Member means to assert, and continues to assert, that the Duke of Northumberland is the arch-criminal in those demoralizing practices, I will again meet it in the way I have done, and characterise such an assertion as being false.

§ The Speaker
said, that all the right hon. Baronet meant was, that if such an assertion were made, he would deny the truth of it in the strongest language that the forms of the House would allow. But the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to use any language which would be disorderly.

§ Sir William Molesworth
would still assert that the Duke of Northumberland was the principal cause of intimidation in the borough, and that the system pursued created much immorality.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
observed, that if the hon. Member still persisted in that assertion, he must reprobate it in the strongest terms of indignation the forms of the House would allow him to use.

§ Sir William Molesworth
would still adhere to his assertion.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that with regard to the statements that had been made as to intimidation, and rewards and punishments, that had been held out, he must observe, that, at the late election, two members of Mr. Howell's Committee 728 had promised the hon. Baronet's (Sir William Molesworth) custom to a voter who had already promised him his vote, provided he would break his faith and vote for Mr. Howell. With regard to the notoriety that had been expressed of Launceston becoming a nomination borough, he would assert that that arose, not from the real circumstances in which the borough was placed, but in consequence of his having defeated the Whig candidate.

§ Sir William Molesworth
said, that if what the right hon. Baronet had stated was the fact, he felt more indignant at such a use of his name than words could express.